Talk:Functional Requirements

From IDESG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction

Use this page to add comments to the functional requirements page. To follow an existing thread sign into the IDESG web site and click on the edit link for that thread. To start a new thread click on "Edit" as the top of the page and start with a level 2 header as is used in the other threads.

Comments from Seetharama Durbha 2014-07-10

Just a high-level comment. I think that this is a good initiative to put some of the work we are doing (not just in security committee, but across IDESG) in some perspective. If we can get this right, hopefully conversations can be put in a little bit more context.

One concrete comment I have is on what comes first - in the abstract layers. I feel that Scenarios should come before Trust Frameworks, actually, that Scenarios is what IDESG supports/enables. In other words, we need to get the scenarios we want to support in IDESG first - that drives the rest of the work. In a way, they are the scope of IDESG.

partial reply from tom jones with a call for more discussion

It is worthwhile to have a discussion about which comes first, the scenarios or the frameworks. This is related to the question about interoperability raised by Ann. I have started to add some example that might help the discussion to move forward. The question here might be: "Is there any scenario that is common to both the Healthcare and A&D industries?" Personally I have not identified one.

Seetharama Durbha

I think if we strip the current use cases of any specific verticals, then they become scenarios - in my mind. Seeing in another way, it is possible that functions / core operations (or a combination of them) from the functional model can be construed as scenarios - registration, authentication, etc. Of course, open to more dialog.

Proposal for Design Patterns

Identity Design Patterns page (click on the link to see it) was created to show an alternate view of how use cases could be built at the identity ecosystem level. I have used the term scenarios to describe a "scene" involving a user and a set of steps that the user experiences. I find that the steps in the different frameworks do not have much in common with each other. So my conclusion is that what Seetharama is describing is not a scenario. I know this gets us back to arguing semantic distinctions, which I hate, but in the interest of moving forward I have descended to use scenario and design patterns for the two cases. I would rather talk about the content of the two case rather than debate the terms used. We can change the terms if (and when) the taxonomy group ever reconvenes. (BTW, by registration, do you mean the process of registering with an IdP?)

Comments from Ann Racuya-Robbins 2014-07-16

To distinguish