Meeting started at 09:00.
There were 23 people in attendance. Peter George opened the meeting,
and attendees were invited to introduce themselves and state why they
were attending and what they were looking for the Secure Mobile Architecture
to deliver.
Stef Coetzee provided a context setting for the work of the MMF as integral
to the Open Group Boundaryless Information Flow vision. He issued a
call to the 90 plus members of the MMF to get more actively involved
in validating the SMA work. The MMF enjoys a great audience currently
– it needs more active players! He went on to overview of the
progress we have made to date in the development of a Secure Mobile
Architecture, and outlined the results achieved so far, and the milestones
we are setting out to achieve. During his presentation Stef announced
that we had just, this morning, gained agreement in principle to form
a liaison agreement with the Mobile Computer Users Group (MCUG)
in the UK
Richard Paine from Boeing,
co-chair of the SMA, presented on the following:
- Secure Mobile Architecture; who needs it and why.
- What is wrong with the solutions which can be purchased today.
- How are we going to solve the problem.
As part of this discussion
the meeting considered;
- the differences between approaches of mobile data communications
- expectations of Internet connectivity
- enterprise operational requirements for wireless data networks
- expectations from a Cellular Perspective
- expectations set by Ethernet web access
Emil Sturniolo from NetMotion
Wireless, Co-Chair SMA, led a discussion on issues with Network Security
as it exists currently and the impact for secure, seamless roaming.
He specifically covered; ;
- Approach using IP protocols
- Approach Based on OSI Levels 1 through 5
- Approach using common interchange above OSI layer 2
- Approach using common interchange above OSI layer 1 (NDIS)
- Integrating four levels of comms technology and its effect on mobility
We welcomed input and validation
from members of the Security Forum and their comments on Enterprise
Security Policy will be added to the Issues and Requirements document.
Emil went on to outline the
need for a common set of definitions to support understanding of the
complexity of conveying what we are trying to achieve.
Richard Paine then sought
input and comment from the meeting on the Forum's early thoughts on
specific elements of the Architecture Framework based on the Issues
and Requirements documents. The subtlety and complexity of the issues
were discussed at length and additional constructs were proposed by
the attendees. These were recorded and will be the subject of our efforts
going forward.
The meeting concluded with
the co-chairs of the MMF outlining the principles against which they
will be developing the first working draft of the Architectural Framework
for discussion in our April meeting. The meeting discussed issuing a
challenge around specific elements of the architecture, involving the
PCCA under our liaison agreement. This will be developed further leading
up to our Austin meeting and detailed there. In closing, the meeting
concluded that to achieve the very aggressive work plan the Austin meeting
would be a closed, members-only session. The MMF would target its meeting
in July as its next major thrust to get broader buy-side and supply-side
engagement in our work.
Meeting closed at 17:00.
