Sunday, July 13, 2008
Unanswered Questions on the debate around Directories
1. If pretty much every Fortune 500 enterprise (acknowledging that Sun is the standout oddball) has Active Directory, why should any of them consider yet another product? Why shouldn't they simply wait for Microsoft to include virtualization support in Active Directory? Please no responses that are "tactical" in nature nor attacking Microsoft because they never get it right the first time.
2. Are the current provisioning products somehow deficient when it comes to modern identity as they tend to focus solely on central sources of data while user-centric approaches require more in the way of self-provisioning?
3. When should virtual directory technology be a standalone product vs when should the capability be just another component in another product? For example, shouldn't an XACML Policy Engine or an Security Token Service just be able to read a variety of data sources without necessarily creating another layer/hop from a networking perspective?
4. The ideal situation says that a software company should be able to write an directory enabled application without requiring virtual directories but reality is a little different. Wouldn't the thought leaders in this space without resorting to tactical responses agree that instead of pushing products/tools in this space we have to help others understand the <
5. CARML may be an answer, but how come no one other than Oracle even understands the problem? You will note that none of the industry analysts including Redmonk, Burton Group, Gartner or other firms have even published one sentence on the value proposition of CARML in an enterprise setting? Have you heard of Mike Jones, Curt Devlin, Pat Patterson or other folks from Microsoft, Sun, CA, IBM and so on talk about it?
Links to this post: