for the identity bus makes it sound like a virtual directory to me.
what would be the difference? how would an identity bus be different then a virtual directory?
Latest software headlines from Network World:
Two years on, Microsoft and Novell extend partnership
Google solves long Gmail outage, but questions remain
Microsoft to alpha test Office 14 before end of year
Google Apps admins jittery about Gmail, hopeful about future
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
Seems required
Seems that identity needs the org(s) for dynamic control and rules automation. Unless the millions of LDAP customers can be convinced to use something else, LDAP will remain the org(s). Seems natural to become the central repository for identity too. The big problem I see is managing the org(s) as one unit so that a customer can reorg on the fly without much administration and no scrambled identity rules.
Virtual Directory is NOT the answer
Dave, your focused on the wrong problem. Bandwidth and CPU are cheap and abundant. The problem is latency and reliability. Thats why synchronizing data is usually the best solution. There is a role for dynamic queries to back-end systems but it is a limited role. Take a closer look at Novell's Service Directory concept.