![How to Build Scalable Access Control for Your Web App [Full Handbook]](https://cdn.hashnode.com/res/hashnode/image/upload/v1738695897990/7a5962ce-9c4a-4e7c-bdeb-520dccc5d240.png?#)
TEST
Clarification: CDE Categorization for Risk Breaches vs. Risk Limits Hi Keerthana, Could you please share the current list of CDEs (Common Data Elements) being validated for Risk Breaches and Risk Limits? During recent discussions with source system teams, they highlighted that certain attributes (e.g., [specific examples, if known]) are currently categorized under Risk Limits even though they logically apply only to Risk Breaches. For instance, attributes tied to breach thresholds or post-breach actions may not be relevant for defining Risk Limits. To resolve this and ensure alignment with source system expectations, let’s: Review the CDE lists to reallocate attributes that solely pertain to Risk Breaches (and vice versa, if applicable). Remove non-applicable attributes from the Risk Limits CDE list to avoid unnecessary reporting requirements for source systems. If possible, could you also confirm: Which stakeholders/consumers requested the inclusion of these attributes in the Risk Limits CDE list? Whether there’s a specific rationale for categorizing them under Limits (e.g., a regulatory requirement)? This will help us clarify expectations and ensure the final lists are accurate and purpose-driven. Let’s schedule a quick sync to finalize this—your insights will be critical here. Thanks for your support! Hi Sree/Vairam, Could you please assist with onboarding the following new topic to UAT? Details: Source System: OMA TA Publisher Key: [Please provide or confirm] RIO Topic: [Specify topic name] Average Volume: [Include volume details] JIRA Ticket: [Add ticket link/reference]
Clarification: CDE Categorization for Risk Breaches vs. Risk Limits
Hi Keerthana,
Could you please share the current list of CDEs (Common Data Elements) being validated for Risk Breaches and Risk Limits?
During recent discussions with source system teams, they highlighted that certain attributes (e.g., [specific examples, if known]) are currently categorized under Risk Limits even though they logically apply only to Risk Breaches. For instance, attributes tied to breach thresholds or post-breach actions may not be relevant for defining Risk Limits.
To resolve this and ensure alignment with source system expectations, let’s:
Review the CDE lists to reallocate attributes that solely pertain to Risk Breaches (and vice versa, if applicable).
Remove non-applicable attributes from the Risk Limits CDE list to avoid unnecessary reporting requirements for source systems.
If possible, could you also confirm:
Which stakeholders/consumers requested the inclusion of these attributes in the Risk Limits CDE list?
Whether there’s a specific rationale for categorizing them under Limits (e.g., a regulatory requirement)?
This will help us clarify expectations and ensure the final lists are accurate and purpose-driven.
Let’s schedule a quick sync to finalize this—your insights will be critical here. Thanks for your support!
Hi Sree/Vairam,
Could you please assist with onboarding the following new topic to UAT?
Details:
Source System: OMA TA
Publisher Key: [Please provide or confirm]
RIO Topic: [Specify topic name]
Average Volume: [Include volume details]
JIRA Ticket: [Add ticket link/reference]
