Duh, of course you folks are right: Yes, option 2, keep both. Here's a more concrete proposal: We'd say MAY do one OR the other, say that if both are present, the AS response overrides the discovery document version, and give a rationale for each option so as to motivate the spec variability. Eve Maler (sent from my iPad) | cell +1 425 345 6756
On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:05 AM, Cigdem Sengul <Cigdem.Sengul@nominet.uk> wrote:
I also understood that would mean option 2 – keep both static and dynamic.
Thanks, --Cigdem
From: <wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of George Fletcher <george.fletcher@teamaol.com> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 01:42 To: Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com>, "wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org WG" <wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org> Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] Options for declaring the requesting party claims endpoint
I would have thought that rationale would argue for option 2. Is that what you meant?
Thanks, George
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:21 PM Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote: Regarding the three options for declaring the requesting party claims endpoint that we discussed today:
1. Keep static declaration of requesting party claims endpoint in config data document and don't add to AS need_info response to client (status quo) 2. Keep static declaration and ADD to AS response 3. DROP static declaration and ADD to AS response
Would static declarations be the only way to have a pattern of Bob authorizing claim-pushing ahead of time (a la AATs)? That may be a good rationale for keeping them, because they'd give feature parity with original UMA.
And we already identified a rationale (or several) for dynamically adding the endpoint to the AS response.
Does this argue for option 1?
Eve Maler Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma -- Distinguished Engineer Identity Services Engineering, AOL Inc. Mobile:+1-703-462-3494 Office:+1-703-265-2544