(Mentioning "#288" here just for searchability purposes...)

So it looks like the spec supports something like wildcard definition for APIs. UMA, of course, means to target not just things we think of as "APIs" but also "piles of files" and other HTTP-based resources. Can you sketch out what it might look like to use this method? Are you really thinking of just doing this all statically (which would be a big change), or would we still have the ability for the resource part to be dynamically registerable even if the scope part is taken care of in a more OOB and likely static fashion (as we agreed on today's call)?

Eve Maler
Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Mike Schwartz <mike@gluu.org> wrote:

This conversation today about whether to add "description" made me question if we have the right approach for resource registration. I opened this issue to track the idea for using the OpenApi JSON format (Swagger): https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/288

Perhaps instead of creating a whole "registration" API, we should just be documenting how to make this information discoverable? As a point of reference, Google publishes the scopes for it's API's: http://gluu.co/google-scopes

- Mike

_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma