I agree with Mike, "array of objects" sounds much more suitable and less confusing. On 30 May 2017 at 23:49, Eve Maler wrote:

The reason it uses "parameters" is that 6749 uses "parameter" instead of "object" or "member", even where describing the piece-parts of JSON-encoded structures. However, it's a good point that "array of parameters" may cross the awkwardness line. (6749 doesn't involve any arrays.) Any other thoughts?

*Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 <(425)%20345-6756> | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Salvatore D'Agostino wrote:

...

Can you just say array..

-----Original Message----- From: wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Mike Schwartz Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:26 AM To: uma wg Subject: [WG-UMA] required claims definition: array of object?

Another editorial suggestion...

https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/ed/oauth-uma-grant-2. 0-04.html#author ization-failure

required_claims "An array containing parameters that describe the required claims, with the following subparameters:"

Is parameters the right word there? Would objects be better? Maybe something like:

required_claims "An array containing objects that describe the required claims, with the following keys."

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

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

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