What should the parallel requesting party claims endpoint in the extension spec be called in the config data?
Recall that we're likely to supplant the original endpoint (called requesting_party_claims_endpoint) with the enhanced-security one at the first opportunity, i.e. when we "open up" UMA Core for backwards-incompatible changes. Should we pick a name that's just descriptive for now like security_enhanced_claims_endpoint (what's in the current draft) and align to the original name when we open up the spec? Should we pick a wholly new name now and switch to that for "backwards compatibility" with what people are likely to be using in their implementations? If the latter, what should that name be? Please see today's meeting notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2016-03-17> for some suggestions and discussion. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
Definitely pick a new name and don’t switch it later. You’re just asking for compatibility problems with clients trying to figure out what they’re supposed to be sending where if you change that. That said I don’t have a better name than security_enhanced_claims_endpoint at the moment. :) — Justin
On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
Recall that we're likely to supplant the original endpoint (called requesting_party_claims_endpoint) with the enhanced-security one at the first opportunity, i.e. when we "open up" UMA Core for backwards-incompatible changes.
Should we pick a name that's just descriptive for now like security_enhanced_claims_endpoint (what's in the current draft) and align to the original name when we open up the spec?
Should we pick a wholly new name now and switch to that for "backwards compatibility" with what people are likely to be using in their implementations? If the latter, what should that name be?
Please see today's meeting notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2016-03-17> for some suggestions and discussion.
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
Note that we didn't discuss this today, so by default we kept it the same! *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
Definitely pick a new name and don’t switch it later. You’re just asking for compatibility problems with clients trying to figure out what they’re supposed to be sending where if you change that.
That said I don’t have a better name than security_enhanced_claims_endpoint at the moment. :)
— Justin
On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
Recall that we're likely to supplant the original endpoint (called requesting_party_claims_endpoint) with the enhanced-security one at the first opportunity, i.e. when we "open up" UMA Core for backwards-incompatible changes.
Should we pick a name that's just descriptive for now like security_enhanced_claims_endpoint (what's in the current draft) and align to the original name when we open up the spec?
Should we pick a wholly new name now and switch to that for "backwards compatibility" with what people are likely to be using in their implementations? If the latter, what should that name be?
Please see today's meeting notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2016-03-17> for some suggestions and discussion.
*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
participants (2)
-
Eve Maler -
Justin Richer