[Openid-specs-risc] [Id-event] Breaking out the distribution draft
dick at amazon.com
Tue Feb 28 19:40:57 UTC 2017
On 2/28/17, 9:12 AM, someone claiming to be "Phil Hunt (IDM)" <phil.hunt at oracle.com<mailto:phil.hunt at oracle.com>> wrote:
RISC use case is typically bi-directional so events can be used. It also works better because usually a receiver may add only or drop only depending on implicit or explicit federation.
This sentence does not make sense to me.
Adam argued for all other update items to be done OOB.
Adam: would you elaborate? As I understand it, you are saying you don’t want to standardize how Amazon and Google / Microsoft will coordinate, and this also leaves out how PayPal and Identity Analytics would signal. We should standardize how we subscribe to subjects.
That just left error signalling for the receiver to find out why events were not coming.
We left it that scim can be quickly added for those that want full automated CRUD (oracle does). Buy it would not be required in core.
“SCIM quickly added” sounds like an oxymoron. ☺
On Feb 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Hardt, Dick <dick at amazon.com<mailto:dick at amazon.com>> wrote:
Perhaps I am missing it, but I don’t see a mechanism for the receiver to add / delete which subjects the receiver is interested in. Is this not included, or am I misunderstanding what is below?
Or is that out of scope? If so, that seems odd as there is a control plane API in (3)
On 2/28/17, 12:53 AM, someone claiming to be "Openid-specs-risc on behalf of Adam Dawes" <openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of adawes at google.com<mailto:adawes at google.com>> wrote:
I think this is great Phil. Thanks again for the detailed conversation where we were able to arrive at this.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt at oracle.com<mailto:phil.hunt at oracle.com>> wrote:
Please confirm if you agree with the following:
I had previously promised to break up the distribution draft into components. I ran into some difficulty as to how subscribers (receivers) of events find out if the publisher is having problems delivering events.
After some discussion with the RISC WG folks and Adam Dawes, I would like to propose that I break out a SET Transmission draft that includes the following:
1. Basic HTTPS POST profile to a specified endpoint. It is up to the receiver to provide fault tolerance and high-availability that meets its own delivery assurance requirements.
2. A set of metadata that describes the endpoints, the encryption methods (eg. keys for signing and encrypting JWTs) etc.
3. A simple control plane API that allows a subscriber (receiver) to perform an HTTPS GET to obtain the current configuration and subscription (stream) status. While compatible with SCIM, it will NOT require SCIM to be implemented.
4. Configuration of subscriptions (streams) is done through out-of-scope administrative processes offered by event publishers.
5. In the initial profile, subscribers will not be able to “pause” streams automatically unless offered through the administrative interface of the publisher.
If people have a need for automated management, the basic idea is that you implement the POST and PATCH methods of SCIM and you are good to go. We don’t need to spend a lot of time on it as there is nothing special to do once the metadata for streams is defined.
Does this work for everyone?
Oracle Corporation, Identity Cloud Services & Identity Standards
phil.hunt at oracle.com<mailto:phil.hunt at oracle.com>
Id-event mailing list
Id-event at ietf.org<mailto:Id-event at ietf.org>
Adam Dawes | Sr. Product Manager | adawes at google.com<mailto:adawes at google.com> | +1 650-214-2410
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-risc