[WG-OTTO] comment to demo

Mike Schwartz mike at gluu.org
Thu Oct 6 15:01:51 CDT 2016


Janusz,

1) regarding the "FederationEntity" endpoint, the corresponding property 
of the endpoint in the discovery document is  
"federation_entity_endpoint." We could update this to something better. 
After that, the implementer can name the endpoint whatever they want. 
I'm not opposed to "service", although it may be ambiguous in a 
different way.

2) On the schema: yes I agree... that's the main gap right now. I'm 
trying to work this week on these: 
https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-otto/tree/master/schema/openid

- Mike



On 2016-10-05 13:16, Janusz Ulanowski wrote:
> Apologies I missed part of the meeting.
> I'm just exploring demo instance - very nice work!
> *) About the namings:
> - FederationsEntity - wouldn't be better to remove "Federations" part
> from that name or replace with something different like "Service" or
> so?
>  It might be missleading because you may have just registered Entity
> which is no member of any Federation.
> 
> *) sample FederationEntity
> http://otto-test.gluu.org/otto/federation_entity/57f50087c0c6f648bf7c450a
> I know it's draft so just my comments:
> - 'category' - I think it should be array;
> - missing registrar (registration aithority)
> - missing registrationdate
> - missing validUntil
> - I think that it would be "nice to have" to set list of federations'
> identifiers the entity is member of


More information about the WG-OTTO mailing list