[WG-UMA] draft-uma-resource-reg -- RE: New rreg and core specs

Eve Maler eve at xmlgrrl.com
Wed Dec 15 18:59:55 EST 2010


Thanks for this review!  There are a couple of dangling questions below that it would be good to get others' thoughts on...  I'll try and post new drafts by tomorrow morning.

On 15 Dec 2010, at 1:21 PM, Thomas Hardjono wrote:

> The resource-reg draft is also looking very good, and very easy to
> read.
> 
> Here are some questions, suggestions and typos found:
> 
> (a) Section 3: suggest removing the sentence in the brackets about
> "action identifier: and "resource set identifier" since it may confuse
> the reader. They will be discussed anyways in the Section 4
> immediately below.
> 
>>>> An action description is an object with the following parameters 
>>>> (the description also has an <--- action identifier that is
> created 
>>>> during the <---
>>>> process of registration):...    <---
> 
>>>> A resource set description is an object with the following 
>>>> parameters (the description also has <--- a resource set
> identifier 
>>>> that is created <--- during the process of registration):.... <---

Okay, I was wondering about that.  Took 'em out.

> 
> 
> (b) I may have missed the discussions in the telecons, but do the
> action_id and resource_set_id need to be included within the
> descriptions (of actions and resources -- Section 3).

We discussed it a bit on the focus telecon, and figured that it would lead to errors and confusion if the in-band and out-of-band IDs didn't match.  That's why I thought it might be useful to mention them parenthetically above. I have now added a bit more preamble/explanation to the second example to make this a bit clearer:

> 
> I'm reading/viewing Section 3 as the "template" of actions and
> resources will be understood by the Host and the AM.
> 
> 
> (c) Hyphenating important words: I think it would help the reader if
> some crucial terms are hyphenated.  
> 
> For example: use "host-registration-URI" in the following line
> (Section 4 first line):
> 
>>>> ....The host uses a RESTful API at
>>>> the AM's host registration URI to create, <----- read, update,
> and 
>>>> delete resource set and action descriptions...

Perhaps I should represent it as defined in the metadata section of the core spec: host_registration_uri.  Done.

> 
> (d) Section 4: What if action_id or resource_id is missing
> 
>>>> {actionid}  An identifier for an action description,  assigned 
>>>> during initial registration of this description.
>>>> Without a specific action identifier path component,  the URI 
>>>> applies to the set of action descriptions  already registered. The
> 
>>>> identifier has meaning only to the host.
> 
>>>> {resourceid}    An identifier for a resource set description, 
>>>> assigned during initial registration of this description. 
>>>> Without a specific resource identifier path component,  the URI 
>>>> applies to the set of resource set descriptions  already
> registered. 
>>>> The identifier has meaning only to the host.
> 
> Question:  how does the AM know which action (resource) to default to
> when an action identifier path component (or resource identifier path
> component) is not present?

It doesn't.  When that component is missing, the only method possible is GET, and the only response possible is listing all the already-registered thingies.  What would be the HTTP error produced if someone tried to, say, POST to {regid}/host/{hostid}/action/ ?

> 
> (e) Minor typo in Section 4.3 both grey boxes (PUT command).

Thanks!

> 
> 
> (f) Minor typo in Section 4.5, second grey box (HTTP).

Ditto!  (I was copying and pasting these from elsewhere, obviously...)

> 
> 
> (g) Question about errors:  Maybe its out of scope for UMA, but how do
> we distinguish between errors generated by the underlying OAuth from
> errors coming from the UMA layer (UMA entities)?


We could, I suppose, prefix the actual error strings with "uma_".  But there's a set of OAuth errors that we utilize and a set of UMA errors we've had to invent, and as long as they don't confusingly overlap, is there a need to distinguish them further?

	Eve

Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
+1 425 345 6756                         http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl



More information about the WG-UMA mailing list