[WG-UMA] Review UMA core spec rev8 until pargr. 2
cclnederkoorn at hotmail.com
Tue May 24 14:46:42 EDT 2011
If you ask a tester like me to review specs it's playtime.
For rev8 I reviewed until pargr2
Phase 2,3 together are described in section2; are the main 3 cors
Steps still Protect a Resource, Get and Use a Token?
Thumbs up for describing steps with If...Then; We testers love it.
2.1-2.5: no examples from last revision?
Is the use of SHOULD done because of giving the implementer the choice of using the statement?
That's it, feedback is welcome and more will follow.
Cheers, Cordny Nederkoorn
> From: wg-uma-request at kantarainitiative.org
> Subject: WG-UMA Digest, Vol 23, Issue 21
> To: wg-uma at kantarainitiative.org
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:00:02 -0400
> Send WG-UMA mailing list submissions to
> wg-uma at kantarainitiative.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wg-uma-request at kantarainitiative.org
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wg-uma-owner at kantarainitiative.org
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WG-UMA digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Humongous core spec revision up on wiki: rev 8 (Eve Maler)
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 11:56:36 -0700
> From: Eve Maler <eve at xmlgrrl.com>
> Subject: [WG-UMA] Humongous core spec revision up on wiki: rev 8
> To: UMA WG WG <wg-uma at kantarainitiative.org>
> Message-ID: <B4E3B22F-53E1-47F8-AC5C-7251961E2734 at xmlgrrl.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Thomas and I both did a bunch more spec-wrangling, and you can see the results here:
> This changes the order of the flow significantly, putting the "client-specific" stuff first. It also has the most complete specification to date (though still in early stages) of the scoped-access flows. Finally, it incorporates the resource registration spec text as we discussed last time.
> A few more minor notes:
> - A new AM endpoint was added, for the requester to ask for authorization.
> - The spec text is inconsistent between "action description" and "scope" language right now. Please review and weigh in.
> - Maciej is scheduled to propose HTTP message examples and such throughout, hopefully before Thursday.
> This spec may not be "ready for prime time" yet, but it's definitely ready for careful and thorough review by all of you! So please read, review, and comment heavily.
> Last, please note that the spec material on mrtopf.clprojects.net is probably significantly out of date by now. What shall we do about that? Is the version on the wiki sufficiently readable not to need that other location?... (I'll take an action to redo our Working Drafts page and image map to point to the correct spec docs.)
> Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
> +1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
> WG-UMA mailing list
> WG-UMA at kantarainitiative.org
> End of WG-UMA Digest, Vol 23, Issue 21
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WG-UMA