...
- Administrative
- Roll call
- Approve minutes of 2010-08-05 meeting
- Action item review
- Status reports from the wider UMA world
- Resource/scope registration discussion
- Hopefully lots of new fodder coming out in email by Thursday...
- Discuss any impacts on Steps 1-3 if possible
- AOB
Attendees
- TBS
Minutes
TBS
Next Meetings
...
As of 11 Aug 2010, quorum is 6 of 11.
- Fletcher, George
- Hardjono, Thomas
- Holodnik, Tom
- Machulak, Maciej
- Moren, Lukasz
Non-voting participants:
- Kevin Cox
- Herve Ganem
- Gerry Gebel
- Mark Lizar
- Anna Ticktin (staff)
Regrets:
- Domenico Catalano
Minutes
AI summary
Eve | Open | Add terms-negotiation scenarios to Scenarios document. |
| |
Eve, Mario | Open | Meet to discuss how to move forward on the Scenarios and Use Cases document. |
| |
Mario | Open | Revise the Scenarios and Use Cases document by end of August. |
| |
Maciej, Christian, Eve | Open | Write up answers to the philosophical questions posed on 2010-08-12 related to resource/scope registration, for the SMART implementation, resource registration spec, and scope registration spec proposal respectively. |
|
Roll call
Quorum was not reached.
Discussion on Resource/scope registration
The group discusses resource registration and where state about protected resources needs to be maintained. George provides an example: widget code on the website can talk to the instant messaging app. No need for maintaining state of the Host anywhere.
The problem is as following: User at the host deleted some resources. Some client asks for a resource at the AM - should the AM be aware that this resource does not exist? Another angle of the problem: the user disassociated a resource from a policy at the AM (resource no longer protected). If a requester asks for the resource at the host - what should the host do? Should the host say that it is UMA protected?
User interacting both with the host and the central server - AM. The host is saying to the AM -