UMA telecon 2011-09-01

Date and Time

Agenda

Attendees

As of 22 Aug 2011, quorum is 6 of 10.

  1. Catalano, Domenico
  2. D'Agostino, Salvatore
  3. Hardjono, Thomas
  4. Machulak, Maciej
  5. Maler, Eve
  6. Moren, Lukasz
  7. Morrow, Susan
  8. Szpot, Jacek

Regrets:

Minutes

Roll call

Quorum was reached.

Approve minutes of 2011-08-25 meeting

Minutes of 2011-08-25 meeting APPROVED.

Action item review

Planning for upcoming gatherings

Make sure to register early to get good rates. Thomas will be attending IIW but not the UMA F2F meeting.

Core protocol issues in GitHub

Thomas has worked on a rev 16 of the spec, to incorporate some closed issue text. He has updated his GitHub thardjono repository. What is the right way to incorporate his work back to Eve's xmlgrrl repository? He needs to request Eve to "pull" his changes into it, and merge any conflicting changes.

Spec editor report on status of closed issues: #1, #3

Thomas has addressed issue #1 in rev 16 (rev 15 was the version we submitted to IETF). He added some lines in Section 3.4, explaining that the ticket is an opaque structure that's under the control and responsibility of the AM.

In Section 3.5, he noticed there was no mention of ticket-related errors, so he added Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 as placeholders for anticipated error types. We'll ask Lukasz to take a look.

Thomas will work next on incorporating closed issue #3.

Try to close #4, #5, #6, #7 in short order

#4: Let's get away from talking about "claims-requested responses" because it's confusing to us.

We think we understand the second half of Lukasz's proposal, but not the first half.

What are all the things that could be wrong with the Requester's UMA/HTTP request message in Section 3.5? Note that this is related to issue #1.

Do we have to worry about expired tickets during long and involved claims-exchange sessions? Can the ticket be a nonce that is only ever used once, and then the session can be tracked and secured by other means? This is an open question.

The issue is still open; Lukasz will try to map his two error suggestions to these six.

#5: We are fine with the way the resource set registration API is now. The Create version of PUT doesn't require If-No-Match and the Update version of PUT already requires ETag matching. So we can close this with no action.

#6, #7, #2: Still open.

Prioritize next issues to be discussed

Next week, let's focus on lining up OpenID Connect-related issues for Maciej to present the following week at the OpenID Summit.

Next Meetings

Note: Meetings are now 60 minutes in length.