UMA telecon 2012-04-05

Date and Time

• WG telecon on Thursday, 5 Apr 2012, at 9am PT (time chart)
  • Skype: +99051000000481
  • US: +1-805-309-2350 (other international dial-in lines available) | Room Code: 178-2540

Agenda

• Admin
  • Roll call
  • Confirm chair pro tem for Apr 12 telecon
  • Spec editor up for renewal this month
• Approve minutes of 2012-03-08, 2012-03-15, 2012-03-22, and 2012-03-29 meetings
• Interop planning
  • Consider using OSIS site to manage testing
  • Consider creating separate discussion list
  • Formal F2F meeting/interop in early May? Where?
• Liaisons with other groups
  • hData
• AOB

Minutes

New AI summary

Roll call

Quorum was reached.

Other admin

• Confirm chair pro tem for Apr 12 telecon
• Spec editor up for renewal this month

Thomas is willing to stand for the spec editor role again. We'll vote on this before the month closes. He's also willing to run next week's call. Regrets from Maciej for next week, as he'll be traveling to Europe.

MOTION: Approve Thomas in the spec editor role. APPROVED by acclamation. Thanks, Thomas!

Approve minutes of 2012-03-08, 2012-03-15, 2012-03-22, and 2012-03-29 meetings

Minutes of 2012-03-08, 2012-03-15, 2012-03-22, and 2012-03-29 meetings APPROVED.

Interop planning

• Consider using OSIS site to manage testing
• Consider creating separate discussion list
• Formal F2F meeting/interop in early May? Where?

Cordny's time is limited in the new few weeks. Should we leverage the OSIS wiki for organizing and recording the results of our interop testing? We think so.

We'll consider the UMA1 interop to run past Munich; that will be a good time to work on test cases together. We'll plan to meet on Apr 19 to review the progress that was made.

Alam will be in Munich. Jacek won't be there personally, but Maciej and Lukasz follow up on the Python (PUMA) implementation and will represent that along with the SMART (UMA/j) implementation work. Maciej is the ringleader for the speaking slot on Apr 17.

Spec discussion

Can the AM usefully declare which claims providers it's willing to work with? It could perhaps do this in its config data, but would there be value in doing this dynamically at the time of saying it needs claims? Eve feels the requester should ideally be "dumb" about all this, and just redirect the requesting party as suggested by the AM, waiting for the permission to come back. Whatever NASCAR (for example) the AM might present to the requesting party is up to the AM, the policies in force, and the specific claims needed in this case. The AAT allows the AM to cache and reuse claims for multiple purposes, but whenever it needs a fresh claim, Roger can make fresh choices about how to satisfy the request.

Do we need to add a way for the AM to supply a redirect URI for the requester to use when the AM reports the "need_claims" UMA error? The SMART AM sends a redirect URI.

Do we have to say whether the AM returns Roger from the claims-gathering process with one of the UMA status messages for permission-granting (yes, no, need (more) claims)? SMART sends a status message back. For example, it might say "permission request pending" (this doesn't come with a callback for polling), or "yes" (access was granted). They haven't yet run into the case where it's a "no"! But we think we need these three options at a minimum. Otherwise Roger and TripFollwr don't know what to do next.

Action item review

Next Meetings

• WG telecon on Thursday, 12 Apr 2012, at 9am PT (time chart) – interop prep – Eve regrets – Thomas will chair
• WG telecon on Thursday, 19 Apr 2012, at 9am PT (time chart) – interop results
• WG telecon on Thursday, 26 Apr 2012, at 9am PT (time chart) – Eve regrets

Attendees

As of 24 Mar 2012 (pre-mtg), quorum is 6 of 10.

1. Catalano, Domenico
2. D'Agostino, Salvatore
3. Hardjono, Thomas
4. Machulak, Maciej
5. Maler, Eve
6. Moren, Lukasz

Non-voting participants:

• Cox, Kevin
• Nederkoorn, Cordny