search

trustoverip / tswg-trust-registry-protocol

Trust Registry Protocol Specification
https://trustoverip.github.io/tswg-trust-registry-protocol/
Other
6 stars 11 forks source link

[TRQP-4] Change OpenAPI specifications to be bound to specifically RESTful implementation #56

Open andorsk opened 4 months ago

andorsk commented 4 months ago

This is related to #52.

According to the current specification, there are components which are specifically bound to OpenAPI yaml. For example, TRQP-4 and the error codes in TRQP-5.

52 proposes to add RDAP and DNS, which may require updates to the data models to comply with the protocol. RDAP resolves over HTTP, but the response models and accessors would need to look different to comply.

If we want to support multiple protocols, then TRQP-4 and 5 should probably be bound to a specific context (i.e RESTful), and allows variations depending on the profile.

darrellodonnell commented 4 months ago

Good catch.

re: #52 We should determine who is willing to do the RDAP/DNS work and if they will commit resources to moving things forward.

andorsk commented 6 days ago

Based on conversations from the latest TRQP calls, I believe the first activity required to unblock this is to align on a common data model that can be leveraged across RDAP/DNS boundaries.

The question about who would implement the RDAP/DNS work in someways fits into a larger question of how new protocol bindings will be supported within the TRQP spec. If the spec is extensible and modular, as long as the process is clear how to specify new bindings, my suggestion is to consider your above question up to that particular interested party to align on how to align resources and get it moving.

TRTF calls can support conversations to bring the specification to life if there is interest moving to it and people are interest in addressing it with the larger community.

Does that sound fair?