[OASIS Issue Tracker] (COEL-15) Operator renaming in the DE.

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/COEL-15?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=61631#comment-61631 ] 

David Snelling commented on COEL-15:
------------------------------------

In earlier discussions this opertion, althoough not yet implemented in the spec, was sighted as a Hish Risk operaton and should be subject to a call back. For reverence Action Item 35 says:

Describe the 2FA callback approach to be used for high risk items in MMI. (see COEL-26) Note that the Operator can initiate a call to forget a consumer or reassign a device, but the Service Provider must provide the final go-ahead through a callback mechanism (e.g. email). The Operators call to the MMI does not block waiting for the Service Provider, it returns immediately to the caller, who cannot tell if it has been approved at this point. (Note that reassignDevice is not in the MMI yet - we should put in a placeholder?) Note that COEL-12 seems similar to this (look before you leap) but the email callback mechanism might be confusing, better to use a more standard RESTful approach of returning a URI which can be used by the caller to retrieve the data in batches.

The forgetConsumer has been done, but when this operation is added, that pattern should also be applied.

> Operator renaming in the DE.
> ----------------------------
>
>                 Key: COEL-15
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/COEL-15
>             Project: OASIS Classification of Everyday Living (COEL) TC
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: David Snelling
>            Assignee: David Snelling
>            Priority: Critical
>
> Paul suggested something like this for the MMI:
> PATCH /service-provider/operator(id1,id2) – disable an operator by giving it a new ID. This is to allow exsiting operators to be disabled without losing any of their data or altering the hierarchy. 
> I'm not sure it is justified in the MINIMAL MI. Let's discuss it.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)