RE: [xacml] REST Profile - General Plan

[<remon.sinnema@emc.com>]

Hal,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:24 PM
> To: Sinnema, Remon
> Cc: xacml@lists.oasis-open.org; robin@oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xacml] REST Profile - General Plan
> 
> > > Second, I assume the Media types document should refer to a
> document
> > > which has at least some level of approval. Does everyone agree on
> > this?
> > > Is CD sufficient? CS?
> >
> > Per Robin's statement above it should be OS, right?
> 
> What I was thinking of, was the case where the Media Types doc simply
> pointed at the REST Profile. If we are dropping the media types
> document, this question is moot.

An RFC needs to point to something as well (the core XACML spec in the case of the XACML XML media type). I think that spec must be at OS, right?


> It may make sense to have a separate document for the JSON format of
> requests and perhaps policies, but I would think the material about how
> to put it in a message and process requests and responses would involve
> a lot of duplication between the two documents, which is usually a bad
> idea.

Indeed, that's why my proposal is to have a REST profile that defines the types of messages that can be sent, and separate profiles/RFCs that define the layout of the messages in XML, JSON, etc.


> So far what I have heard (outside the TC) is a lot of interest in REST
> with no XML, but not a whole lot of interest in XML over HTTP. What do
> others think?

I have an interest in XML over HTTP. We have a RESTful API over HTTP and store data in our native XML database.
I also have an interest in JSON over HTTP.

The beauty of REST is that the actual format used to represent resources isn't all that important, as long as it encodes the same information and allows navigating between resources.


Thanks,
Ray