Registry apis implementations #8
Replies: 9 comments 8 replies
-
|
Will |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Can we break down the Open questions and move it as a separate thread? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Updated registry.pdf based on recommendation on Dec-3 call . |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
One thing I want to highlight in this implementation is |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In the document
I think some of these use cases can be implemented using another endpoint which might make the implementation less complicated and documenting the same will become easier as well. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I have updated the documents and the model diagram. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We had a discussion recently on this topic. Trying to summarize that here. Background We distinguish between participants, subscribers and keys. Participant is a company that needs to register offline with the registry. Each subscriber is essentially a role the participant plays (for example, a BAP in public transport domain, a BAP in taxi domain, a BAP in parking domain are all different roles). Proposed changes
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Key_id may be named pub_key_id to avoid confusion |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@venkatramanm We would need to define different APIs instead of keeping on /subscribe API.
What is your thought on this? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
My thoughts on the registry api rationalizations after the discussions on Dec - 1 2021
registry.pdf
reg_api.pdf
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions