Put federation endpoints in a more logical order

[Michael Jones]

The federation endpoints are currently in this order:

federation_fetch_endpoint
federation_resolve_endpoint
federation_list_endpoint
federation_trust_mark_status_endpoint
federation_trust_mark_list_endpoint
federation_trust_mark_endpoint
federation_historical_keys_endpoint

I'm wondering if this order makes more sense:

federation_fetch_endpoint
federation_list_endpoint
federation_resolve_endpoint
federation_trust_mark_endpoint
federation_trust_mark_list_endpoint
federation_trust_mark_status_endpoint
federation_historical_keys_endpoint

I'm thinking this because Fetch and List are more foundational than Resolve, which is optional, and I think we want the main Trust Mark endpoint to be before the other Trust Mark endpoints.

Note that to be consistent, reorderings would have to happen both in the list at https://openid.net/specs/openid-federation-1_0-34.html#name-federation-entity and the descriptions at https://openid.net/specs/openid-federation-1_0-34.html#name-federation-endpoints .

This would be something we do as the last step before publishing the proposed Implementer's Draft, because it would cause merge conflicts galore!

[Vladimir Dzhuvinov]

+1 for the first 3 is as proposed:

federation_fetch_endpoint
federation_list_endpoint
federation_resolve_endpoint

The remaining in the original order. Why? I think the TM status endpoint is the TM related endpoint that is likely to be the most frequently used. For TM list vs TM fetch unsure.

federation_trust_mark_status_endpoint
federation_trust_mark_list_endpoint
federation_trust_mark_endpoint
federation_historical_keys_endpoint

‌

[Roland Hedberg]

I agree with Vladimir

[Michael Jones]

We agreed to apply Vladimir's proposed section ordering during the 10-May-24 Federation editors' call.

[Michael Jones]

Fixed by https://openid.net/specs/openid-federation-1_0-35.html