5.1.1. Introduction recommends Grant Management but the maturity level of the document makes it inappropriate to recommend it in the FIANL specification
On the 2024-05-01 call, Brian pointed out that recommending/referring to Grant Management, whose maturity level and progress activity are low, is inappropriate. The PR 487 https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/pull-requests/487 suggests removing the bullet that mentions Grant Management and the reference from the Informative Reference section.
There were several counter-arguments for it:
- Giving more prominence to Grant Management will likely encourage implementations, thereby accelerating the development of the spec (Joseph)
- Just a single spec cannot build the ecosystem but ecosystems need the collection of specs, and guidance like this is valuable (Dima)
The idea of creating a living document like “FAPI Framework Overview” and moving the paragraph there was suggested by Riffat.
Comments (9)
-
-
I agree, that we shouldn’t put it in the final security profile.
A framework overview / ecosystem guide / implementation advice document would be helpful for this
-
we discussed, removing the section about FAPI 2 framework - moving it to a new doc and referencing that
-
-
- changed status to open
-
-
assigned issue to
-
assigned issue to
-
- changed status to resolved
PR merged
-
reporter Merged the PR 496
-
- Log in to comment
counter-argument to the counter-arguments is that those things aren’t the job of a security profile