CIBA: How about backchannel_notification_endpoint?

[Takahiko Kawasaki]

How about changing the metadata name of client_notification_endpoint to backchannel_notification_endpoint?

Metadata names defined in CIBA draft 06 are as follows.

• backchannel_token_delivery_modes_supported
• backchannel_authentication_endpoint
• backchannel_token_delivery_mode
• client_notification_endpoint
• backchannel_authentication_request_signing_alg

If the name of client_notification_endpoint is changed to backchannel_notification_endpoint or something similar, all the metadata names start with backchannel_ and it will become easier to recognize the metadata are related.

[Brian Campbell]

There's some rational for having backchannel_ as an indicator of sorts to see the related info.

[Dave Tonge]

Yes, this does seem cleaner. Do you think it should be backchannel_client_notification_endpoint to make it obvious that this endpoint is hosted by the client?

[Brian Campbell]

Discussed during the Nov 13 MODRNA WG call and there was general consensus to go with Dave's suggestion of backchannel_client_notification_endpoint

[Brian Campbell]

Pull request #46 would change client_notification_endpoint to backchannel_client_notification_endpoint

[Dave Tonge]

Merged pull request