Internet Engineering Task Force | K. Hazelton, Ed. |
Internet-Draft | B. Oshrin |
Intended status: Informational | ciferproject.org |
Expires: August 9, 2014 | February 5, 2014 |
CIFER ID Match API Draft 00
ciferproject-org-idmatch-api-v1-draft-00
TBD
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2014.
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
The [CIFER] initiative includes work to define a set of shared APIs for core functions in identity and access management. One key requirement of such systems is to match person records found in Systems of Record (SOR) with person records that may or may not already be in the core identity registry. This document defines the ID Match API that supports this essential suite of functions.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
TBD
PUT /people/{SOR_ID}/{SOR_PERSON_ID}
Parameter | Value | Description | Parameter Type | Data Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
SOR_ID | Required | The identifier for the System of Record that is the source of the person entry | path | string |
SOR_PERSON_ID | Required | The identifier for the person per the System of Record | path | string |
Person Attributes | Required | A subset of the persons attributes in the source system | body | JSON |
Response content type: application/json
Status code: 200 OK
Response Body:
{ "referenceId": "xxxxxxx" }
Where xxxxxxx is an Identity Registry identifier for the matched SOR person.
Q: What is the effect on the state of the Identity Registry?
Status code: 201 Created
Response Body:
{ "referenceId": "xxxxxxx" }
Where xxxxxxx is an Identity Registry identifier for the matched SOR person.
Q: What is the effect on the state of the Identity Registry?
If a POST is used instead of a PUT in the API call in Section 4.1.1, there will be no change in the state of the Identity Registry. The call is effectively a search operation. The status codes and response bodies are the same as above except that by definition the status code 201, "Created" will never be returned.
Status code: 404 Not Found
This memo includes no request to IANA.
TBD
This document was produced by the CIFER Shared API work team. People who made particular contributions to the work include Jim Fox, Keith Hazelton, Chris Hyzer, Benn Oshrin, Jonathan Pass and Jimmy Vuccolo
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
[CIFER] | CIFER, "CIFER Home Page", 2014. |