Open APIs

Expand all | Collapse all

Should TMF 672 Permission be allowed to have an extra related party?

  • 1.  Should TMF 672 Permission be allowed to have an extra related party?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 24, 2021 08:13

    Should TMF 672 allow an extra Related Party to allow is to include the relationship with a Party Role? i.e. Extra to the 2 defined relationships of Granter and User:

    Perhaps this is an omission in the spec?

    Principle for use

    The granter should be the individual granting the permission

    The user should be the individual granting the permission

    RelatedParty (Extension should hold the reference to the party role) – can we or should we include this?

     

    This would allows us to search for all permissions for a person(individual)

    Also search for all permissions granted by an individual (not used that often or maybe never)

    More importantly, search for all permissions that the user received because he is a household member (let's me easily remove all permission because of the deleted partyRole).


    See example below - proposed extension highlighted

      

    //The Service Manager role in the quickshousehold against BTSport Service

     

    {

                    "id": "751234-1ac123-cef1a-6656",

                    "@type": "Permission",

                    "granter": {

     

                                    "id": "1664cfec-9444-1038-a846-88505cd1ac01",

                                    "href": "https://serverRoot/tmf/partyManagement/v4/individual/1664cfec-9444-1038-a846-88505cd1ac01",

                                    "role": "household_member",

                                    "@type": "RelatedParty",

                                    "@referredType": "Individual"

     

                    },

                    "relatedParty": [{ //THIS WOULD BE AN EXTENSION - IT HOLDS ANY OTHER REALATED PARTY - in our case the party role...

                                    "id": "989871285076123",

                                    "href": "https:/serverRoot/tmf-api/partyRoleManagement/v4/partyRole/989871285076123",

                                    "@type": "PartyRole"

     

                    }],

                    "user": {

     

                                    "id": "1664cfec-9444-1038-a846-88505cd1ac01",

                                    "href": "https://serverRoot/tmf/partyManagement/v4/individual/1664cfec-9444-1038-a846-88505cd1ac01",

                                    "role": "household_member",

                                    "@type": "RelatedParty",

                                    "@referredType": "Individual"

     

                    },

                    "assetUserRole": [

                    {

                                    "userRole": {

                                                    "id": "1003",

                                                    "href": "https://host:port/partyManagement/v4/userRole/1003",

                                                    "@type": "UserRoleRef"

                                    },

                                    "manageableAsset": {  //How is the BTSport service modelled? what will be the @referredType

                                                    "id": "1112",

                                                    "@type": "ManageableAsset",

                                                    "name": "BTSPORT:DIGITAL",

                                                    "@baseType": "EntityRef",

                                                    "@referredType": "SERVICE", //What will be the @referredType for BTSport service

                                                    "SERVICE": {                      

                                                                    "id": "S0309824"                               //What attribute of BTSport service will be captured as the id ? SCODE?

                                                    }

                                    }

                    }]

    }



    ------------------------------
    Jeff Barker
    BT Group plc
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Should TMF 672 Permission be allowed to have an extra related party?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 24, 2021 10:34
    Hi Jeff
    @Don Anton Dehipitiarachchi and I have been working on a major revision to this API, for probable release as v5.
    In the new version we are adding the concept of permissions that accrue implicitly due to the party role being played by the user. It will be done using the concept of Party Role Spec, that will hopefully be introduced into the API model (already exists in the Information Framework, the SID) - this should hopefully answer your use case.
    We don't have a release date for the API yet, but we have reached an advanced stage in internal team review.
    Hope it helps

    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Goldberg
    Amdocs Management Limited
    Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Should TMF 672 Permission be allowed to have an extra related party?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 24, 2021 10:42
    Thanks Jonathan, that sounds encouraging.
    Do you have a draft you can share?
    If it's any help, I'd be happy to review it also (with the insight of a real world deployment in progress).

    Cheers, Jeff

    ------------------------------
    Jeff Barker
    BT Group plc
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Should TMF 672 Permission be allowed to have an extra related party?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 24, 2021 11:40
    I'd like to share it with you, but since it's still internal to the Open API team, it would probably be correct only if you could join the API collaborative project.
    Here's the link to join, you'll have to make sure you sign in to the TMF site with your BT email. Your BT TMF contact may need to approve your joining.
    Let me know.

    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Goldberg
    Amdocs Management Limited
    Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Should TMF 672 Permission be allowed to have an extra related party?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 25, 2021 05:11
    Hi Jonathan, I applied to join the project yesterday, is there a way to see if I've been accepted into the project?
    Thanks for all your help.

    ------------------------------
    Jeff Barker
    BT Group plc
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Should TMF 672 Permission be allowed to have an extra related party?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 25, 2021 05:38
    If BT's policy is to automatically approve project requests, then you should be in already. If their policy is that BT's focal needs to approve, then you should get an email confirmation after approval.
    You can find the MoM from the review meetings here, including the draft user guide and swagger as attachments. If you can access this link then you are in the project :)

    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Goldberg
    Amdocs Management Limited
    Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
    ------------------------------