TM Forum Community

 View Only
  • 1.  TMF672_UserRoles & Permissions API- missing DELETE operation

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 15 days ago

    Hello Jonathan,

    we are implementing requirements where we are using the User Roles & Permissions API. We implemented the GET, POST and PATCH both permission and user role successfully.
    However we miss the DELETE for both permission and user role in the yaml.

    Is somebody from your team working on it or can you provide us the most recent yaml for the TMF 672?

    Our stakeholder is planning to start using the API End of September this year..

    Appreciate your quick feedback. Thanks!

    Regards
    Erlina



    #General

    ------------------------------
    Erlina Hennies
    Deutsche Telekom AG
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: TMF672_UserRoles & Permissions API- missing DELETE operation

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 14 days ago

    Hi Erlina
    In v5 I think that we have DELETE operations for all the entities in TMF672. But please be aware that there have been major changes in the entities.
    The initial tranche of v5 APIs is in the final stages of internal review, so there is a good chance that some of them will be released to public beta in the next several weeks. However I cannot give a firm commitment.
    I can make an enquiry to see if we can release the TMF672 assets to you as-is, but I'm not promising anything.



    ------------------------------
    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: TMF672_UserRoles & Permissions API- missing DELETE operation

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 14 days ago

    Hi John,

    thank you for your feedback.
    Several weeks sound like a major changes are being made. However, if major changes will be going to happen, then not only we as the API provider but our API Consumer must also adjust the API-changes.  Anyhow, it's crucial for us to provide our stakeholder with the 'DELETE' operation.
    Appreciated for your enquiry for the releasing the TMF672.
    Our plan is to implement until the end of June so that the Stakeholder can test it, but then we will have to wait and are looking forward to get the new version of the yaml soon (also without the pdf-doc).

    Many thanks in advance!

    Best Regards
    Erlina



    ------------------------------
    Erlina Hennies
    Deutsche Telekom AG
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: TMF672_UserRoles & Permissions API- missing DELETE operation

    Posted 12 days ago

    Hi Jonathan

    Regarding the review of the v5 Roles & Permissions spec, it seems that the permissionSet resource is using a "user" field instead of "grantee".  Presumably the "granter" can assign permissions to other party/party roles including machines (for AN).

    Thanks!



    ------------------------------
    Dan d'Albuquerque
    TO BE VERIFIED
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: TMF672_UserRoles & Permissions API- missing DELETE operation

    TM Forum Member
    Posted 10 days ago

    Hi Dan

    Machines are not party/party roles. We plan to add resource/resource roles as receivers of permissions, to allow for use cases such as ODA components or home gateways needing rights. If you have access to the project jira repository feel free to take a look: https://projects.tmforum.org/jira/browse/AP-4407



    ------------------------------
    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.
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: TMF672_UserRoles & Permissions API- missing DELETE operation

    Posted 10 days ago
    Edited by Dan d'Albuquerque 8 days ago

    Thanks Jonathan.
    Actually I was referring to the AIops specs that referred to Machine being a Party.  Nonetheless, do you still plan to refer to the consumer of the permission as a user?
    PS: Just noticed that you have defined a user as the receiver of the permission at the top of the TMF672 API spec.  Just feels a bit strange when the receiver of the permission could be an administrator role and not the end-user of the product/resource itself.
    Thanks! 



    ------------------------------
    Dan d'Albuquerque
    TO BE VERIFIED
    ------------------------------