Review API readiness minimum criteria doc

[shilpa-padgaonkar]

https://github.com/camaraproject/WorkingGroups/blob/main/Commonalities/documentation/Working/API-Readiness-Checklist.md

[jordonezlucena]

API readiness minimum criteria should define the minimum set of requirements that allow going from step 3 (implementation) to step 4 (validation). If my interpretation is correct, here are my comments:

1. API spec: whether OAS3 or Swagger2 depends on the outcome of issue camaraproject/rep_main#29
2. API implementation: it is tagged as optional (not mandatory). How is it possible to validate an API that we do not have a reference implementation of? What is the value of having a service API if there is no source code?
3. Agree
4. Agree
5. Agree -> Do we need to agree on a specific API Test Plan (ATP) format? Does this need to be captured in the generic principles doc?
6. Agree

[shilpa-padgaonkar]

1. OAS3/Swagger2 is part of https://github.com/camaraproject/rep_main/issues/29 . API doc template only mentions that specification section needs to be part of API documentation.
2. This reflects the decision announced in the larger Camara alliance round. In WG, we can elaborate further if needed.
3. This we hope can be addressed in https://github.com/camaraproject/rep_main/issues/28

[petorre]

Relationship between Implementation and Test Cases: Test Cases will be developed to target some particular Implementation. If this is some jointly agreed Reference Implementation, later that Test Case will give easy answer if some commercial/custom/proprietary implementation A or B is passing of failing to pass test cases. Such answers can be debated if there is no Reference.

[T-sm]

Template moved to https://github.com/camaraproject/WorkingGroups/blob/main/Commonalities/documentation/Working/API-Readiness-Checklist.md

[Kevsy]

Created [PR 28] (#28)

• added security and privacy compliance criteria

[jordonezlucena]

@shilpa-padgaonkar, @T-sm: the "API-Readiness-Checklist.md" needs to be revisited, as the links captured there seem to be broken

[T-sm]

@jordonezlucena @shilpa-padgaonkar Thanks, José, the links have been updated. Also the document has been moved to Working directory in line with issue #35 request.

[shilpa-padgaonkar]

PR #38 assigned to @Kevsy
If merged, this issue can be closed.

[Kevsy]

PR #38 Merged