Add Jurisdictions API spec (read-only endpoints)

[janedotx]

Explain pull request

See #491 for the discussion and motivations behind this pull request.

Is this a breaking change

• No, not breaking

Impacted Spec

Which spec(s) will this pull request impact?

• geography

Additional context

#491

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[schnuerle]

Feedback below from the working group meeting. See full notes here.

Brian Ng presentation.

• Would like feedback from providers on if this is a burden to ready from agencies along with policy and geography. Note this is already being done by email now in a few cities like LA and Miami-Dade.
• Ensure it's listed as optional for cities to implement
• Ensure it's clear that cities serve the API. Groups of nearby cities self organize and decide who will serve it.
• Ensure it's authenticated. Could be public in the future.
• Ensure it has a beta designation and link to beta info in spec.

@brianngca can you make sure to sign the CLA for your contribution?

[schnuerle]

@brianngca thanks for signing the CLA.

@brianngca and @janedotx If you can incorporate the feedback from the WG meeting in the comment above, I will notify the members to review and comment for the 1.1.0 release. It would need to be reviewed in one of the next 2 WG calls as a final community check for the release.

[brianngca]

@schnuerle Thanks for writing up the summary of the WG meeting and feedback. I'll start incorporating the feedback into the text with @janedotx

[schnuerle]

@janedotx I made some comments to help resolve some formatting, TOC, and beta language issues. All minor. If you can edit the PR and check the recommended "allow edits from maintainers" checkbox I could make these for you.

[schnuerle]

This commit has a lot of what looks like auto-formatting changes going on to the main MDS readme. Some are ok like removing spaces, but others are changing "-" to "*" in lists. While this is ok, I don't think these changes need to be made in the Jurisdiction PR. Could you revert changes like this?

[janedotx]

@janedotx I made some comments to help resolve some formatting, TOC, and beta language issues. All minor. If you can edit the PR and check the recommended "allow edits from maintainers" checkbox I could make these for you.

I can't find the "allow edits from maintainers" checkbox on the lacuna-tech fork.

[janedotx]

This commit has a lot of what looks like auto-formatting changes going on to the main MDS readme. Some are ok like removing spaces, but others are changing "-" to "*" in lists. While this is ok, I don't think these changes need to be made in the Jurisdiction PR. Could you revert changes like this?

So that link just goes to this PR, and looking at the diff, the only addition to the general README is the addition of the Jurisdictions section. Commit b1fb43df732f4a30a2d45b87ac83650391957602 did make a bunch of formatting changes, thanks to my autoformat on save being silly, but commit f536df93019990fe2ead9ff671f4fdd242ea9d50 did revert them. Is that still not okay?

[schnuerle]

This commit has a lot of what looks like auto-formatting changes going on to the main MDS readme. Some are ok like removing spaces, but others are changing "-" to "*" in lists. While this is ok, I don't think these changes need to be made in the Jurisdiction PR. Could you revert changes like this?

So that link just goes to this PR, and looking at the diff, the only addition to the general README is the addition of the Jurisdictions section. Commit b1fb43df732f4a30a2d45b87ac83650391957602 did make a bunch of formatting changes, thanks to my autoformat on save being silly, but commit f536df93019990fe2ead9ff671f4fdd242ea9d50 did revert them. Is that still not okay?

Yes that's ok, didn't see the cleanup later, thank you for clarifying.

[schnuerle]

Looks good for release candidate.