Conversation
Kevsy
left a comment
Kevsy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed and approved as codeowner
tanjadegroot
left a comment
tanjadegroot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Release Management comments provided - all looks OK
Approval will be done in a separate round
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does the additional endpoint to provide PPID as physical device identifier need to be added to the README scope section ?
e.g. see line 38 in the yaml file
There was a problem hiding this comment.
line 37. is the restriction to NOT use the network access identifier lifted ? if not then you cannot really refer to it here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
line 341: "X-Correlator" should ideally be "x-correlator" (no capitals)
See Commonalities API Design Guide section https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/blob/r3.3/documentation/CAMARA-API-Design-Guide.md#x-correlator-header
Although, given the below note, it is allowed to use capitals, all APIs I have seen sofar use lower-case x-correlator in both the parameters and the header sections.
"NOTE: HTTP headers are case-insensitive. The use of the naming x-correlator is a guideline to align the format across CAMARA APIs."
NOTE: the test files refer to "x-correlator" headers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not to be picky, but according to the schema naming rules, the schema "DevicePPID" should becalled "DevicePpid" ....
up to the team.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say DevicePPId for Device Pairwise Pseudonymous Identifiier. And for Identifier we are using "Id", not "ID". But I don't care too much, as long it is consistent within the API.
Co-authored-by: Tanja de Groot <87864067+tanjadegroot@users.noreply.github.com>
tanjadegroot
left a comment
tanjadegroot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM from Relase Management - all good !
|
@hdamker Can you please check if your change request is still blocking the PR somehow ? thanks ! |
Sure, will dismiss it. But a codeowner review is needed as well. |
hdamker
dismissed
their stale review
Remove blocker as release review is successfully done.
5 participants
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Publication of Fall'25 M4 public release of device-identifier v0.3.0
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes # N/A
Special notes for reviewers:
None
Changelog input
Additional documentation
None