RAML document

[jonathan-r-thorpe]

A RAML document is needed to be consistent with other interface specifications.

[cristian-recoseanu]

I am not sure it is possible to have a RAML document for this spec since URL paths are implementation specific generated from the device models of each device.

[jonathan-r-thorpe]

A good point.

Although the role paths are "URL like" they are not "browsable" like the other IS APIs. i.e. if you browsed to {basePath}/root you get a blob of JSON rather than the members listed as the next level of the URL. As you say, this also makes it hard to define RAML.

Perhaps the {rolePath} should be an atomic parameter (delimited by some character other than /) and therefore is treated as a parameter rather than a URL path, and then it can be expressed in RAML which makes it consistent with the existing interface specifications?

This would also makes the implementation in nmos-cpp easier as it makes it more consistent with existing specs.

[cristian-recoseanu]

We will attempt to do a POC RAML rendition to better determine if this approach would be useful.

[cristian-recoseanu]

Since we've now fully embraced the RAML workflow in our specification is it worth closing this issue @jonathan-r-thorpe?