10 mins | History requirement | Darrell O'Donnell | - Darrell did some thinking about the discussion from last week's call about the possible requirement for the history of a particular entry in a TR
- He is worried that the complexity of the API increases tremendously
- We discussed what would be in scope for a history parameter — whether it was just a history of entries or whether it would include other information, including query history or full transaction history, then
- If it is a timestamped series of entries about the status of a particular entry, then it is a much more limited requirement that is much more feasible to include in V1
- Jim St.Clair pointed out that many governing authorities will have a requirement for audit logs that can be used for conformance.
- Drummond Reed suggested we take a "simple as possible but no simpler" approach to not include any feature that is not a "must have" for V1 — but that we document that decision in the Scope section and then see what the feedback is in the community review and public review stages.
- John Walker shared that he can see the need for the history feature in the future, but that he did not believe it was going to be a requirement for GCCN participants at this time.
- DECISION: The history parameter will out of scope for V1 but will be documented in the Scope section as a candidate for future versions.
|