Common or Separate BasePaths for Additional Statuses

[eric-murray]

We want to add a new status "connectivity" to the Device Status API.

There are two options being considered for this:

• Adding a new path to the existing basepath
  /device-status/v0/connectivity
• Defining a new basepath for the new status
  /device-connectivity-status/v0/connectivity

There are good technical arguments in favour of each option, but none that are decisive. So we are putting it to a vote. Please read this excellent summary of the arguments and vote according to your preference.

As usual for votes, please also add a comment below stating your company name and preference to ensure transparency. You can also state how strong your preference is in case of a tied vote, or maybe we have overlooked a strong argument in favour of one or other of these options.

I'll set a deadline of 14th June for votes, but please ask for an extension if you need more time to consider.

[bigludo7]

Voted an additional path for the existing /device-status basepath for Orange;
As already stated this is a slight preference as we're fine with both approach.

[eric-murray]

@bigludo7
Did you vote? I don't see any votes for the first option yet.

[bigludo7]

Oups
Thanks @eric-murray !!
Probably forget to click on vote

[monamok]

Telefónica votes for separate basepaths.

[sachintonbridge]

Vodafone votes in favor of having separate basepaths.

[JoachimDahlgren]

From Ericsson we prefer, in this case, to have one API with multiple end-points. Thereby voting for "By defining an additional path for the existing /device-status basepath"

[akoshunyadi]

The preference of Deutsche Telekom is to have 1 API with multiple endpoints. So I voted also for "By defining an additional path for the existing /device-status basepath"

[eric-murray]

Poll now closed. Winner is Option 1.

• Adding a new path to the existing basepath
  /device-status/v0/connectivity