[auth48] Re: [SUSPICIOUS] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9944 <draft-ietf-scim-device-model-18> for your review

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kaelin,

Please see the attached XML file.  I have reflowed the JSON in accordance with RFC 8792.  At the moment, this is the only change.  We have others queued, but since this was a big one.  A few notes:

I had to do this from my own toolchain.  That meant that I went back to the draft markdown file to do the reflow, using Carsten’s ~~~json feature to get it right.
This means that I had to backport the editorial changes you made in the JSON.  I think I got all of them but one, which was “READ-ONLY” => “READ ONLY”.  I believe the original is correct in this case.
I have repaired the last diagram.  However, you may wish to review the earlier XML file with the tools team, since what we handed you after IESG approval had since been damaged.

Could you please do a sanity pass over the attached?  If it looks good to you, we can address the other remaining points.

Thanks for your efforts.  Sorry for the inconvenience.
Eliot

> On 13 Mar 2026, at 17:24, Kaelin Foody <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eliot, all,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. 
> 
> We will wait to receive those updates from you before proceeding and can address the other items afterward.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Kaelin Foody
> RFC Production Center
> 
>> On Mar 13, 2026, at 7:50 AM, Eliot Lear <lear=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello RFC Editor and thanks for your efforts.
>> 
>> There are, I think several issues with the draft RFC that we would like to address before going too far.  The first is that the last graphic in the text version (Appendix C) seems to have been smushed.  In addition, and for this one, I apologize, I think we need to reflow the JSON in accordance with RFC 8792.  Can we address that first?
>> 
>> Eliot
>> 
>>> On 11 Mar 2026, at 19:41, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> Authors,
>>> 
>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
>>> 
>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
>>> follows:
>>> 
>>> Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
>>> Style Guide"). Please review.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>>  Device Schema Extensions to the SCIM model
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> 
>>>  Device Schema Extensions to the System for Cross-Domain Identity
>>>                      Management (SCIM) Model
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
>>> the title) for use on https://secure-web.cisco.com/1PPb7iv5yqbTuUJm-V3VX5WNLACWX6bTxg1xViQShhKe4erOXftZkZO31gWpaQ35KyFJ5dlGheldlVukVzD4tVLNPGMpbs7JwcabledoVGPxduQ3gapB0Snpfd7AClpcTlkgxhvhd_VgGZ5DYTDtyyheJoSXU8e9MNuTzgMMKVORG0Egx1seg0tmWEJ0X95er0xCHeVN6dPn3WUceHKZfR1aNRJPl57lIXc3zA-p7s9K9kgQcdgqW_j5o7lRCxLO84rn2KZGlSWABBdGPSm7NFwZXnbVVI6yYRtEWErQhubhjkRfK2k9qbTqF-5EghGec/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fsearch -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] In the text below, we have updated "JSON Schema" to "JSON Schemas" (plural) 
>>> and "OpenAPI" to "OpenAPI versions" (for consistency with the first sentence).
>>> Please review to confirm these changes are accurate.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> In addition, we provide non-normative JSON Schema [JSONSchema] and OpenAPI
>>> [OpenAPI] versions in the appendices for ease of implementation, neither of
>>> which existed when SCIM was originally developed.  The only difference the
>>> authors note between the normative schema representations is that JSON
>>> Schema and OpenAPI do not have a means to express...
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> 
>>> In addition, we provide non-normative JSON Schemas [JSONSchema] and OpenAPI
>>> [OpenAPI] versions in the appendices for ease of implementation, neither of
>>> which existed when SCIM was originally developed.  The only difference the
>>> authors note between the normative schema representations is that the JSON
>>> Schemas and OpenAPI versions do not have a means to express...
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Could the citations below be updated as follows for clarity?
>>> We ask because it appears that attribute characteristics are defined 
>>> in Section 2.2 of RFC 7643, and that attribute datatypes are defined
>>> in Section 2.3 of RFC 7643.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> Attributes defined in the device core schema and extensions comprise
>>> characteristics and SCIM datatypes defined in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of
>>> [RFC7643].
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> 
>>> Attributes defined in the device core schema (see Section 2.2 of
>>> [RFC7643]) and extensions comprise characteristics and the SCIM datatypes
>>> (defined in Section 2.3 of [RFC7643]).
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text below as follows? Note that
>>> this update is similar to text that appears in Appendix A.2.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>>    For example, when used in conjunction with NIPC [I-D.brinckman-nipc],
>>>    commands such as connect, disconnect, subscribe that control application
>>>    sends to the controller for the devices any command will be rejected by
>>>    the controller.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> 
>>>    For example, when used in conjunction with Non-IP Device Control (NIPC) [NIPC],
>>>    commands (such as connect, disconnect, and subscribe) that control application
>>>    sends to the controller for devices will be rejected by the controller.
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] To make this definition more concise, may we combine the second
>>> and fifth sentences as follows?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> mudUrl:  A string that represents the URL to the Manufacturer Usage
>>>    Description (MUD) file associated with this device.  This
>>>    attribute is optional and mutable.
>>>    The mudUrl value is case sensitive and not unique.  
>>>    When present, this attribute may be used as described in [RFC8520].
>>>    This attribute is case sensitive and returned by default.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> 
>>> mudUrl:  A string that represents the URL to the Manufacturer Usage
>>>    Description (MUD) file associated with this device.  This
>>>    attribute is optional, case sensitive, mutable, and returned by default.
>>>    When present, this attribute may be used as described in [RFC8520].      
>>>    The mudUrl value is case sensitive and not unique.
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions regarding the notation used
>>> in Tables 1 through 8:
>>> 
>>> a) We note different notation used for "ReadOnly" in
>>> these tables ("R" vs. "RO"). Please review and let us know
>>> which form you prefer so we may update for consistency:
>>> 
>>> R:  ReadOnly
>>> RO:  ReadOnly
>>> 
>>> b) We note these notations also appear with and without a space. Please review
>>> and let us know how to update for consistency:
>>> 
>>> WO:  Write Only
>>> WO:  WriteOnly
>>> 
>>> c) We note that "Manuf" is not included in Table 2. May we remove it from the
>>> legend listed directly after the table?
>>> 
>>> Manuf:  Manufacturer
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust these definitions below in order to clarify what
>>> list items "not" refers to?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> It is not mutable, read-only, generated if no certificateInfo
>>> object is provisioned, case sensitive and returned by default if it exists.
>>> ...
>>> This attribute is not required, mutable, singular and NOT case
>>> sensitive.
>>> ...
>>> It is not required, multivalued, mutable, and returned by default.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> 
>>> It is not mutable. It is read only, case sensitive, and generated if no certificateInfo
>>> object is provisioned. It is returned by default if it exists.
>>> ...
>>> This attribute is not required and not case sensitive. It is mutable and singular.
>>> ...
>>> It is not required. It is multivalued, mutable, and returned by default.
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] How may we clarify "a trust anchor certificate" in the first sentence
>>> below? In addition, may we adjust the second sentence as follows, in order to 
>>> clarify what list items "not" refers to?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> rootCA:  A base64-encoded string as described in [RFC4648] Section 4
>>>    a trust anchor certificate.  This trust anchor is applicable for
>>>    certificates used for client application access.
>>>    The object is not required, singular, case sensitive, and read/write.  
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> 
>>> rootCA:  A base64-encoded string as described in Section 4 of
>>>    [RFC4648]. It is a trust anchor certificate applicable for 
>>>    certificates used for client application access.
>>>    The object is not required. It is singular, case sensitive, and read/write.
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust the text below as follows to make these list items
>>> more parallel and readable?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> SCIM provides various extension schemas, their attributes, JSON
>>> representation, and example object.  
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> 
>>> SCIM provides various extension schemas and their attributes, along with JSON
>>> representations and example objects.
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 11) <!--[rfced] Because these following URNs appear in an ordered list, the
>>> indentation causes the lines to exceed the 72-character limit. In order to
>>> fit the character limit, we suggest converting the ordered list into a
>>> definitions list as follows. Please review.
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> 
>>> ii.   The pairingJustWorks extension is identified using the
>>>       following schema URI:
>>> 
>>>       urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:pairingJustWorks:2.0:Device
>>> 
>>>       The Just Works pairing method does not require a key to pair
>>>       devices.  For completeness, the key attribute is included and
>>>       is set to 'null'.  The key attribute is required, immutable,
>>>       and returned by default.
>>> 
>>> iii.  The pairingPassKey extension is identified using the following
>>>       schema URI:
>>> 
>>>       urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:pairingPassKey:2.0:Device
>>> 
>>>       The passkey pairing method requires a 6-digit key to pair
>>>       devices.  This extension has one singular integer attribute,
>>>       "key", which is required, mutable, and returned by default.
>>>       The key pattern is as follows:
>>> 
>>>    ^[0-9]{6}$
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> 
>>> pairingJustWorks extension:  Identified using the following schema
>>>    URI:
>>> 
>>>    urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:pairingJustWorks:2.0:Device
>>> 
>>>    The Just Works pairing method does not require a key to pair
>>>    devices.  For completeness, the key attribute is included and is
>>>    set to 'null'.  The key attribute is required, immutable, and
>>>    returned by default.
>>> 
>>> pairingPassKey extension: Identified using the following
>>>    schema URI:
>>> 
>>>    urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:pairingPassKey:2.0:Device
>>> 
>>>    The passkey pairing method requires a 6-digit key to pair
>>>    devices.  This extension has one singular integer attribute,
>>>    "key", which is required, mutable, and returned by default.
>>>    The key pattern is as follows:
>>> 
>>> ^[0-9]{6}$
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] How may we make the two instances below complete sentences in
>>> order to provide more context for the reader?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> 7.2.  Wi-Fi Easy Connect Extension
>>> 
>>> A schema that extends the device schema to enable Wi-Fi Easy Connect
>>> (otherwise known as Device Provisioning Protocol or DPP).  
>>> 
>>> 7.5.  Zigbee Extension
>>> 
>>> A schema that extends the device schema to enable the provisioning of
>>> Zigbee devices [Zigbee].
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> 
>>> 7.2.  Wi-Fi Easy Connect Extension
>>> 
>>> This section describes a schema that extends the device schema to enable Wi-Fi Easy Connect
>>> (otherwise known as Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP)).
>>> 
>>> 7.5.  Zigbee Extension
>>> 
>>> This section describes a schema that extends the device schema to enable the provisioning of
>>> Zigbee devices [Zigbee].  
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.4: FYI - We have added an introductory sentence to the
>>> URN below to match other instances in the document. Please review and let us
>>> know if any further updates are needed.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> The SCIM server MUST know how to process the voucher, either directly or by
>>> forwarding it along to an owner process as defined in the FDO specification.
>>> 
>>> urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:fido-device-onboard:2.0:Device
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> 
>>> The SCIM server MUST know how to process the voucher, either directly or by
>>> forwarding it along to an owner process as defined in the FDO
>>> specification.  The extension is identified using the following schema URI:
>>> 
>>> urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:fido-device-onboard:2.0:Device
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 14) <!--[rfced] We acknowledge this note included in the IANA Considerations section:
>>> 
>>> Note that the line break in URNs should be removed, as should this
>>> comment.
>>> 
>>> However, without the line breaks in the URNs, the tables exceed the 72-character
>>> line limit. We have left the line breaks as is. To keep the URN lines unbroken,
>>> we suggest reformatting to lists rather than tables.
>>> 
>>> For example:
>>> 
>>> URN: urn:iet:params:scim:schemas:extension:fido-device-onboard:2.0:Device
>>> Description: FIDO Device Onboard
>>> Resource Type: Device
>>> Reference: RFC 9944, Section 7.4
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] [BLE54]: Please review the following questions regarding this reference:
>>> 
>>> a) We were unable to find "isRandom" mentioned in [BLE54] as seen
>>> below. Should this citation be updated?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> isRandom:  A boolean flag taken from [BLE54].  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> b) We also note a few instances of "BLE core specifications 5.3" mentioned
>>> throughout this document. However, the Normative References section cites
>>> Version 5.4. Please review and let us know if/how to update accordingly.
>>> 
>>> For example:
>>> 
>>>        "description": "The isRandom flag is taken from the BLE
>>>            core specifications 5.3. If TRUE, device is using a
>>>            random address.  Default value is false.",
>>> 
>>> 
>>> c) Please review our updates to the text below. There are multiple volumes in
>>> [BLE54]; it appears Section 5.4.5 is referring to Volume 1, Part A, Section
>>> 5.4.5 of [BLE54]. Is this the correct section?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> For more information about the use of the IRK, see Section 5.4.5 of
>>> [BLE54].
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>> 
>>> For more information about the use of the IRK, see Volume 1, Part A,
>>> Section 5.4.5 of [BLE54].
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] References:
>>> 
>>> a) We note that [draft-brinckman-nipc] was replaced by [draft-ietf-asdf-nipc].
>>> Should these remain as two separate references? Or, would you like to remove
>>> the citation to [draft-brinckman-nipc] and only keep the 
>>> reference to [draft-ietf-asdf-nipc]?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> b) [JSONSchema] also exists as an Internet-Draft:
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1NRPe2TkJoQInd1kwDqF_ZsFYhaGt5GUUMOLSUVDH0XvGGYa7u148O6dkJWgCFYAxNb-WWnw2fdFclMGqcYLPUohR5qcN6uLBKnvrTPKWOTw9lzU6ICLTsSdFRQmkooBkS6FusZOZFCau5XmiaqMwRxYvvLMpiI9UPSclYJlJ1h_QGC_sJlz4E6MFrfcLUWv7m7SIfriHxz9xmJUUsSfeoFrkZvWqETfwhRYTaiH5De6SjCsyquU5ACPjZpua9kMQDb4xBxiNBA4lfxLsixjxVZj048WSFPXyB1FxYet3VYeX7ntyWMrgO1D89g5RJsAH/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-bhutton-json-schema%2F
>>> 
>>> May we update this reference to point to the Internet-Draft?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> c) We were unable to find Version 2.0 of [DPP2] "Wi-Fi Easy Connect
>>> Specification". We did find Version 3.0 from 2022:
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1CHksDHJ9rnQh4fp9wVHYzG_hf2IgYZtJAKPOuzgpHWArw5M4AAuPoZ0-tP9obhJpBDMBV-ERkMEfKxDxyMI3-r1VTUcfjcWyU2E5c4znlFCfkAyU79BPkDBW6qvj3qRuOOShcOz_FBauuSrSPYrTIGzsN0vfVJ20UmIxkjJ3-G30uoGXkrh0ia3e4NzjKA9oPCkU3RdYIJ8pTtEox4tpMdkcuwUDHreMBSJd2AVmD9IJ-Bck_h5YrLqIv52fL5Ch92gkiL9EipIUnpZpZNi_vjYBY9j7pHDupjVb8mZUQmPKDtnfEZGV39kM4OYwIah3/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wi-fi.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2FWi-Fi_Easy_Connect_Specification_v3.0.pdf
>>> 
>>> Should we update this reference to point to Version 3.0 of the "Wi-Fi
>>> Easy Connect Specification"?
>>> 
>>> Current: 
>>> 
>>> [DPP2]     Wi-Fi Alliance, "Wi-Fi Easy Connect Specification",
>>>            Version 2.0, 2020.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> [DPP3]     Wi-Fi Alliance, "Wi-Fi Easy Connect Specification",
>>>            Version 3.0, 2020, <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1_nu1gsoR8DjRwVhBD0qNylwolO0_L3AV4NAT-byzkl2_5GfQmVNyAsUBV_jsYBTMDCA60Wfwnu2-rugxZsKPN7x-6sFh56ET6Wat1sdBB2Wr0cNOlispWo2Er4DN4DmQkuXbivcKmdBSij3rRbU0tBo8DIGgZbfzQ5KvuoFXoDNS2bnCEiEE47fZrbjcOgeIQ60U3tIbQqPc0FwGlZm8HL49Awk3jGd3C9qBjuPVVAedcSKLenKojTH0gYh-jEZImbQK0SrQxtsI3e_70Iq7t5ZYCntG7YKoI8Nwvx0q3PY83kJcWsreVJ3oRcl19CwL/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wi-fi.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2FWi-
>>>            Fi_Easy_Connect_Specification_v3.0.pdf>.
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Appendix C: Please review the ASCII artwork that appears at the
>>> end of this section. The submitted ASCII artwork does not render or match its SVG
>>> equivalent. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
>>> in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
>>> values for "type"
>>> (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Sg7fuEo7uRBbzR0Br0jROccGOaMOEJ_hTAxT_OepNXlykk4yrVBoGgbmSybQdKUVQR-V0FhhJd79g8Z1l5uRJ_Lj8WU-nI_zVuixWesjoxmMz3ZPEnFkE9C-zRKzxr9Od-rg3JxE_5Js5xGPKfR1UKyLLqu9hR5RyBfOL800yts44a_7x6fkE-OPTi72WBOUIl_b-cLXm3MTNnjH4TDoFU3c2b5No9jBxZ5sNUezVkz6J8ULuj14XMeH6jHdCGSML9-4VAOeMXDKP1TZTUalVsmIcRVRGVFUmwEQkoXLoZ6jO2j8GcC--khHmNzuHqP3/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dsourcecode-types)
>>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.
>>> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.  
>>> 
>>> In addition, review each artwork element. Specifically,
>>> should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another
>>> element? 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] Terminology:
>>> 
>>> a) We note that the following items appear differently throughout this
>>> document (with different quotation marks, capitalization, spacing, etc.).
>>> Please review and let us know if any of these should be updated for
>>> consistency:
>>> 
>>> the device
>>> the Device
>>> 
>>> Device schema
>>> device schema
>>> 
>>> "ResourceType" schema
>>> 
>>> EndpointApp schema
>>> endpointApp schema 
>>> endpoint Apps extension schema
>>> schema for "EndpointApp"
>>> 
>>> resource type 'Device'
>>> resource type, Device
>>> Device resource types
>>> resource "Device"
>>> 
>>> 'EndpointApp' resource type
>>> 'EndpointApp' resource
>>> resource "EndpointApp"
>>> resource "endpointApp"
>>> endpointApp resource object
>>> 
>>> 'deviceControl'
>>> deviceControl
>>> 
>>> 'telemetry'
>>> telemetry
>>> 
>>> 
>>> b) We note that different forms of "true" and "false" are used throughout this
>>> document in running text. May we make these items consistent by updating to
>>> "true" and "false" (lowercase) throughout?
>>> 
>>> TRUE, True > true
>>> FALSE > false
>>> 
>>> 
>>> c) We note a few instances of "NOT" capitalized throughout this document. May
>>> we make these instances lowercase (change "NOT" to "not") for consistency and
>>> so that these do not get mistaken for a BCP 14 keyword?
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations:
>>> 
>>> a) Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), abbreviations should be
>>> expanded upon first use. Please review the items below and let us know if/how
>>> they should be expanded:
>>> 
>>> i)  How may we expand "TO2" below?
>>> 
>>> After this flow is complete, the device can then first provisionally
>>> onboard, and then later receive a trust anchor through FDO's TO2 process.
>>> 
>>> ii) Should "AP" be expanded as "Access Point", "Authenticating Party", or
>>> something else?
>>> 
>>> If set to TRUE, the device could be expected to move within a network of
>>> APs.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> b) May we expand "RESTful" by providing a definition as follows?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> 
>>> confirmationNumber:  An integer which some solutions require in
>>>    RESTful message exchange.  
>>> 
>>> Perhaps:
>>> 
>>>  confirmationNumber:  An integer that some solutions require in
>>>    a RESTful message exchange (where RESTful refers to the Representational
>>>    State Transfer (REST) architecture).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> c) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations. Please review
>>> each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>>> 
>>> Certificate Authority (CA)
>>> Near Field Communication (NFC)
>>> Non-IP Device Control (NIPC)
>>> Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) 
>>> 
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 21) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
>>> Style Guide <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1C0-wbT286kNkNS1e88NTpkZNCAMKC4Lb90skQXoRyhb23zOMZs9CfKCJCIiG6PdI8m8yVU0YkLUE6KIIsRHTR8xpgxpqIyP-KG2H2AccNy5vgzFYL7vOa4QQk4AJDnWT7FS3rxLOiboH9OFJLGadjv3fLWhoC41IXm-9grgcw-zndHXZUTOBoWLf658wswf7infpD8-l1kC_jolUbSjbmFamm-ahgcVIXkrCc9hoHF9-eUSlU7udlJUUZ0d36_nHTSyXO_OEAiBfM2QHHFwtpkT5CC5VizZM8AMreIIRIBKcU4WCJbVyGTEZ4YU2RC9o/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language>
>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.  Updates of this nature typically
>>> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
>>> 
>>> For example, please consider whether "native" should be updated:
>>> 
>>> SCIM clients MUST NOT specify this to describe native IP-based devices.
>>> -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Kaelin Foody and Alanna Paloma
>>> RFC Production Center
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 11, 2026, at 11:39 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>> 
>>> Updated 2026/03/11
>>> 
>>> RFC Author(s):
>>> --------------
>>> 
>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>> 
>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZTmh19LuGuOi6DPX59eYFwq-IkorJMDi92sAx1RoPs3ukkGQdUCkHeyqCZvMz4z4nZa1q7498CDMTGu51gJWEgL0CpMrqSHltUBc8FDlO4rTRoi1gDyf86s33hf1UrWWEfZ_0K0HK3bQKuQobB84zCaC8nEEnojca38ctSFv3Hrz3DNwrIryjA9YcgzExhSyVdfwrCHZSNA9go8SaUn_HMBSZ894W95R_ov5ikAFqB2SW-xwZiFWyoxFZbdTblXJw30GQZU49gjEyysCNx5iUSBSz4jzWhQeS4kBcGZklLNy-tADkMKuSU3Xtkx4MHhB/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F)
>>> 
>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
>>> your approval.
>>> 
>>> Planning your review 
>>> ---------------------
>>> 
>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>> 
>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>> 
>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
>>> follows:
>>> 
>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>> 
>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>> 
>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
>>> 
>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>>> coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>> 
>>> *  Content 
>>> 
>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
>>> change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>> - contact information
>>> - references
>>> 
>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>> 
>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
>>> (TLP – https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Hbd2p7ZVbQTEg24oRuqanq63lIetXKqJxop8WMtZfKHHzHUxLPfVVHXqL8t9zHs11Br4IYEdNsTQcK7vqxmW31qxXydNbo44ThdImBZFFZFBQswchymuzgi2trZJ9qWHuhOnlD9PX9H8k93rULki2w0lK9ng7WSlvi9xfaPlsBkdaA0nVeGd1RKVa2U3eDphrvbXfez05MaPH23yfGBe2lkZB105rOFFFEVjgbUgmOKexZoz1hsUZcX7W4HMBkpLDH5E4fdEWgUxu9HCyIOdwtoDCIYuF7v8r2AzV2zocpAR5uPvQYBBbutajKcurR76/https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-info)
>>> 
>>> *  Semantic markup
>>> 
>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
>>> content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
>>> and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
>>> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1KrOoPQC4GruJQ64FrK-ohYh-eqEfa-B7NDD3n-qzVBrB-rke0OCgSwENlzfbuLuZCK1MOmnsPrahdvbkJn9q3ZrAXaAeWlDh8BVxWKUtT7AYWYT5djp19DQ2GYZsIoMsaDS2zaahKCmsj64r-oy7VAtwdP17ovjWNgbCYbYOmh3CTcqiwL0Y3B5mqQyIgLyiXtKqftiAJU6pmjzTvjXBMpAwY-2cU-dUBT1PaNyJEQSJVCsTm-YKdi4uJzTBA9NXue_Q-5NPiyJwRxldTqWkYF6QyC_CviQJxPJE1KMv9qUS31sVudk0p_uSLhwyLm1G/https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>> 
>>> *  Formatted output
>>> 
>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
>>> reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Submitting changes
>>> ------------------
>>> 
>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
>>> include:
>>> 
>>> *  your coauthors
>>> 
>>> *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>> 
>>> *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
>>>    IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
>>>    responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>> 
>>> *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
>>>    to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
>>>    list:
>>> 
>>>   *  More info:
>>>      https://secure-web.cisco.com/1BAoF0Oh2xlvAWhA-HsJoGflROu4ZXRkHWJdsrl_r553aIaDWS-MXAnJCxh-Fq4nqrggCqJKkiGvtl4UGOLhdcGIDXqlOiVWxG59EdZ5H7242HiCS1RIQZVWm8LFhSzqc5PcsCkvQoR8_bj04njZqHqRtXTyMJoCtVDjhDrKSih2SkyeEHeCdcRgNqGjKJuUx2QtMMt4T5MDq6gaTqcF3rIOwzo-J9fB4AclCoN5Io6ctYhiMsuywP6sJ7hvPR4Obghe7DKakncNVqlacEHAHRlAVycHLX58uU48rDnjEgLhUiFSirPES6hYbjS9jUdeg/https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>> 
>>>   *  The archive itself:
>>>      https://secure-web.cisco.com/1gftLTyV4KjIC-1n3KC9xll0wLo8C64mEOSHcuL9DHCl2ITR4p4YUnhKKMlf-3CXfOMrZ1AomaiScJulgCvy_33uJ6ur5955eeQJdDGJT2D3_-z1LdlMRSP0GEot9uYxBzmUHQj7CFv54CY42hx0NDtp2l7_enhHsEwuJeuMIhRuUW4JqT_7deYZXYSIzwhEAHuhTQCBRLqjkvgizYWl8ZASu_yRZ7aKyuYyahzw8s3-HkTpLYF2mVi56qsGduTIIYKGc3PuJ_NhkCx_Qs2Ab2VdvEUOUKVJvkKwdEEdYDzApAY6Z-A69cuzb3O46k4y9/https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F
>>> 
>>>   *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
>>>      of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>      If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
>>>      have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
>>>      [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
>>>      its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
>>> 
>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>> 
>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>> — OR —
>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>> 
>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> old text
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> new text
>>> 
>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>> 
>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Approving for publication
>>> --------------------------
>>> 
>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Files 
>>> -----
>>> 
>>> The files are available here:
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1szltiMvqunDtK3CKz7X8qmowlaRGbnFFu4Dz_iqVMtOSD38hZ1y1PhwzjuH_QKMeqwLbx7s8iWPIJzZE1KqNQLCYbdXjeAh6P6BFMNjpiRKEMkS7qYQ_X-7DZhrbDddwKfUYOH9i98nAurOJRqB4HSP-xlEfmymG_M6Z60UOjZaSVrkgOnV01_hEmjy0YYmu9UFjNy27SgNcn-8j9bAbRZVgfybTW1d7Dg1ICxnCPOlhyuArIjAXAoR29av2HS8Lb8NRts_ICSmZQJxT0QrCu5xDJX292dMLdSqn-Xb8xHXVyJ5S4Jswn7rfHJaANwjm/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9944.xml
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1MN4yjneRuY4Y66Fl1lQctt59apTD5PX73RojypMRqGuBLRNcv1lSJEidzzY51Hyo8hG4NShz3AR2EUWiR7vEHfrLPiR5Ui53dd_RuQA2jgmiC_11_kVrHEO7i2K5iBAo9SpXw8lEATTUzmj1h_9Y1HZ_MJlrv_RUiu_fd3oDxqhMTLG_VWafbsIVgRVrR7alsFvq2NNVSDdaCxZ3jkSSRdU8AqVIc7g5KA-_8S6fahiHiKGXIpdcSdSAthFl97aMQOFPYTt3ftmhu01Dh3RCP_-3JSRb5aLxuMjDLbFe59UY2aRb7wXP4Rg6mEp6jKd1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9944.html
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1wGaAVXlksoxO60gpqqPc1NVoKM33vchMXOqJH9Dh96zw5G8SPh0gzzEJtLlZxMeG63oaCY0ws_Mx4dBNihDlP30DFtYsFUH7b89v8e1ymulKuwwh-7NzRRj8ES5286hgv3M1oPo5k3l4zt_8XJml3Pwm3YM37IRY7tnsARzOifFFu49aJ3odLorjfKX8SE9bZM9vuAaKtGGdMMUP58z-mFytEYxjBNpMq3fd__UNEdEkKnODV7-TqwDnwXNjeQbvPt9WnD8ZS2Pw1N7XM20L7y7VmB_8TafZ8p18C-ljnPQtH36F1RVQgrCjTOyUNQiB/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9944.pdf
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Qz18JAOLHRZxezk3Y09lP-tfe2kOOBAv_ls7hiyi_jPVCVO3XBdd_GjY28hFoBcLs8cjZxatBwIztzcq-JWggEPKisrmDMkIGBLvJDbckWhO8pTmJonruuWgeRLyPeZK9HrzqAuosn9SN-_unLzux2zsILNjwX6sDxIewTBsZliKaUkALetDq12MeoszvW_NwIdX08hKm5oE-LTMBippzLyMDBr1OnBucQY_BOwRa-159qrWAIjyQ2uz7sSjZ3cEu3E7-_aajkB6q2Pl_smtNC_63Up7QMC_Uzo2ibvukKN3gifp-TyP4U0dPQh3N0cQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9944.txt
>>> 
>>> Diff file of the text:
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1H5CD4WmvcVakvHo8c-sDnPRsGHoCPJODMS63Yg3GiH1dg4uBAFL2NFN4vLqtSHoJ5EYgofQS9U6iVPqHCP_JdJmHxLCFgNvN-Sn_Oq_joS57_B5frDXMkz3iRLf67FuAojZzZnLQSO1Xtyw-SAimk8SWa21xYRROEN45tfDSCrf618IS9tfRMObja7hzodjwcvisCvlzuM-z7JtSEs5H-w5TB_W45m9tSBCc2TwT98kT0OCznvhZ7ds_L_CErzeEVjRX8EfpX8gjMhxdy8iUA0FiUKKvKmyOTB3tElJrc1jSJFzK4iYmWHJlXKeKv-eK/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9944-diff.html
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1G5tEqbUuikCIZP30Ev-rU8U5ynqlbeMRr6crfyyj2Hr29_CAasBCIYvkLDDcYfph4Ok2Du_tequ3qn66gyOFdW7uTGsWqGPD4Sam9DkwBNiUVjuYGUM__eOUHW-Gq8JQiftlmRRdNnl4FEhN-kTKEFf3Un6hbyyknH4w_hJN8T3vrV4bCUgyh77f9KYMCSe2prO9ztc4o6QU9_n4RM80cXFNPV0zDPZURgaDUk08Yaf2rVBuPNwL7bKxS07RyX2S7k-KlTGretip8H8TNyTTe9Ho4zySPwfj4wynqcVIWbjdmz-vcLW52YZ6qt7S7y_M/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9944-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>> 
>>> Diff of the XML: 
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pOrdb0QnSk5kekzJNcTE4XWl5byt6ggRy4GJMVKr7485UDpz9mgwpgzQW2dmgKMbxEG0u3GLp4XyXvdqvih-oxUbuz9UPPn_QndN2KfFNT4afhmx1JQU6l4NrHmQt6hzo6I1RcMxZuVcqfNOJZ3pZ1fsUAiDThiaY8nslxdwXxbF-NUqlZ_F9ehQlQ6j9AdvpGJKVXYnw3P4SRw6h9lCcl3EHfVj80IG9bQhNEPP-8wOvoPYA0pkm3IF5ZgQnKNsZLasamr9lNmhGyX1AsgfljoiqI09THcsAK267zoYgxziDfq1jYibDs50ILRBldoA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9944-xmldiff1.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tracking progress
>>> -----------------
>>> 
>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1kQNcsjzCZzhN-TrMuFs5BAPD1ib3EIQq0BufI1z501cx5jV8fUa1JV_HuJUCqIUtFd1iDItW-g3pb5Yi7TPP3LSomnu8v6TaM0yu5Fqfr3Je5vxAWL2EJRgfyUVk8b598viTSVohJ79UnIRs1D1cKrD3oyQxdFEOlZzTB1l3nwF6xgDSAxxlLm_vktYzDzQoedaP5FAfU-NZNuAYrwWf0smu9KV2kbUbS0Vr6tJ0XxAQycImvK9QdJMxiDQsdjNK3LNfUjz90FYdoPW-G4CkUWAK2dpwEgweNKTbLwBa7P4IdJpJY7aNFva-vo7doIoL/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9944
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC9944 (draft-ietf-scim-device-model-18)
>>> 
>>> Title            : Device Schema Extensions to the SCIM model
>>> Author(s)        : M. Shahzad, H. Iqbal, E. Lear
>>> WG Chair(s)      : Nancy Cam-Winget
>>> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters
> 
>