Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-scim-api-16.txt
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 13 May 2015 10:02 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1971B2A08 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 03:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yyMVlXRqbO4f for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 03:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDA91B29F0 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 03:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A722CC61; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:02:26 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T3pZ3JJILHrg; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:02:25 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819DA2CC5A; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:02:24 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3A74B94E-57CD-498E-AF39-EAED5C03C572"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <DB52A206-D749-421A-AAAA-E9E78183EF87@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 12:02:22 +0200
Message-Id: <34C8F57D-B613-43A9-B87B-F54EE236932F@piuha.net>
References: <201504221506.t3MF67xd089983@givry.fdupont.fr> <DB52A206-D749-421A-AAAA-E9E78183EF87@yahoo.com>
To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/AKZmzhwmq1r3ItuY2Apf2EbOkgA>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-scim-api.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-scim-api-16.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 10:02:30 -0000
Francis: thanks for the review. Phil: thanks for the update. Jari On 24 Apr 2015, at 22:57, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@yahoo.com> wrote: > Francis, > > Thanks again for the detailed review. > > Comments inline. If no comments, the changes have been made to the draft posted moments ago. > > I believe this should address all of your comments. > > Best regards, > > Phil > > phil.hunt@yahoo.com > >> On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> wrote: >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-scim-api-16.txt >> Reviewer: Francis Dupont >> Review Date: 20150418 >> IETF LC End Date: 20150420 >> IESG Telechat date: unknown >> >> Summary: Ready with nits >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: None >> >> Nits/editorial comments: many! >> - Abstract page 1: a standardized services: >> either 'a standardized service' or 'standardized services' >> >> - Abstract page 1: add at least a comma in: >> a common user >> schema and extension model and a service protocol >> ^ e.g., here >> >> - ToC page 2: >> 3.4.1. Retrieving a known Resource >> ^ Known >> >> - about keywords: IMHO it is far better, less ambigous and BTW >> compliant to avoid lower case keywords. >> >> - 1.1 page 4: some examples of (not very ambigous) lower case "may"s. >> >> - 3.2 page 6: ask the RFC Editor to check the page break is not >> as badly placed as in my paper copy (PATCH alone at last line). >> >> - 3.2 page 7 table 1 and a lot of other places: e.g. -> e.g., >> >> - 3.5.2 page 30: long uri cut issue (there is no perfect solution: >> either cut it into two lines, or insert a line break. But you >> should be consistent in this choice). > Tried to make more consistent. Note: I prioritized trying to maintain alignment with some “id” shortening using “…". When line is still too long, I fail back to putting the value on the beginning of the next line. > > I’ve tried to achieve a balance here, but am open to making further changes to meet IETF “style” where needed. >> >> - 3.5.2 page 31: misplaced comma? >> a patch operation that sets a value's >> "primary" attribute to "true", SHALL cause the server to >> ^ >> > The section was a bit awkward. Rephrased. > >> - 3.5.2 page 31: no closing parenthesis: >> resource (subject to >> ^ >> >> - 3.5.2.2 page 35: missing required SP: >> "path":"members[value eq\"2819c223...919d-413861904646\”]" > > The example appears to be valid. There is no SP between members and [ >> ^ >> >> - 3.5.2.3 page 38: selction -> selection >> >> - 3.6 page 42: from my long list a debatable lower case "should not": >> the previously deleted resource should not fail >> >> - 3.9 page 60: why an upper case "OR" in: >> "attributes" OR >> “excludedAtributes" > > Corrected multiple cases. >> >> - 3.10 page 61: "A" in plurals? >> A Complex >> attributes' Sub-Attributes are referenced >> >> - 5 page 70: bad wording: >> To increase the likelihood that the input and comparison of unicode >> usernames and passwords will work in ways that make sense for typical >> users throughout the world there are special string preparation and >> comparison methods (PRECIS) that MUST be followed for usernames and >> passwords. > > The text comes directly from the introduction of SASLPREPBIS. > >> - 7.2 page 73: spurious comma: >> As mentioned in ,Section >> ^ >> >> - 7.4 page 74: i.e. -> i.e., (the only one I found :-) >> >> - 9.2 page 78: strange ', .'s (missing parameter in a macro?) >> [OpenSearch] >> Clinton, D., "OpenSearch Protocol 1.1, Draft 5", . >> >> [Order-Operations] >> Wikipedia, "Order of Operations: Programming Languages", . >> >> Regards >> >> Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-scim-api-16.txt Francis Dupont
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-scim-api-16.txt Phil Hunt
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-scim-api-16.txt Phil Hunt
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-scim-api-16.txt Jari Arkko