IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [scim] Proposed resolution - root search optionality (ticket 42)

Kelly Grizzle <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com> Tue, 29 October 2013 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com>
X-Original-To: scim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: scim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1326111E822E for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.273
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U3wOybWD2L+3 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0212.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5731011E8285 for <scim@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR04MB393.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.16) by CO1PR04MB395.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.785.10; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:28:37 +0000
Received: from CO1PR04MB393.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.173]) by CO1PR04MB393.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.133]) with mapi id 15.00.0785.001; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:28:37 +0000
From: Kelly Grizzle <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com>
To: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>, "scim@ietf.org WG" <scim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [scim] Proposed resolution - root search optionality (ticket 42)
Thread-Index: AQHO1A4KOlaOMHv1bEK7+jWYZUqh2JoKlc8AgAFrRqA=
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:28:36 +0000
Message-ID: <9677d197b4d145e49cfe42d9553bcd52@CO1PR04MB393.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CE5277E2-886A-4379-9C15-6A57679C1241@oracle.com> <609a469eb1de420d9a598fcc37c68962@BY2PR03MB189.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <609a469eb1de420d9a598fcc37c68962@BY2PR03MB189.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-vipre-scanned: 2523D7BB0059322523D908
x-originating-ip: [2001:4870:600a:500::2]
x-forefront-prvs: 0014E2CF50
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454003)(189002)(199002)(81686001)(81816001)(16601075003)(31966008)(15202345003)(85306002)(33646001)(77096001)(76796001)(56816003)(76576001)(19609705001)(85806002)(15975445006)(76786001)(65816001)(16236675002)(74876001)(54356001)(46102001)(53806001)(51856001)(74366001)(81342001)(81542001)(69226001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(54316002)(76482001)(74502001)(74662001)(56776001)(47446002)(19300405004)(80022001)(83072001)(74316001)(74706001)(59766001)(47736001)(1511001)(4396001)(49866001)(63696002)(79102001)(77982001)(83322001)(47976001)(50986001)(80976001)(87266001)(3826001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR04MB395; H:CO1PR04MB393.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:2001:4870:600a:500::2; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9677d197b4d145e49cfe42d9553bcd52CO1PR04MB393namprd04pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: sailpoint.com
Subject: Re: [scim] Proposed resolution - root search optionality (ticket 42)
X-BeenThere: scim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Simple Cloud Identity Management BOF <scim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/scim>, <mailto:scim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scim>
List-Post: <mailto:scim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:scim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim>, <mailto:scim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:29:09 -0000

I like the text, but think that we should also consider adding a ServiceProviderConfig property that says whether this is supported or not.

--Kelly

From: scim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:scim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 3:48 PM
To: Phil Hunt; scim@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [scim] Proposed resolution - root search optionality (ticket 42)

+1

From: scim-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:scim-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:scim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phil Hunt
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 11:47 AM
To: scim@ietf.org<mailto:scim@ietf.org> WG
Subject: [scim] Proposed resolution - root search optionality (ticket 42)


Proposed text. Replace section 3.2.2.1 Query Endpoints with (ticket 42 - http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/scim/trac/ticket/42 ):

3.2.2.1 Query Enpoints

Resource Queries

A query MAY be performed against any specific resource endpoint or resource. For example:

  *   Resource (e.g. /Users/{userid}),
  *   Resource Type endpoint (e.g. /Users or /Groups)

Root Queries

A server MAY support queries at the server root (e.g. /) for the purpose of returning resources of more than one resource type.

A search against a server root indicates that ALL resources within the server SHALL be included subject to filtering. For example, a filter against 'meta.resourceType' could be used to restrict results to one or more specific resource types.

When processing search operations across endpoints that include more than one SCIM resource type (e.g. a search from the server root endpoint), filters MUST be processed in the same fashion as outlined in Section 3.2.2.2. For filtered attributes that are not part of a particular resource type, the service provider SHALL treat the attribute as if there is no attribute value. For example, a presence or equality filter for an undefined attribute evaluates as FALSE.
Please confirm if you agree with this subtle change which makes root searches optional to the server.

Phil

@independentid
www.independentid.com<http://www.independentid.com>
phil.hunt@oracle.com<mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email