Re: [scim] device model and scope

["Liuchunchi(Peter)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Elliot,

Sorry for necrobumping such an old thread. But this non-IOT use case/device model was discussed during Brisbane scim wg meeting and I am not sure if I understood correctly.

Can you suggest a few more specific instances of such non-IOT devices?

Best,
Peter

From: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 5:43 PM
To: SCIM WG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [scim] device model and scope


During the f2f meeting (in which my face was on a screen ;-) I think it was Danny who suggested that the device model needs to be expanded to handle the non-IOT use case.  That's a nice meaty topic to take on, so let's start going there.

I had suggested one of two paths: either incorporate some changes to cover that use case, or separate out two models.  The basis for the choice, I think, is commonality.  If there is substantial overlap, then either incorporating additional elements, or creating a standard extension, might be a way to go.

"IOT" is one of those nebulous things, and can sometimes get in the way.  Right now, I could imagine some additional elements for “non-IOT”, which I'll take to mean computers that humans use that have no or limited direct cyber-physical capabilities.  Some of those might include an owner, some policy elements, VPN parameters, etc.  One could imagine the SCIM model reaching all the way into MDM parameters.  But that's just me imagining things without a good understanding of what Danny had in mind.

What I propose is that we get into a discussion about this, and see how far we can get before Prague.  I think the next step, though, is to understand what the new objects/elements would be.

Thoughts?

Eliot