Re: [scim] data format

We've tested the Azure Active Directory Graph. It's also restful apis exchanging JSON data.

The schema used by Active Directory Graph uses the standard LDAP attributes names (GivenName, Surname, UserPrincipalName, etc...). 
Schemas are therefore incompatible but it's not complex for implementations to develop a "bridge" that convert one format into the other.
I feel that it does not need to be defined in the specs. It's just a matter of creating an extended user schema that uses LDAP attributes names instead of the SCIM attributes names.

--
Regards,
Emmanuel Dreux
http://www.cloudiway.com
Tel: +33 4 26 78 17 58
Mobile: +33 6 47 81 26 70
skype: Emmanuel.Dreux

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com] 
Envoyé : mercredi 29 août 2012 16:45
À : Samuel Erdtman; Leif Johansson
Cc : scim@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [scim] data format

Not sure I quite understand the issue, I thought the issue would be more around the wire format and API then the attributes

-----Original Message-----
From: scim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:scim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samuel Erdtman
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:41 AM
To: Leif Johansson
Cc: scim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [scim] data format

Should we also look att aligning attributes to Windows Azure Active Directory Graph, or is that a completely different discussion?

regards
//Samuel

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/29/2012 03:17 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 8/28/12 6:44 PM, Trey Drake wrote:
>>> Peter,
>>
>>> Would this be in addition to or in lieu of the JSON and XML formats?
>>
>> Trey, that is a good question. There's an XML representation for
>> vCard4 (RFC 6351) and I've contributed to a document defining a JSON 
>> representation (draft-bhat-vcarddav-json), so we could potentially 
>> use those (which seems preferable to defining yet another one-off 
>> data model with both JSON and XML representations).
>> Ideally, I think we'd settle on just one mandatory-to-implement 
>> representation of whatever data model we choose.
>
> My recollection is that the wg in Vancouver expressed a pretty clear 
> consensus that it wanted to deprecate the XML representation in favor 
> of JSON. This will obviously need to be confirmed on the list but it 
> probably means that if vCard is to be considered that JSON version is 
> going to be important.
>
>         Cheers Leif
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlA9v/YACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZnfcTACfRDTzx7cS742H3wIrPeAXYzD0
> Gv8An2AIGV4JsB+gBRZgKxkIU6ZTrMLj
> =Niog
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> scim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
_______________________________________________
scim mailing list
scim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim