Re: [scim] Call for support on proposed SCIM/SINS (re)charter

[Danny Mayer <[e-mail]>]

I don't know what scenarios would require more than one ID for the scim 
protocol. You are not logging into the system, it's a REST service call, 
and only one system should be performing management on that system. 
What's the use case for more than one application making scim protocol 
calls?

Danny

On 9/13/21 8:22 PM, Phillip Hunt wrote:
>
> Ahem. Maybe just change the maximum results limit for privileged 
> clients that need it?
>
> Maybe this is a best practice item?
>
> Phil
>
>> On Sep 13, 2021, at 4:53 PM, Danny Mayer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> The experience I've had in doing pagination mostly (but not 
>> exclusively) involved HR systems which had a 1000 per response limit 
>> but were not related to usage of scim. However any API call that 
>> returns a list can be subject to a limit by the scim server, most 
>> likely in order to preserve resources and not to tax the memory.
>>
>> Danny
>>
>> On 9/13/21 5:45 PM, Matt Peterson (mpeterso) wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> Pagination and Synchronization show up under the same bullet in the 
>>> charter, but, like you, I think of them as separate (possibly 
>>> related) topics.  I am interested in both topics.
>>>
>>> As proof, I’m hoping to get feedback from anyone that has additional 
>>> pagination use case besides the “use of pagination for initial load 
>>> of synchronized objects”:
>>>
>>>  1. Fetch all users and groups for the application side cache so
>>>     that the application can use this cache to quickly make
>>>     authorization decisions. ß Pagination
>>>  2. Incrementally keep the application-side cache of users and
>>>     groups up to date with changes being made on the SCIM server. ß
>>>     Synchronization
>>>
>>> One classic use case for pagination is to support pages of results 
>>> in a UI.   Like Google search results.   Is anyone doing this?
>>>
>>> We aren’t.  For UI to find/search SCIM objects, we use a more modern 
>>>  “Typeahead Find” pattern that is preferred by our users – and it 
>>> does not require pagination.
>>>
>>> Again… I don’t know all the use cases for pagination.  I’m sure 
>>> there are more out there that are very relevant.  Step one is making 
>>> a list of reasons people need pagination.
>>>
>>> *From:* Danny Mayer <[e-mail]>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 13, 2021 2:27 PM
>>> *To:* Matt Peterson (mpeterso) <[e-mail]>om>; 
>>> Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <[e-mail]>om>; Phil Hunt 
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc:* [e-mail]
>>> *Subject:* Re: [scim] Call for support on proposed SCIM/SINS (re)charter
>>>
>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
>>> not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you 
>>> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> Synchronization and paging are different issues and should be 
>>> handled separately. You may need paging for synchronization but that 
>>> may not be the only case. I don't personally know of other cases but 
>>> I would like to hear other people's experience of this so that the 
>>> requirements be properly included in the draft RFCs.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>>
>>> On 9/13/21 11:02 AM, Matt Peterson (mpeterso) wrote:
>>>
>>>     Danny,
>>>
>>>     One of the goals of the workgroup is to understand what the
>>>     pagination use cases are (besides initial loading of object set
>>>     to be synchronized).
>>>
>>>     I’m eager to start keeping track of pagination use cases.  Can
>>>     you posting to the list the use cases that you are thinking of
>>>     you’d need pagination for?   Thanks!
>>>
>>>     *From:* scim <[e-mail]>
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Danny Mayer
>>>     *Sent:* Friday, September 10, 2021 6:11 PM
>>>     *To:* Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)
>>>     <ncamwing=[e-mail]>
>>>     <mailto:ncamwing=[e-mail]>; Phil Hunt
>>>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     *Subject:* Re: [scim] Call for support on proposed SCIM/SINS
>>>     (re)charter
>>>
>>>     *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of the
>>>     organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open
>>>     attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
>>>     is safe.
>>>
>>>     Pagination and synchronization are really different issues.
>>>     Synchronization MAY need pagination but not necessarily. There
>>>     are other reasons why pagination may be necessary.
>>>
>>>     Danny
>>>
>>>     On 9/10/21 8:00 PM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) wrote:
>>>
>>>         Thanks for the feedback Phil.  I’m trying to determine
>>>         proposed changes to the charter text…..I suspect there might
>>>         have been a translation issue for synchronization being more
>>>         about pagination than paging?
>>>
>>>         If you can provide suggested updates, it will be helpful to
>>>         rally agreement for the updates too.
>>>
>>>         Best, Nancy
>>>
>>>         *From: *Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         *Date: *Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM
>>>         *To: *ncamwing <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         *Subject: *Re: [scim] Call for support on proposed SCIM/SINS
>>>         (re)charter
>>>
>>>         Nancy,
>>>
>>>         Thanks for putting this together.
>>>
>>>         For this go around my interest lies mainly in Events and
>>>         Synchronization and profiles.  I am willing to provide
>>>         updated drafts for this process after some initial agreement
>>>         on cases.  Drafts already in the archive (they may be fairly
>>>         out of date!):
>>>
>>>         * SCIM Events - draft-hunt-idevent-scim
>>>         <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-hunt-idevent-scim&data=04%7C01%7CMatt.Peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Ca46f65d815bb4b0a23a808d976f4e531%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C0%7C637671616475053385%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=WMiHg3saMHfMs1hpvfbpMlBtvpDlW6l5KxYI9s%2B1pYc%3D&reserved=0>
>>>         (needs to be updated to reflect the work we did in RFC8417)
>>>
>>>         * OpenId Connect Profile for SCIM -
>>>         https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-scim-profile-1_0.html
>>>         <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fspecs%2Fopenid-connect-scim-profile-1_0.html&data=04%7C01%7CMatt.Peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Ca46f65d815bb4b0a23a808d976f4e531%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C0%7C637671616475063383%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=GO3%2By2rzIuUXWTn5uYVhRZlKrOLZs%2BJbsA6Ue%2BaAqpk%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>         Regarding the MV-Paging draft.  This draft has nothing to do
>>>         with synchronization and is intended for clients who need to
>>>         pull a limited number of values in a multi-valued-attribute
>>>         in situations such as large groups. Most typical use would
>>>         be in building a user interface allowing the searching of MVAs.
>>>
>>>         As far as exploring using paging as a synchronization
>>>         approach is not something we should explore (ie in the
>>>         charter). IMHO this appraoch an anti-pattern.  If its
>>>         needed, I am happy to add text in the best practices or
>>>         elsewhere as to why this isn’t a great approach from the
>>>         perspective of security, DoS, timeliness, scale, and cost.
>>>
>>>         That said, a couple people indicated they wanted stateful
>>>         paging. Unfortunately they didn’t elaborate on a use case.
>>>
>>>         Phil Hunt
>>>
>>>         @independentid
>>>
>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             On Sep 8, 2021, at 5:21 PM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)
>>>             <ncamwing=[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:ncamwing=[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Hello SCIM participants,
>>>
>>>             After some virtual meetings (thank you Pam for hosting
>>>             these!) and discussion, there is a new proposed charter
>>>             that addresses the points raised at the IETF 111 SINS
>>>             session.
>>>
>>>             This is a call for support of the charter defined below,
>>>             please provide your response by Sept. 24, 2021.
>>>
>>>             As you respond in support for the charter, please also
>>>             specify if you are willing to produce, review and/or
>>>             implement the resulting documents.
>>>
>>>             Otherwise, do provide feedback in the time window if
>>>             there are concerns or issues you see with the charter below:
>>>
>>>
>>>               Charter
>>>
>>>             The System for Cross-domain Identity Management (SCIM)
>>>             specification is an HTTP-based protocol that makes
>>>             managing identities in multi-domain scenarios easier.
>>>             SCIM was last published in 2015 and has seen growing
>>>             adoption.
>>>
>>>             One goal for this working group is to shepherd SCIM,
>>>             currently RFC series 7642
>>>             <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc7642&data=04%7C01%7CMatt.Peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Ca46f65d815bb4b0a23a808d976f4e531%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C0%7C637671616475073378%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=oLizxx9sLS7M7VO9g9q58VMEg2MmQAOfr1vVW%2FeEB3M%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>             7643
>>>             <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc7643&data=04%7C01%7CMatt.Peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Ca46f65d815bb4b0a23a808d976f4e531%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C0%7C637671616475073378%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PMP0OLBA%2FeTnUBvPQ98nPc%2BLtcLt0g6eDfaPmUs6J%2Fs%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>             7644
>>>             <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc7644&data=04%7C01%7CMatt.Peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Ca46f65d815bb4b0a23a808d976f4e531%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C0%7C637671616475083370%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=4TzG7KMTWS2xR%2F90Dg7am9d3uux2AEsljnKxi6MXIlA%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>             through the Internet Standard process. The group will
>>>             deliver revised specifications for the SCIM requirements
>>>             as Informational, and for the SCIM protocol and base
>>>             schema suitable for consideration as a Standard. This
>>>             work will be based upon the existing RFCs, errata and
>>>             interoperabilty feedback, and incorporate current
>>>             security and privacy best practices.
>>>
>>>             In addition to revising the requirements, protocol and
>>>             base schema RFCs, the group will also consider
>>>             additional specifications as extensions to SCIM that
>>>             have found broad adoption and are ready for standards
>>>             track. This includes profiles and schemas for
>>>             interoperability in additional scenarios. The working
>>>             group will develop additional Proposed Standard RFCs
>>>             based on outcomes of the following work:
>>>
>>>              1. Revision of the informational RFC 7642 will:
>>>
>>>                  1. Focus on Use cases and implementation patterns
>>>
>>>                      1. Pull vs. Push based use cases
>>>                      2. Events and signals use cases
>>>                      3. Deletion use cases
>>>
>>>                  2. New use cases may be added to the revised RFC
>>>
>>>              2. Revision of RFC 7643/44 will include:
>>>
>>>                  1. Profiling SCIM relationships with other
>>>                     identity-centric protocols such as OAuth 2.0,
>>>                     OpenID Connect, Shared Signals, and Fastfed
>>>                  2. Updates to the evolution of the externalid usage
>>>
>>>              3. Document SCIM support for synchronization-related
>>>                 goals between domains focused on:
>>>
>>>                  1. Handling returning large result sets through
>>>                     paging, based on [draft-hunt-scim-mv-paging-00]
>>>                  2. Incremental approaches to synchronization
>>>
>>>              4. Support for deletion-related goals including:
>>>
>>>                  1. Handling Deletes in SCIM Servers that don’t
>>>                     allow Deletes (Soft Deletes) - based on
>>>                     [draft-ansari-scim-soft-delete-00]
>>>
>>>              5. Support for advanced automation scenarios such as:
>>>
>>>                  1. Discovery and negotiation of client credentials
>>>                  2. Attribute mapping
>>>                  3. Per-attribute schema negotiation
>>>
>>>              6. Enhance the existing schema to support exchanging of
>>>                 HR, Enterprise group and privileged access
>>>                 management (using draft-grizzle-scim-pam
>>>                 <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fid%2Fdraft-grizzle-scim-pam-ext-00.html&data=04%7C01%7CMatt.Peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Ca46f65d815bb4b0a23a808d976f4e531%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C0%7C637671616475093372%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=woNtUiY5QKELNZayuM2Qw7gAgl0Pbf7cZ4bSsHOSMPs%3D&reserved=0> as
>>>                 a base)
>>>
>>>             Best, Nancy (as one of the BoF chairs)
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             scim mailing list
>>>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
>>>             <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fscim&data=04%7C01%7CMatt.Peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Ca46f65d815bb4b0a23a808d976f4e531%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C0%7C637671616475093372%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=o3ErZ8qFl5rkAgQ13peqw%2B0JUzY1iBl35HHR1YddOvY%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>         scim mailing list
>>>
>>>         [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim  <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fscim&data=04%7C01%7CMatt.Peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Ca46f65d815bb4b0a23a808d976f4e531%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C0%7C637671616475103368%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=XuV7MLYaKK1AXeqtGtFLr00wTjEAC567%2FccPBZ%2FzyjI%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>     scim mailing list
>>>
>>>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim  <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fscim&data=04%7C01%7CMatt.Peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Ca46f65d815bb4b0a23a808d976f4e531%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C0%7C637671616475113358%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2vduvTBDkOfiiupZkQ%2B3Kn%2BrKJM5EZZhycEn5dJX4uM%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> scim mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
>
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim