[scim] /ServiceProviderConfig vs. /ServiceProviderConfigs
Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com> Wed, 26 February 2020 17:31 UTC
Return-Path: <randomshelley@gmail.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 693673A0DF5 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:31:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vUraI6Nes1dj for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa35.google.com (mail-vk1-xa35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5A403A0DFF for <scim@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa35.google.com with SMTP id y201so790332vky.8 for <scim@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:30:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=EiNQJLCmY7b84yHZ27MNjeVAdXhCtUfOrWftBbgTS5k=; b=AEZyhirpEU9JaT4sirVyWrXQi8gcqzkRRSRI3yAF39/27dypQm2nP4algj+87qZRZL ht0vSfClPmCGQOR0ANEyC7jj5h0Ls6AYoyEpBuM+kenZdq2z/Zs8UHLUyLASdvfb+w5o zK54hZ7i5QDpL0qxjq63oeqio64LG/uTCy2w5EoM4NVvQZHrG6SKZ8uQE/5popeTD4UQ +Y9z5Y/DiEbGeIQ/RtExA1B9uiTEW1rIb4CcNNfBwELYDkfV3JEPtte8FHIn2VblJeAK Sp52qjcaq6oRh9yknInn4pHSJodcDNpIeU2i6AjinbeBs4GEqx9xvy4HITFMe4lgbFzE rpGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=EiNQJLCmY7b84yHZ27MNjeVAdXhCtUfOrWftBbgTS5k=; b=b5LorRieDgPsU1KU96djNZZwZrhz04ylGHPZH/c5EE1biODoTdnkLNpHSrsLjSlUTl +bizSaEq7nRqpZttmEjcWBrt57wJXhvgC02VUh33EP06RxNNziquNDcqsjTz87lGF3An RUxy09EYaw5Sq18DkmCau8HljRcD9ZG+lRyIONgardLTALox/58rfrlJkmqiBNv3bQC9 ylxE413rez/sRK4NAjrJN2sVhbw+DQgLoGl0IZ3WhiCTI/8SlOokm5K/rAiXPRMR8mBm SbCMSE/v0hktJpBFVgRaHxFgAA66vb+fu9wiVX+u8TCK0HrIY1DydBdfOjcj0ETiztHW EZ9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbhSxO7W9DVo/DmfI8cbF0A1J/caZkysmh3QOY6+HtKC3twnnJ Iis6+iCRko3HmL4AhAB/Qxz2XDbHAIKx5/N1M/CxJmMLoIQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqztNjjUd5IjC4wT99WISyOmPjJP6thN03eN3ZjMqy+nElu3yVk6KzBdxKblwLvIKleKBhnwECiXd/ngkzw+xlo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:1066:: with SMTP id k6mr181592vko.68.1582738258413; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:30:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:30:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CAGUsYPzdDh3Lhmtz-bN+=GYoesX8+NO2jcs72vZNE_5T3AjGzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: scim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa4bca059f7df7eb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scim/C4JHlr5Jn3EPQcqWbSAyd241tk4>
Subject: [scim] /ServiceProviderConfig vs. /ServiceProviderConfigs
X-BeenThere: scim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:31:02 -0000
I just wanted to get some confirmation regarding the service provider configuration endpoint in SCIM 2.0. My understanding from the RFCs [1] and some past discussions (e.g. [3]) is that the endpoint is intended to be* /ServiceProviderConfig *(singular) in SCIM 2.0, despite that it was */ServiceProviderConfigs* (plural) in SCIM 1.1. However, there are some *errata *that state the SCIM 2.0 RFC documents are incorrect and actually should use the plural form [3,4]. I'm assuming these are just erroneous errata? [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7644#section-4 [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scim/8DlmxC-2Ju-VqYCHZwXK2Z6O_90/ [3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4979 [4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4978