Re: [scim] HTTP Status Code 501

Phillip Hunt <phil.hunt@independentid.com> Tue, 25 February 2020 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <phil.hunt@independentid.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 DBAF23A1539 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:27:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=independentid-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 qtiZDhyrXiov for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:27:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (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 44CCB3A1536 for <scim@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:27:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id y1so272432plp.7 for <scim@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:27:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=independentid-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=/yWtHqc/evCQVW2c8JBRyUr3cYaqP8ezCfJHK8LWfWk=; b=mQ8O/soSQtjhNENUhI5K56HdzsFGyGuvpV7/difPCTZLcrjTcSYTK0BYRWfx0nClxY Mwbmn9VthU2soa4mKluau0zW3t13qBFhr5bh6Ravalwtx8rZ30pWed5apS3A2UnYU5dQ i4Ov8PrGBNxvjkTQ6IFCk5Q2F5S3AhzKODbaxP4KODyZBQEsefD2DwB4kzIJXfWSkzF2 EuQDWn0fCGA6OMQZxH27pqbDQB4tSLycy461KpNaOBaBfbzgO3Y2oP7gU2mVoVOHszK8 6mXQUoYG3jwxWW1ZI72UE12R/0YePoTgua+TOgD00eIxPQ5gZIUCabhiPJPRlHXUfKrq 3zgQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=/yWtHqc/evCQVW2c8JBRyUr3cYaqP8ezCfJHK8LWfWk=; b=jub1JTt27d2dJAcBWGr7Fq1FPAC29D/6jhKFtvw78LKC/eaz+jY9jWZRjp6LSHFJzk v2kTDeXCRQPLfWDs1ddoEfVvL498bJRhAHAKM+7JeLzLeGNp1+b818RVYLA5/PrRwsm+ etYAsjHk0J8ZJ0azh4LbeOkEAy9a4MGERk4PfgTZQW08TDPReEQNHS9iB1f7QfNq6os0 R/ZxjdqF9yvIKINFmdYKHKyxdj37N0NCu4HLT7KWpI0ksDsGxzT5lQvnT9UOrVzuNksN IAvj+ao4QxTLD1hdeuG2wl2n0c5iwtK8s6bwLKAVAk69ENK4YfsRw+tKavUx30iUL1Bh dhAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUoUlQzuucc8DmquiI6ADq2igSnXVzz8/8cBixac2po94+SL0Ta Qwcn9QlevxKXGOkpeJ/2aMWEZ79tI/I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdLZckB88Tjmdued4hZzOOjLT8l4mu6oTf7dH/pevExKb+Zp7RC5DTfmTCcJOKMRC2zk9c7w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8a8e:: with SMTP id p14mr332307plo.28.1582662455385; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:27:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2605:8d80:444:2313:441a:e733:9b99:bb05? ([2605:8d80:444:2313:441a:e733:9b99:bb05]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g19sm18207733pfh.134.2020.02.25.12.27.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:27:34 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-A5D6366D-67FD-4F20-9868-9B62CF95D3E9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Phillip Hunt <phil.hunt@independentid.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:27:24 -0800
Message-Id: <E5E6D45A-9156-45FE-9ECB-67CBDCCD1D22@independentid.com>
References: <CAGUsYPw+rekBBjQ1WrPHejcOx=VGnPJrY44r6myVQ3PGYk30XA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: scim@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAGUsYPw+rekBBjQ1WrPHejcOx=VGnPJrY44r6myVQ3PGYk30XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scim/P5rESqm1ZHqa1U8Qg9M-KHGzSjQ>
Subject: Re: [scim] HTTP Status Code 501
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: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:27:38 -0000

There are two possibilities:
- 501 the function of alias path mapping a security credential to a resource is not available
- 404 would make sense if the security credential used does not map to a scim resource in the server.

Phil

> On Feb 25, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> /Me Endpoint Support
> 
> The SCIM 2 specification indicates that if a service provider does not support the "/Me" endpoint, it should respond with HTTP 501 [1].
> 
> This doesn't seem inline with the HTTP specification, which indicates that 501 is used when the server does not recognize the request method [2].
> 
> In the case of the "/Me" endpoint, however, the server does recognize the method (GET), but simply does not support a representation for the requested resource, which seems more inline with a 404 [3].
> 
> What was the reasoning behind the 501? Given the requirement is a "SHOULD" recommendation, I'm inclined to return the HTTP standard 404 in my service provider implementation, instead of the SCIM recommended 501.
> 
> PATCH Operation Support
> 
> The SCIM 1.1 and 2.0 specifications also imply that 501 should be returned when PATCH is not supported [4]. This also seems to violate the HTTP spec, if the server recognizes the PATCH method, but simply does not support this method for the requested resource. Instead, a 405 (Method Not Allowed) [5] seems more appropriate.
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7644#section-3.11
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.6.2
> [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.4
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7644#section-3.12
> [5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.5
> 
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> scim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim