Re: [scim] Clarification on SCIM schema extension URN naming rules

[Brian Demers <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, my last message wasn't clear.

This line:
> The spec states the URN prefix for the IANA registered schema.
probably should have read:
> RFC7643 states the URN prefix for the IANA registered schema.

Because of this, I'm assuming URN's starting with the prefix `
urn:ietf:params:scim:` _should_ be avoided unless the schema is being
developed through or reviewed by the working group (per 10.3.1)?


On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 10:24 AM Phillip Hunt <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I would take a look at the IANA section of RFC7643. It details the
> namespace and registration process for SCIM urns.
>
> Phil
>
> > On Oct 4, 2022, at 7:33 AM, Brian Demers <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Same question here!
> >
> > I gave a SCIM talk yesterday, and Iglossed over this topic, because it
> was not clear to me.
> > The spec states the URN prefix for the IANA registered schema.
> > But that may suggest that non-registered schema should avoid that
> prefix? 🤷
> >
> > -Brian
> >
> >>> On Oct 4, 2022, at 9:13 AM, Stanimir Bozhilov <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2022-09-30 07:37, Danny Zollner wrote:
> >>> Hi SCIM-ers,
> >>> In RFC 7643, as best I can tell, all of the examples of schemas for
> >>> SCIM resources begin with the prefix of
> >>> urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:…, with the sole exception of the text
> >>> on page 29 that refers to the schema for the ResourceType resource.
> >>> This text describing the schema for the ResourceType resource contains
> >>> the following:
> >>> schemaExtensions
> >>>     A list of URIs of the resource type's schema extensions.
> >>>     OPTIONAL.
> >>>     schema  The URI of an extended schema, e.g.,
> >>> "urn:edu:2.0:Staff".
> >>>        This MUST be equal to the "id" attribute of a "Schema"
> >>>        resource.  REQUIRED.
> >>> This example uses urn:edu:2.0:Staff as the example for an extension
> >>> schema, but all other examples of schemas in RFC 7643 that I could
> >>> find use the ietf namespace. In a discussion I was having with a
> >>> colleague of mine a few months ago, it was stated that the only schema
> >>> URNs that should be using the urn:ietf:.. namespace are ones contained
> >>> in IETF-managed drafts or RFCs. I've worked with dozens of SCIM
> >>> service provider implementers in the past few years, and possibly
> >>> without exception all implementers that have custom schema extensions
> >>> do something equivalent to
> >>> urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:CompanyName:2.0:User.
> >>> I'd like to get input from others in the working group - is it correct
> >>> that for non-IETF managed schemas - such as those that are custom to a
> >>> single SCIM implementation - that a schema extension URN should not
> >>> begin with urn:ietf:… but instead virtually anything else - i.e.:
> >>> urn:foo:bar, or the example above of urn:edu:2.0:Staff?
> >>> If it is the case, then I've got the following questions:
> >>>   * Does improper schema URN naming(improper usage of urn:ietf:.. )
> >>> have any negative impact?
> >>>   * For future guidance on this topic as part of the SCIM 2.0 standard,
> >>> should any consideration be given to the fact that the overwhelming
> >>> majority of SCIM 2.0 implementers have implemented their extensions
> >>> starting with urn:ietf:..?
> >>>   * If a future version increase of SCIM happens - 2.1, 3.0, etc -
> >>> should clearer guidance on proper versus improper schema URN naming be
> >>> given, including explicit guidance that urn:ietf:… is reserved?
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Danny Zollner
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> scim mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Danny,
> >>
> >> We're currently facing the same issue where it's not completely clear
> how one is supposed to define the URN of new resources or extensions in
> SCIM.
> >>
> >> For the time being, we took the approach where we have the
> "urn:ietf:..." prefix and at the end of the URN we have
> "CompanyName:2.0:SomeResourceType". However, we weren't really sure whether
> this was actually proper naming and so we could easily change the URN
> naming in case it turns out that this is not the right way to go about
> naming new resources and/or schema extensions.
> >> Regarding this matter, we'd also be particularly interested in feedback
> and official guidance on how such naming should be done in general.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Stanimir Bozhilov
> >>
> >> --
> >> Stanimir Bozhilov
> >> Tel: [phone]
> >> Fax: [phone]
> >>
> >> http://www.audriga.com | http://www.twitter.com/audriga
> >>
> >>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> audriga GmbH |  Alter Schlachthof 57  | 76137 Karlsruhe
> >> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Karlsruhe - Amtsgericht Mannheim - HRB 713034
> >> Geschäftsführer: Dr. Frank Dengler, Dr.-Ing. Hans-Jörg Happel
> >>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> scim mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > scim mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
>