Re: [scim] Issue#25 consensus call

Kelly Grizzle <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com> Thu, 11 April 2013 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.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 6984721F8F4A for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UNU6AoXiGeLz for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F20321F8F2F for <scim@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail209-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.234) by CH1EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (10.43.70.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:08:43 +0000
Received: from mail209-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail209-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26A6C4011B; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:08:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:132.245.1.133; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BLUPRD0412HT003.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: PS-22(zz9371I542Idb82hzz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1155h)
Received-SPF: softfail (mail209-ch1: transitioning domain of sailpoint.com does not designate 132.245.1.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=132.245.1.133; envelope-from=kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com; helo=BLUPRD0412HT003.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail209-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail209-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1365696521110238_13413; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:08:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS035.bigfish.com (snatpool3.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.229]) by mail209-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED4C200AE; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:08:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BLUPRD0412HT003.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (132.245.1.133) by CH1EHSMHS035.bigfish.com (10.43.70.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:08:41 +0000
Received: from BLUPRD0412MB643.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.4.102]) by BLUPRD0412HT003.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.214.164]) with mapi id 14.16.0293.003; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:08:40 +0000
From: Kelly Grizzle <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com>
To: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>, scim WG <scim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [scim] Issue#25 consensus call
Thread-Index: AQHONhkMxNSv3A4Oik+T4RL0GMuFOZjRMIbw
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:08:39 +0000
Message-ID: <56C3C758F9D6534CA3778EAA1E0C34375C3CE9D3@BLUPRD0412MB643.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <5165AEC0.5000008@mnt.se>
In-Reply-To: <5165AEC0.5000008@mnt.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-vipre-scanned: 102616DE0041581026182B
x-originating-ip: [173.226.147.242]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: sailpoint.com
Subject: Re: [scim] Issue#25 consensus call
X-BeenThere: scim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:08:45 -0000

I agree with everything in the proposal except for one thing:

  Queries MAY be performed against a SCIM:
  <list>
    <t>Resource (e.g. /Users/{userid}),</t>
    <t>Resource Type endpoint (e.g. /Users or /Groups), or</t>
    <t>Server Root (e.g. /).</t>
  </list>

IMO querying against the server root should be optional and that SP's should declare support in ServiceProviderConfig.  For directory-backed datastores, this will be easy to support.  However, if the SP is using a relational database backed datastore, this could be difficult to implement in a way that scales.

--Kelly

-----Original Message-----
From: scim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:scim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leif Johansson
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:26 PM
To: scim WG
Subject: [scim] Issue#25 consensus call


Folks,

At Orlando we polled the room and there was clear consensus for closing
25 as suggested in the issue tracker.

This email serves as a confirmation for that consensus call - speak up now if you disagree.

        Leif & Morteza
_______________________________________________
scim mailing list
scim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim