IETF Logo Mail Archive

[scim] Feedback on proposed extensibility changes

Kelly Grizzle <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com> Wed, 03 April 2013 16:03 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 3DA3221F8510 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 ftNC5ebyX8iu for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db8outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db8lp0184.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E05A21F84C1 for <scim@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail220-db8-R.bigfish.com (10.174.8.226) by DB8EHSOBE024.bigfish.com (10.174.4.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:03:36 +0000
Received: from mail220-db8 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail220-db8-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD6D320166 for <scim@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:132.245.1.133; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BLUPRD0412HT001.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -21
X-BigFish: PS-21(zzc85fh4015Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL17326ah8275dh18c673h8275bhz31h2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh1155h)
Received-SPF: softfail (mail220-db8: 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=BLUPRD0412HT001.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail220-db8 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail220-db8 (MessageSwitch) id 1365005014831907_6086; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:03:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB8EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.8.235]) by mail220-db8.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B259A2004B for <scim@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:03:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BLUPRD0412HT001.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (132.245.1.133) by DB8EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (10.174.4.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:03:32 +0000
Received: from BLUPRD0412MB643.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.4.102]) by BLUPRD0412HT001.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.214.162]) with mapi id 14.16.0287.008; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:03:28 +0000
From: Kelly Grizzle <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com>
To: "scim@ietf.org" <scim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Feedback on proposed extensibility changes
Thread-Index: Ac4wg8bR6O3OOf0fTRi6xTna3xHEtw==
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:03:28 +0000
Message-ID: <56C3C758F9D6534CA3778EAA1E0C34375C3C5DCE@BLUPRD0412MB643.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-vipre-scanned: 367AD8FE00408E367ADA4B
x-originating-ip: [173.226.147.242]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_56C3C758F9D6534CA3778EAA1E0C34375C3C5DCEBLUPRD0412MB643_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: sailpoint.com
Subject: [scim] Feedback on proposed extensibility changes
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:03:39 -0000

In Orlando I proposed some changes to clarify the schema extension model within SCIM.  Solving this would introduce some non-backwards compatible changes, but this is an important issue to solve as more people start to deploy SCIM in different ways.

Please review the problem statement in issue #38 (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/scim/trac/ticket/38) and the high-level proposed changes that are outlined in comment #1.   I would like to get some feedback from the working group before trying to add these changes into the drafts.

Thanks,
--Kelly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email