Re: [scim] Feedback and adoption readiness for draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension

I did have a side-discussion with Danny and he confirmed that the omission
of the required SCIM fields is just an artifact of being a draft.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 11:02 AM Matt Peterson (mpeterso) <
Matt.Peterson@oneidentity.com> wrote:

> Danny,  Chad,
>
>
>
> I agree with Chad’s feedback about id.   For us it would be best for us if
> Roles and Entitlements resources had the following attributes that match
> other SCIM resources (i.e. users, groups):
>
>
>
> *id* ß this one is particularly important.   I think that the draft uses
> “value” instead of “id”.   I much prefer “id” as it is already assumed by
> most developers to be an immutable value that can be queried directly by
> URL (or referenced by contains/containsBy)
>
>
>
> *meta* ß described in RFC7644 section 3.1.  meta.created and
> meta.lastChanged have been useful for us when dealing with users/groups
>
>
>
> *displayName* – instead of “display” would be consistent with
> “displayName” on users and groups the name “suitable for display to
> end-users”.
>
>
>
> *description* – instead of “type”?   For our Identity Management
> products, the human readable description of what a Role and Entitlement
> grants access to are very important.  In most application authorization
> models, this is the “description” of the role or “description” of the
> entitlement.
>
>
>
> *containsBy / contains* – slight wording change to make it clear that
> this is a list of **ids**.  Consider reusing some of the wording from RFC
> 7644 that describes Group.member and User.memberOf?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> P.S. Sorry for taking so long to read this draft properly. It is important
> to us and, with the suggestions above, it matches the model we already use
> in our Identity Management products.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* scim <scim-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Chad Vincent
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 3, 2022 3:09 PM
> *To:* scim@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [scim] Feedback and adoption readiness for
> draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> I love this - we use roles currently and having a more formal spec and
> ability for the client to read what's available could come in very handy in
> the future.  So mark me down as a 5.
>
>
>
> However, these resources not including the common attributes set mandated
> by RFC 7643 section 3.1 should be explained/clarified in the RFC.  The
> Apache SCIMple library will have to handle these resources as special-cases
> since they won't have the required "id" field, for example.  That seems
> major enough to justify a paragraph.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
> To: SCIM WG <scim@ietf.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 23:40:10 +0000
> Subject: [scim] Feedback and adoption readiness for
> draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension
>
> Hello SCIMers,
>
>
>
> We need feedback on to gauge support and adoption readiness of:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension/ <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmatt.peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Cb93c1a9df1ce43b1579108dabddfa2fd%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C1%7C638031065457274469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tBa11%2Fiu9KqiI09Hj7jMIj1ylO0autjBHncMlTYKuAQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Please respond to this thread on the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>   1.  You have read the draft and believe it is ready to be adopted by the working group. Any other feedback on the content of the draft is welcomed too.
>
>   2.  You are willing to be an active contributor or reviewer of the document
>
>   4.  You support the draft and plan to implement
>
>   5.  You support the draft but have no time or plans to implement now, but can provide feedback
>
>   6.  You have no interest in the draft
>
>
>
> Please provide your feedback by November 28th.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Nancy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Lanzi <paul@remediant.com>
> To: SCIM WG <scim@ietf.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:50:26 -0700
> Subject: Re: [scim] Feedback and adoption readiness for
> draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension
>
> #4 for me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Paul
>
> ᐧ
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 4:40 PM Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hello SCIMers,
>
>
>
> We need feedback on to gauge support and adoption readiness of:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension/ <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmatt.peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Cb93c1a9df1ce43b1579108dabddfa2fd%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C1%7C638031065457274469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tBa11%2Fiu9KqiI09Hj7jMIj1ylO0autjBHncMlTYKuAQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Please respond to this thread on the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>   1.  You have read the draft and believe it is ready to be adopted by the working group. Any other feedback on the content of the draft is welcomed too.
>
>   2.  You are willing to be an active contributor or reviewer of the document
>
>   4.  You support the draft and plan to implement
>
>   5.  You support the draft but have no time or plans to implement now, but can provide feedback
>
>   6.  You have no interest in the draft
>
>
>
> Please provide your feedback by November 28th.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Nancy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> scim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fscim&data=05%7C01%7Cmatt.peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Cb93c1a9df1ce43b1579108dabddfa2fd%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C1%7C638031065457274469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=f2tiwDDzqDIAc5kxRVv68eML%2BRYKvXVmjsvghNhRqPY%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> scim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fscim&data=05%7C01%7Cmatt.peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Cb93c1a9df1ce43b1579108dabddfa2fd%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C1%7C638031065457274469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=f2tiwDDzqDIAc5kxRVv68eML%2BRYKvXVmjsvghNhRqPY%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Chad Vincent (he/him) | Software Engineer, Senior - CrashPlan
>
> chad.vincent@crashplan.com
>
> 400 S 4th St Suite 410 PMB 31083 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1419
>
>
>
>
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrashplan.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmatt.peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Cb93c1a9df1ce43b1579108dabddfa2fd%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C1%7C638031065457274469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E3DXK05Ij39M3yKNiydGKTgd2kDIaBJeE4R%2BLZlefuQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>

-- 

Chad Vincent (he/him) | Software Engineer, Senior - CrashPlan

chad.vincent@crashplan.com

400 S 4th St Suite 410 PMB 31083 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1419

<https://crashplan.com>