Re: [scim] Main differences between SCIM 1.1 and SCIM 2.0

Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se> Tue, 28 March 2017 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <samuel@erdtman.se>
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 3016512996E for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=erdtman-se.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 BPJ41NmpmiVT for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 983281294C3 for <scim@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id r203so38379747oib.3 for <scim@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=erdtman-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=s9zOiQbEX2+dPlpc5Ktl0U12Vu0/XPsQRcoCNJ11WOQ=; b=x2mAqeLM5j9Mn5boi2/Zw245jg0CE3BzN9ALob5ot/C6nlZGZBDXzJinUhj1YUOL5F XHNVdeZdEsj1WHKzN15ICjZG5iwubBROyeGTsGu10mcQfiuyZPb4ONNZ4t9In+NlZDLa uYK+lf58qcgxn8iZ3IpNJlgo2jRUSHdZ7EJ8rcZoCgHE5baJ+gfkpo0Bk7BceZcpbZQh RMlTz6uUGegZ2on19iQT7Hny2zDn0nB5RqkChnhlUU4mhEEOaOFyncNoIEkRr4W02cUd ofKPYXU/Fcqj2TfGZksO6XRPjtIQuO8SIfWeZUNsu24rWgp8I/ezmj1kIArUyFUb/e9x AhRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=s9zOiQbEX2+dPlpc5Ktl0U12Vu0/XPsQRcoCNJ11WOQ=; b=IaI8AcS/Hy/iTSPQE0IiezYRWJ3sM22HZA73LmoLyrH1ZmPehPQLLgvb7kjD6xyPo6 4tVNpXWSk+ZSDgDEu0QfEzJ4jZGrOw3r4QM4fWGuZ8V51pJvFvvGCxGe2dQsMqBT4ycy 333YkwSxmTLWuZRXHb8NMd11k02pUpScIXG32zBTMaaGBtiE0/BN1eiJY5vH1PBYwVQI fQouwSs4jXRLNYbv6ZN2a16Mj7Fc9SWgzJMzIYRKhautHG+VzoNe6UREJ7uSg3ebkOoK r/6ygjDqFpX81oHRoSw8n+sb+wlrCpEK0vOMadOwljG58TAWi1xh2YsrqVeqRFBAy6hX UvuQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1P4eq+fZsGrz3/DzwsJj8Ki04MAkp9GAoTzOxfR6aL5EmX4vIPiBG6NXUOHDKmFdXjcxnDznlYchULwg==
X-Received: by 10.202.241.70 with SMTP id p67mr12569599oih.67.1490703095817; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <123f42044dc242d594307e6e7aeff6a7@amlsp7155.grupoamil.com.br>
In-Reply-To: <123f42044dc242d594307e6e7aeff6a7@amlsp7155.grupoamil.com.br>
From: Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:11:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CAF2hCba7Sd3PNH4_=KwchPkw1x7LB_11Z1Cd_PW6s176z6GVtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leandro Gomes de Castro - PMO Diret/BR <leacastro@prestadores.amil.com.br>, "scim@ietf.org" <scim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0950827e028f054bc95c26"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scim/fYtIBVyaSjdQiHNt0fqyogleYOQ>
Subject: Re: [scim] Main differences between SCIM 1.1 and SCIM 2.0
X-BeenThere: scim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 28 Mar 2017 12:11:39 -0000

Adding the scim list.

I would have to do some research before answering that question.

Maybe Phil on the list can without

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 at 22:21, Leandro Gomes de Castro - PMO Diret/BR <
leacastro@prestadores.amil.com.br> wrote:

> Hello Samuel, how are you?
>
> We have an implementation of SCIM 2.0 product, incompatible with CA
> connector, we would like to know the main differences for the SCIM 1.1
> version, to understand the impacts in case of downgrade.
>
> Thank you very much
> *Leandro Castro*
> leacastro@prestadores.amil.com.br
>
> *Aviso legal*
> Esta mensagem, incluindo seus anexos, tem caráter confidencial e seu
> conteúdo é restrito ao destinatário. Caso você a tenha recebido por engano,
> por favor, retorne-a ao destinatário e apague-a de seus arquivos. É
> expressamente proibido qualquer uso não autorizado, replicação ou
> disseminação desta mensagem ou de parte dela, sob qualquer meio.
>
> *Disclaimer*
> This message contains confidential information and is free of virus. The
> information is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and
> delete it from your files. You are hereby notified that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the
> contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
> ------------------------------
>