Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELETE
Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 14:31 UTC
Return-Path: <randomshelley@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: scim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: scim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1021ADFB4 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:31:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 Lx0GETh7ZKd0 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x230.google.com (mail-ie0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE1F1AD9AB for <scim@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id at1so22899794iec.7 for <scim@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 06:31:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rvLd3Z507lRPXfKurgKaB7U6rQpnCjQeF121cfKPdDc=; b=vUSfxRcCDhhks9XTFlqx3W7KwO4ubr0J+a0jgrXou77H5NOqcSK0ov5vx9Dj+N3CPg +A8tyrkIDrwVwH877fcB145+Z/VfB3pZs1nePfc5hzZJJsYicC8GHWNC467Nm+wPqoc7 EuH0ak/jicoAqAgOkEPOcdrLYo9kbrQBYsGoTPxTt7dY8gPvrsPIiGdL4w+fqRXRqnrW KRXbwsMEsul+YdaMJmKpcZGLg/txn/scDnqIvCKQJ4bDHMhqQoECVqEny169z9Ebzgfx WO7xy23syznZyL36BurKJKp6P2YAu/5IQEwmeYfssdpKoeqjblnRl6dGo/XSs5xayEMX sicw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.93.5 with SMTP id bs5mr747985icc.78.1386081078474; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 06:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.61.170 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:31:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <FC869C5C-8D77-4576-89A0-A10C42811D0A@nexussafe.com>
References: <CAGUsYPx+8z-nouUiyMquOAOjoNrRAyQSLeZMonLNAqe_13i7HA@mail.gmail.com> <FC869C5C-8D77-4576-89A0-A10C42811D0A@nexussafe.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 08:31:18 -0600
Message-ID: <CAGUsYPz+fua9P0TkJFar7eZP=Pf8jNYKCwUiF=Z-QhC0vqAVxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com>
To: Erik Wahlström <erik.wahlstrom@nexusgroup.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec519691d4ffc2204eca2263f"
Cc: "scim@ietf.org" <scim@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELETE
X-BeenThere: scim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:31:23 -0000
204 does seem more inline with the HTTP spec. What value would a message body provide in this scenario? Either way may be a breaking change since the SCIM spec isn't entirely prescriptive about the DELETE response. For what it's worth, we are currently returning 204 in our 1.1 SP implementation. On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Erik Wahlström < erik.wahlstrom@nexusgroup.com> wrote: > Well, it’s thing compared to my late reply :) > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/scim/trac/ticket/39 > The ticket #39 talks about this. I’ve had a small chat with Alexandre who > registered that ticket. He said that both 200 with a text saying body > should be empty and 204 worked, but he preferred 200. > > I kinda prefer a 204. It’s more in line with HTTP spec, but it is a > breaking change so we should really think it through. > > Any thoughts? 200 och 204. > > / Erik > > > On 01 May 2013, at 23:10, Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com> wrote: > > Apologies for the delayed reply to this thread regarding the DELETE > response [1], but +1 to returning a 204. > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scim/current/msg00980.html > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, <scim-request@ietf.org> wrote: > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Kelly Grizzle <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com> >> To: Alexandre Santos <asantos@pingidentity.com>, "scim@ietf.org" < >> scim@ietf.org> >> Cc: >> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:10:28 +0000 >> Subject: Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELETE >> >> The SCIM API spec is not entirely clear here. According to RFC 2616, the >> DELETE operation should work like this: >> >> >> >> A successful response SHOULD be 200 (OK) if the response includes an >> >> entity describing the status, 202 (Accepted) if the action has not >> >> yet been enacted, or 204 (No Content) if the action has been enacted >> >> but the response does not include an entity. >> >> >> >> I can’t think of anything interesting for SCIM to return in a response >> body, so my vote would either be a 200 with an empty response (or just a >> message) or a 204 with no response body. Perhaps we should open an issue >> to clarify this. Thoughts? >> >> >> >> --Kelly >> >> > _______________________________________________ > scim mailing list > scim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim > > >
- [scim] Clarification on body request for DELETE Alexandre Santos
- Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELE… Kelly Grizzle
- Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELE… Phil Hunt
- Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELE… Phil Hunt
- Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELE… Kelly Grizzle
- Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELE… Shelley
- Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELE… Erik Wahlström
- Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELE… Shelley