Re: [scim] Uniqueness Violation Response Code

Phillip Hunt <phil.hunt@independentid.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <phil.hunt@independentid.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 EA7E83A0955 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=independentid-com.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 71jOq_Hni9_0 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x636.google.com (mail-pl1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (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 0A0233A0948 for <scim@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x636.google.com with SMTP id t3so3145180plz.9 for <scim@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=independentid-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=7a9XznBZwld2kxDf0MztGjQs28p/4HwRS9B0hs2idaQ=; b=ZZWsYRBgSvZLUftt5tkNdp/ss9KQnol6qLqxF+QDLiYyRaEn7OsZKQMPO08Nac5MPK sCV4AAvg2abyJuc5cW1NHdbHiHpQPMwpXKTU2ZDQe4jV2oiSZQzdbE27S45GUaTITmtM HtbuamxXqTKYkfGegbSs6Z15ZD30xDlnDjpybtxXJh4mJNPCtqoAC+8YbQMYAezfELwy s9rY9GEWpfokaONmd2gV9LwA/SpcsVmSI0ZCZHaWAWIpTYoIMBuD9vB8pFeUMpW5pIE8 WoR8GoYysM9HelWanGO5n3SvsyouM0tVWjJGKsDWT5ZXS1slDsMsvviDZ+44Mbl3Ay5s 2W7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=7a9XznBZwld2kxDf0MztGjQs28p/4HwRS9B0hs2idaQ=; b=slQo7pQfNcaRf6xRbT7/oUAPhUPbvtmPBHioXW3lgMIed1yiVkb3ZnAXfz7+Ujcr4J 3slD1IyaSH/Ixlpx8KaD5GfTJUmkyA4GAskzrhjENim5vpfkQVgFiGSlbtucBsgE/DVc fX7iZr5I5zhpkQRIV7oxsjAN3LOOmYddkS0YS2GB8KKngoXTvzSMARb2fnDkJtJEayrf SpVEol/WNfDtVreMbWpDMC9pw4n183bI4CySJrqHzSurLC6crQl6KUUcxRSwjvBKnFHD +Iw1IyVD9bVB4ZCsQ9RWAmtbWRMTVnUv0avn7aPHawBVy2bomIaQGbceU26mhk0J6BMS l1kQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0iFa9NC3xnd1QBWPc+2bzd6XLMQRkw+TLPhIMq4dSEl1jynF1J xHy/K6Xtb0oooHZp6vf03Io8Lv35Zda/hA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vsQP9xsO0gb8g/yrqYl9Ghdme0+1unOLQ8v7Z3+?= =?utf-8?q?3UnXbuhRtkf1zwhtNhB7lMRrIPBA0Qlybw=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:e7c4:: with SMTP id kb4mr5874282pjb.172.1584046968031; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:569:79bc:100:85e3:f52f:b363:343b? (node-1w7jr9qqo6k57c0xs7jzcd263.ipv6.telus.net. [2001:569:79bc:100:85e3:f52f:b363:343b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v5sm4944667pff.209.2020.03.12.14.02.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-92AC60A7-C420-4DAE-9ABC-0E5D789D34AC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Phillip Hunt <phil.hunt@independentid.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:02:47 -0700
Message-Id: <38B447C6-4ACA-45BE-8E15-FEC74299DA38@independentid.com>
References: <CAGUsYPxvBj6839SjPgDhsU1Z=2-5MHFJRvDNTU5WvacreLuZdA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: scim@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAGUsYPxvBj6839SjPgDhsU1Z=2-5MHFJRvDNTU5WvacreLuZdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scim/hzFn_KCvvfPdXQqHwnd-cvgH-nE>
Subject: Re: [scim] Uniqueness Violation Response Code
X-BeenThere: scim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 21:02:51 -0000

It seems to me that http protocol issues should not be in schema. 

However it is a MAY and thus 7644 overrides. 

I don’t think this can be handled as errata but rather a good item for a bis. 

Phil

> On Mar 12, 2020, at 12:29 PM, Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> RFC 7643 Section 7 [1] indicates the following:
> 
>> uniqueness  A single keyword value that specifies how the service
>>    provider enforces uniqueness of attribute values.  A server MAY
>>    reject an invalid value based on uniqueness by returning HTTP
>>    response code 400 (Bad Request).
> 
> 
> This contradicts the requirements in RFC 7644 Section 3.3 [2] which indicates that service providers "MUST return HTTP status code 409 (Conflict)" when the creation of a requested resource would conflict with an existing resource, i.e. by violating an attribute's uniqueness. Therefore, servers MAY NOT reject invalid values based on uniqueness with a 400, as RFC 7643 Section 7 currently indicates.
> 
> I assume 409 is the preferred response here, and so I was initially going to report an errata that proposed 409 instead of 400 in RFC 7643 Section 7; however, to avoid dependencies on specific HTTP response codes from RFC 7644, I would propose the section could be updated as follows instead, such that the HTTP response code is omitted entirely:
> 
>> uniqueness  A single keyword value that specifies how the service
>>    provider enforces uniqueness of attribute values.  A server MAY
>>    reject an invalid value based on uniqueness.
> 
> 
> Any feedback is welcome. I'm happy to report the proposed errata if there is consensus; otherwise, I at least wanted to bring awareness to the contradiction between specs here.
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7643#section-7 
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7644#section-3.3
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> scim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim