[scim] Filter evaluation for multi-valued complex attributes

Aleksey Chernoraenko <achernoraenko@gmail.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <achernoraenko@gmail.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 4E6FF1202F1 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 9MfYYfh5Y3Hy for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (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 ABA801202E3 for <scim@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v7so4180984oie.8 for <scim@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3QQA9m6MtCWDQabwar9bGyS5vP8s6I47wcTOBQe8ZTc=; b=VYHYjIGJMigZy9FSoRZ+4bpjhZ4qU6l11FOORutUtKPxdWL/VfF5DZnMZs041A6+Aj ECj8v75OxK8NDM23uYirs/NcO/lVVO0zNC2oD05Hgeg9rMV/wqr4V80J9xMtXTNM3E1G M80cgiGXQJqk5o8iptCHH1PqY++7VFRgvnMW5rfSCZMWBvvFmY9HkK9F2PvNg+EAeyvy pxd18XlB+u79xvxlsNekBx4G9yi2t+MMzD5oBd7rurCJZvj1X3AozGEpUfbpNFMwmiv+ 186OHIqibPnrJD+UZsZxB4MDvuWbP0P/hw9FicZvQRicgb4zocto6efvedz+tMjwnyI9 AuaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3QQA9m6MtCWDQabwar9bGyS5vP8s6I47wcTOBQe8ZTc=; b=q7CYNAkBcmclMrYuvKMHsjxJQmz1U1GrbOyS9XUfflatWCf5/KE6l01HabjLMeXuWL nHby+hMH+NgkUcFPRsKPjRlyajk9Ynw3EwmUi87993OCqf7gGMsjqgH+iY8lxxqe+bIf NPhJyxpDYuennbLvhWJ6s8GhEe1hyDyt+BdkeeYPKyuS6IIk8ZbHvmaxrB80Lmc75R3J XyKkdiLgOi8M2dX72bfBvqrdJerFUbF66d+vuU2zttrYdtlaZXkntl9zqwqkYCGqYfpE cbzXaVd7IOTaJIT3UecHZ6Atqz35sAJlKpjUHMsW5tq64ObDsvi0L8CmxVT5+SlXva6y nCKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX1ub805FwHJZWP8jDWohXWdgGursH36ERftL9KUAFPLzlkY/Yc x9XX7dbtlzOyt5iyU5ABeiX3WlAJtlrdlpZ09/syd3OC
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwtD3gr7y3v96tUsZQyTqkEvIC/J/50RFsW826z0MDJrYyfpcM31dLaachHDe9uI/qQN9tsCWfvduNg6zWlO3I=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:b984:: with SMTP id j126mr2177671oif.113.1555686236513; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Aleksey Chernoraenko <achernoraenko@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:03:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKCnT7xEytByVT85UfmURTjtcUxgoibRrSv5EqMVWbnr_KCgfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: scim@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scim/rvERScfkgv6nW2IiytBhA5-gTcI>
Subject: [scim] Filter evaluation for multi-valued complex attributes
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:03:59 -0000

Greetings,

Could you please clarify filter evaluation for multi-valued complex attributes?

"Filtering" section (3.4.2.2.) in rfc7644 demonstrates the following
example for "emails" (which is I assume is multi-valued complex
attribute):

1) filter=userType ne "Employee" and not (emails co "example.com" or
emails.value co "example.org")

2) filter=userType eq "Employee" and (emails.type eq "work")

Is it correct that the following expressions are valid, equal, and
should be evaluated to the same result:

a) emails[value co "example.com"]
b) emails.value co "example.com"
c) emails co "example.com"

b) and c) options are basically shortcuts for a) ?
c) is valid because "value" is a default attribute for "email" ?

Thanks,
Alexei