Re: [scim] Proposal to create a design team

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Leif,

Now I am even MORE confused.  Please see below:

On 10/20/12 2:07 PM, Leif Johansson wrote:

> Like any group or individual who decide
> to propose something to a wg, this design
> ream will produce I-Ds that the wg will
> choose to adopt or not.

I don't understand.  How would such drafts relate to the existing wg drafts?

>
> The purpose of this exercise is to get a
> focused technical discussion started, not
> to end or preempt one.
>
>>
>> Could somebody just catch us up and start a new thread with a brief
summary of what exact non-trivial work has been identified as necessary
prior to a 2.0 release?
>
> There is some good starting points in the
> presentations that Phil and Kelly made
> in Vancouver.

Again (and again), could you kindly be more specific?  I looked at those
presentations and the minutes and saw nothing in Kelly's presentation
that seemed like a question.  Phil has identified issues, but they seem
incremental.  I don't see Phil's presentation posted, and what I see
from the minutes is this:

> . should directories evolve to support scim? Also, directory vendors
>   getting requests for rest interfaces.  Will scim be the next
>   *directory* interface?
>
> . things impacting path uris: tenancy, targeting, "users" is too
>   general, object types ay expand, ability to query for any object
>   under /
>
> . the current search is under 'get' only - security concerns.  ability
>   to query using post?
>
> . rest "minimum" profile
>
> . add and replace - why not combine in put?  minor difference is
>   resource identifier
>
> . why not rework post to accommodate query and bulk?  What's classic
>   REST?

And then a few items from others:
> Jon Bradley: PUT and POST are not the same.  we should probably try to
> fix the semantics rather than bend them.  keep the rest semantics
> clear.  
>
> Kent Watson: idempotence.
>
> Tony Nadalin:  agree on resource type.  shouldn't be in the uri.
> Looking at spec, don't see how to do multitenancy correctly with the
> urn path that's in there.  Okay place to start but shouldn't rush to
> put out 1.1 lest people adhere to that


And then the biggie raised by multiple people, but most notably Hannes
and Paul:
> axe xml[...]

So... are these issues the scope for the design team?  And it would seem
to me that their output should be a bunch of proposals to change the
existing drafts, right?

Eliot