Re: [scim] Feedback and adoption readiness for draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension

Danny,  Chad,

I agree with Chad’s feedback about id.   For us it would be best for us if Roles and Entitlements resources had the following attributes that match other SCIM resources (i.e. users, groups):

id <-- this one is particularly important.   I think that the draft uses “value” instead of “id”.   I much prefer “id” as it is already assumed by most developers to be an immutable value that can be queried directly by URL (or referenced by contains/containsBy)

meta <-- described in RFC7644 section 3.1.  meta.created and meta.lastChanged have been useful for us when dealing with users/groups

displayName – instead of “display” would be consistent with “displayName” on users and groups the name “suitable for display to end-users”.

description – instead of “type”?   For our Identity Management products, the human readable description of what a Role and Entitlement grants access to are very important.  In most application authorization models, this is the “description” of the role or “description” of the entitlement.

containsBy / contains – slight wording change to make it clear that this is a list of *ids*.  Consider reusing some of the wording from RFC 7644 that describes Group.member and User.memberOf?

--
Matt

P.S. Sorry for taking so long to read this draft properly. It is important to us and, with the suggestions above, it matches the model we already use in our Identity Management products.

From: scim <scim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Chad Vincent
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 3:09 PM
To: scim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [scim] Feedback and adoption readiness for draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I love this - we use roles currently and having a more formal spec and ability for the client to read what's available could come in very handy in the future.  So mark me down as a 5.

However, these resources not including the common attributes set mandated by RFC 7643 section 3.1 should be explained/clarified in the RFC.  The Apache SCIMple library will have to handle these resources as special-cases since they won't have the required "id" field, for example.  That seems major enough to justify a paragraph.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com<mailto:ncamwing@cisco.com>>
To: SCIM WG <scim@ietf.org<mailto:scim@ietf.org>>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 23:40:10 +0000
Subject: [scim] Feedback and adoption readiness for draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension

Hello SCIMers,

We need feedback on to gauge support and adoption readiness of:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension/<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmatt.peterson%40oneidentity.com%7Cb93c1a9df1ce43b1579108dabddfa2fd%7C91c369b51c9e439c989c1867ec606603%7C0%7C1%7C638031065457274469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tBa11%2Fiu9KqiI09Hj7jMIj1ylO0autjBHncMlTYKuAQ%3D&reserved=0>

Please respond to this thread on the following:

  1.  You have read the draft and believe it is ready to be adopted by the working group. Any other feedback on the content of the draft is welcomed too.

  2.  You are willing to be an active contributor or reviewer of the document

  4.  You support the draft and plan to implement

  5.  You support the draft but have no time or plans to implement now, but can provide feedback

  6.  You have no interest in the draft

Please provide your feedback by November 28th.

Thanks,

   Nancy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Lanzi <paul@remediant.com<mailto:paul@remediant.com>>
To: SCIM WG <scim@ietf.org<mailto:scim@ietf.org>>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:50:26 -0700
Subject: Re: [scim] Feedback and adoption readiness for draft-zollner-scim-roles-entitlements-extension
#4 for me.
Thanks,
--Paul
ᐧ

On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 4:40 PM Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: