IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELETE

Erik Wahlström <erik.wahlstrom@nexusgroup.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=6049AE931B=erik.wahlstrom@nexusgroup.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 8F7321AE114 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:32:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 mmlNuF_vkuN8 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailedge.nexussafe.com (mailedge.nexussafe.com [83.241.133.98]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D501AE107 for <scim@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MARVMAILCAS.technxs.com (10.75.28.37) by MailEdge.nexussafe.com (83.241.133.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.722.0; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:32:02 +0100
Received: from MARVMAILDB.technxs.com ([fe80::2481:7a28:782a:7fc7]) by MarvMailCAS.technxs.com ([fe80::cd7:3e15:4b14:c076%14]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:32:00 +0100
From: Erik Wahlström <erik.wahlstrom@nexusgroup.com>
To: Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [scim] Clarification on body request for DELETE
Thread-Index: AQHORrBXpd/Pk14cuUODIxLJUT71pppDufOA
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:31:59 +0000
Message-ID: <FC869C5C-8D77-4576-89A0-A10C42811D0A@nexussafe.com>
References: <CAGUsYPx+8z-nouUiyMquOAOjoNrRAyQSLeZMonLNAqe_13i7HA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGUsYPx+8z-nouUiyMquOAOjoNrRAyQSLeZMonLNAqe_13i7HA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, sv-SE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.75.28.135]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FC869C5C8D77457689A0A10C42811D0Anexussafecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 13:32:06 -0000

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<mailto: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<mailto:scim-request@ietf.org>> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kelly Grizzle <kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com<mailto:kelly.grizzle@sailpoint.com>>
To: Alexandre Santos <asantos@pingidentity.com<mailto:asantos@pingidentity.com>>, "scim@ietf.org<mailto:scim@ietf.org>" <scim@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:scim@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email