Re: [scim] draft-ietf-scim-core-schema
Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com> Tue, 14 October 2014 17:19 UTC
Return-Path: <phil.hunt@oracle.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 723A61A9068 for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ZVQCszDm8t9m for <scim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89E241A907D for <scim@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s9EHJFE1011270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:19:16 GMT
Received: from userz7022.oracle.com (userz7022.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9EHJFqI008972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:19:15 GMT
Received: from abhmp0011.oracle.com (abhmp0011.oracle.com [141.146.116.17]) by userz7022.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9EHJEe0001140; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:19:14 GMT
Received: from [192.168.1.133] (/24.87.24.131) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:19:13 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6B47DA64-F4A5-495A-B501-81DDC7BDB2D5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <9098A202-EE20-46B5-A3AA-E68D22F0E93C@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:19:12 -0700
Message-Id: <3D9622E6-17E0-4A9A-9B1D-1C6DB4DC4E6D@oracle.com>
References: <543CC579.8090000@oracle.com> <9098A202-EE20-46B5-A3AA-E68D22F0E93C@yahoo.com>
To: SCIM WG <scim@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scim/lD0k1VUK0HVD4Zie-6stE0cPga8
Cc: nikhil vaishnavi <nikhil.vaishnavi@oracle.com>, draft-ietf-scim-core-schema@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [scim] draft-ietf-scim-core-schema
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, 14 Oct 2014 17:19:24 -0000
Adding the WG mailing list… You are correct. The examples should be updated to use “value” as per the original definition. This was discussed a while back and I believe the group decided to be consistent with multi-valued attributes. Note, the schema also needs to be updated. It looks like it should be multi-valued since many orgs have people with multiple reporting relationships. Phil (resending as I originally sent as phil.hunt@yahoo.com) On Oct 13, 2014, at 11:40 PM, nikhil vaishnavi <nikhil.vaishnavi@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi, > I noticed that for the Enterprise User Schema Extension [Section 4.3 - page 19], the attributes mentioned for manager are : value, $ref & displayName. > While the value attribute definition mentions this is the id representing the manager, the schema representation in JSON format defined on page 54 mentions this field as 'managerId' as well as other examples show is as managerId too. > Can this be synced up so that there is no confusion which is the current definition of the field. > > Thanks > Nikhil Vaishnavi
- Re: [scim] draft-ietf-scim-core-schema Phil Hunt