Subject: [scim] Meeting notes from WG conical 2013-09-18

From: "Morteza Ansari (moransar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 05:21:46 +0000

Thanks to Sal for volunteering to take notes.

Attendees: Morteza Ansari, Phil Hunt, Kelly Grizzle, Bjorn Aannestad, Barry Leiba, Leif Johansson, Sal D'Agostino, Peter Gietz

Assign responsible persons for issues  based on issue tracker:

#2 Kelly to provide text

#9 Postponed

#10 Phil to create separate item related to the thread on list

#13 Eric to provide update on etags

#24 Bjorn to provide language
Morteza  related to last IETF there are issued related to filter semantic
for plural queries of complex attribute, "resource object not the value"

#34 Hold for Kelly response

#35 Hold for Kelly, comments on thread
Text is incorrect, comments are valid, remove sentence vs. fixing piece,
look at group member addressed in updated schema,  added to ticket,  Bjorn
to take ticket

#37  Extended discussion,
OK to return http error
How does a remote client find this out (other examples) akin to index errors
or bad filters, discovery upfront is different than detailed error message.
Return "Error" only, vulnerabilities on the public internet a consideration
If there is a desire for human understandable errors refer to security
considerations and do what is appropriate.
How does client figure it out, cannot guarantee interoperability if limited
to  rest error or http error codes
All the protocol needs is unwilling to perform
List query restriction
Discovery holds no security risk
LDAP  versus X500 gives examples of good versus bad ways to do this,
http restful codes sufficient,
Concern comes from the need to have some clues,
"Equal" # publisher and clients, need to be much more concerned given peer
to peer nature of scim
Discovery vs. detailed error message, later is a security consideration
Attribute at server level vs. details are aspect of attribute.
Remove searching entirely from the spec, make a provisioning only, otherwise
it is a cloud directory, scim 1 with filters requires that
Working group should look at issue of cloud directory and search extension
Two issues:
Error code
More with discovery some related to error and some related to other things
and what are the things that have a big impact on use case, complete set is
slippery slope, start with making sure what is already in the spec
#47 discovery of attribute indexing
Being specific about discovery for clients, manageable if not about error
messages
Phil to look at 37 and 47 Phil to propose text
Bad request mentioned on the list, LDAP laissez faire, sit on top of
multiple datasets if one dataset throws an error, how do you handle it, it
can be an ok result, admins can (want to) determine why, x500 to throw
errors at first sign
May still want to define bad request even to know what it isn't
Don't use or seldom used codes, don't expect fully parsed error
Filter needs to conform to scim syntax, filter comparison is valid due to
server configuration, clients build in a lot of OR blocks for deployments,
and this is breaking for some
Show some error codes in context.
Consider things like 501 and semantics
Combine into a general error code ticket and merge into 47, defer to new
issue, general error review, general review, or appendix with scim error
codes table

Meeting recording link:

https://go.webex.com/go/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=6141242&rKey=6ee5ab19b38d45c3

SCIM WG bi-weekly call-20130918 1808-1
Wednesday, September 18, 2013 11:08 am San Francisco Time
52 Minutes