Subject: [scim] Question about Addresses

From: Shelley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:41:12 -0600

There has already been some discussion on this topic [1,2] and a
corresponding ticket [3].

The current proposal is that your latter representation is correct, such
that there is no "value" sub-attribute used for addresses.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scim/current/msg00928.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scim/current/msg01040.html
[3] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/scim/trac/ticket/36

---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Thomas Krille <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:27:28 +0100
> Subject: [scim] Question about Addresses
> Hello,
>
> i have a question regarding the Address multi-valued attribute:
>
> The current spec states in section 3.2:
>
> The value attribute is a complex type with the following sub-attributes.
>
>
> From my understanding this means that an address is represented in json as
> follows:
>
> {
>     "type": "work",
>     "value": {
>         "streetAddress": "100 Universal City Plaza",
>         "locality": "Hollywood",
>         "region": "CA",
>         "postalCode": "91608",
>         "country": "USA",
>         "formatted": "100 Universal City Plaza\nHollywood, CA 91608 USA"
>     }
>     "primary": true
>
> }
>
> But in the example in section 12.2 an address is represented as follows:
>
> {
>     "type": "work",
>     "streetAddress": "100 Universal City Plaza",
>     "locality": "Hollywood",
>     "region": "CA",
>     "postalCode": "91608",
>     "country": "USA",
>     "formatted": "100 Universal City Plaza\nHollywood, CA 91608 USA",
>     "primary": true
> }
>
>
> What is the right representation?
>
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
>
>