Subject: [scim] saving photo as data uri

From: David Möbius <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:50:28 +0100

Hello,

we would like to give the client the possibility to save his photos
also as data URI.

The scim schema 2.0 tells about the photo:  URL of a photo of the
User.  The value SHOULD be a canonicalized URL, and MUST point to an
image file...

Like this the client always need to save his images at some other
space or in a other db. To make it more easy and more comfortable for
the client we would like to save the multi valued image also as data URI

(e.g.: data:image/png;base64,
iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAQMAAAAlPW0iAAAABlBMVEUAAAD/
//+l2Z/dAAAAM0lEQVR4nGP4/5/h/1+G/58ZDrAz3D/McH8yw83NDDeNGe4U
g9C9zwz3gVLMDA/A6P9/AFGGFyjOXZtQAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC)

Since a URL is a part of the URI but the URI is not part from a URL it
would not be ok, for the scim 2.0, to save pictures like this.

What do you think about this? Does it looks ok to save the picture as
URL or as URI or do you think this should not be allowed.

byby David

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:03:57 +0100

> URL or as URI or do you think this should not be allowed.

If the SCIM spec says URL, not URI, that's probably simply a bug.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Erik Wahlström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:24:09 +0000

Hi,

Lets dig a bit deeper into it. Does that mean that we create the image, generates a URL then return that in the SCIM response? Otherwise, would we always return the base64 version of the image in the response?

Cheers
Erik

On 10 Mar 2014, at 13:03, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim

---

From: Phil Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:46:26 +0000

AFAIK, this is one of those things we have to update to URI.

We should discuss whether clients can send URIs or must send base64 encoded values.  E.g. a client can update base64 encoded value but the server can return a readOnly URI for a browser accessible file version of the value.  

If the client is sending a URI, how would the server domain access it from a security context perspective?

I think this is one of those things the original SCIM 1 folks had some thoughts on.

Phil

@independentid
www.independentid.com
[email-masked]

---

From: David Möbius <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:57:13 +0100

Hello Erik,

actually it's not important how we create the image, but how we store
the image. As you can read in the SCIM schema, the standard tells us
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-scim-core-schema-02#section-6.2)
to store images as URLs, but we like to store also URIs, to provide this
data URI scheme; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme
It's just an image as string in this scheme:
data:[<MIME-type>][;charset=<encoding>][;base64],<data>
But this is not an URL.

> Lets dig a bit deeper into it. Does that mean that we create the image, generates a URL then return that in the SCIM response? Otherwise, would we always return the base64 version of the image in t…
No, just put in the response what actually is stored.
Both are okay, but just one of the following in the value attribute of
the photo:

http://www.example.org/image.jpg

data:[<MIME-type>][;charset=<encoding>][;base64],<data>

Greetz,
David

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:16:28 +0100

> data:[<MIME-type>][;charset=<encoding>][;base64],<data>

Do not spend too much time with terminology. Any URL can be a name (such 
as in XML namespaces). And any URN can become resolvable at a later 
point of time.

Just say "URI".

Best regards, Julian

---

From: David Möbius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:41:05 +0100

Hi,

ok, thanks for your answers and ideas :)
Thank we will take a URI for a photo. It would be nice if this could be
changed in the scim spec.

thanks and by

David