Subject: [scim] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-scim-use-cases-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 02:07:59 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-scim-use-cases-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-scim-use-cases/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- From the charter:
  The use cases document will be a "living document", guiding the
  working group during its development of the standards.  The group may
  take snapshots of that document for Informational publication, to
  serve as documentation of the motivation for the work in progress
  and to similarly guide planning and implementation.

  ...
  Mar 2013 - Initial adoption of SCIM use cases, as a living document

Looking at the charter and the draft name, I was ready to ask: is this a
living document? should it be published?
Reading the draft, it contains way more than the use cases: concepts and
requirements are included.
Which means that, even if you add new use cases, the requirements will
(hopefully) not change. This is a good reason to publish.
You should really update the title, and potentially the abstract to match
the content: a mix of use cases, requirements, some (framework type of
level) concepts and flows. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad thing to
combine all these into a single document, and I enjoyed the read.
Proposal: from "SCIM Definitions, Overview, and Flows" to something such
as "SCIM Definitions, Overview, Concepts, and Requirements"

- I'm certainly not an expert in identity management, but I understood
the difference between SCIM and ABFAB as ABFAB = just in time
provisioning, as opposed to SCIM = pre-provisioning (ok, except maybe in
the SSO "special" use case). A few words on this in the intro would have
helped me to put the right context.

Editorial:
- It's intent is to reduce -> Its intend is to reduce
- C.R.U.D -> CRUD (since you have it in the acronym section)

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:04:17 +0200

> helped me to put the right context.

Maybe something like

"Unlike the practice of some protocols like ABFAB and SAML2 WebSSO, SCIM
provides provisioning and de-provisioning of resources in a separate
context from authentication (aka just-in-time provisioning)"

?

	Cheers Leif