Subject: [scim] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-scim-api-17: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 09:15:03 -0700

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-scim-api-17: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-scim-api/

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

"   o  Limit the number of requests any particular client MAY make in a  
    period of time."

Great so we going to limit the extent to which an attacker can spam the 
the thing. that sounds comforting.

"
These    recommendations include but are not limited to:  
o  Provide injection attack counter measures (e.g., by validating all    
  inputs and parameters),  
o  No cleartext storage of credentials,  
o  Store credentials using an encrypted protection mechanism, and
"

I don’t really think of that as being a recommendation so much as a
requirement . if you’re storing clear text passwords somebody needs to
take away all your toys.