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

From: "Kepeng Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 23:47:46 +0800

Hi Benoit,

Thanks for your review and comments.

Please find my proposed changes below.

Kind Regards
Kepeng

在 23/4/15 5:07 pm， "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]> 写入:

>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"

OK, changed. I also changed the abstract and introduction.

>
>- 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.

As proposed by Leif, I added:

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).

>
>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)

OK, changed.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 12:21:24 +0100

Thank you Kepeng,

Regards, Benoit
> .