Subject: [scim] Clarification in the definition of group "members" attribute in Core-Schema

From: Phil Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:13:29 -0700

I wanted to let people know about what appears to be some ambiguous text in the definition of the “members” attribute of the “group” resource type on page 24.

Current draft text:
   members
      A list of members of the Group.  While values MAY be added or
      removed, sub-attributes of members are "immutable".  The "value"
      sub-attribute must be the "id" and the "$ref" sub-attribute must
      be the URI of a SCIM resource, either a "User", or a "Group".  The
      intention of the "Group" type is to allow the service provider to
      support nested groups.  Service providers MAY require clients to
      provide a non-empty members value based on the "required" sub
      attribute of the "members" attribute in the "Group" resource
      schema.

The highlighted sentence beginning “The “value” sub-attribute” is confusing as it is not clear whether value refers to a multi-valued attribute value and “id” is the sub-attribute, or whether the text is referring to the “value” sub-attribute whose value is a value that corresponds to an “id” attribute.

Likewise, the final sentence in the paragraph is also ambiguous.

The paragraph should be clarified as:
   members
      A list of members of the Group.  While values MAY be added or
      removed, sub-attributes of members are "immutable".  The "value"
      sub-attribute contains the value of an “id” attribute of a SCIM resource and the "$ref" sub-attribute contains the URI of a SCIM resource, either a "User", or a "Group".  The
      intention of the "Group" type is to allow the service provider to
      support nested groups.  Service providers MAY require clients to
      provide a non-empty value by setting the “required” attribute characteristic of a 
      sub-attribute of the "members" attribute in the "Group" resource
      schema.

Please let me know if there are any objections to this clarification.

Regards,

Phil

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

---

From: Kelly Grizzle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:36:13 +0000

Sounds good to me.

From: scim [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Phil Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:13 AM
To: SCIM WG
Subject: [scim] Clarification in the definition of group "members" attribute in Core-Schema

Current draft text:
   members

      schema.

   members

      schema.

Regards,

Phil

@independentid
www.independentid.com<http://www.independentid.com>
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Phil Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 08:49:30 -0700

Having heard no objections, I will post the clarification today. 

Phil

> On Jun 2, 2015, at 14:36, Kelly Grizzle <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Sounds good to me.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim