Subject: [scim] Correction: draft-ietf-scim-api-19

From: Phil Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 08:50:23 -0700

There are a couple of locations in the SCIM-API examples where the older response attribute “code” was used and should be made consistent with the normative text.  Per the text in 3.12 and in the Bulk status 3.7, all examples should simply have a “status” attribute and an http status value.

On Page 46
  s/“code”:”404”/“status”:”404”

On Page 53

The example: 
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>    Content-Type: application/json
> 
>    {
>      "schemas": ["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:BulkResponse"],
>      "Operations": [
>        {
>          "location":
>    "https://example.com/v2/Users/92b725cd-9465-4e7d-8c16-01f8e146b87a",
>          "method": "POST",
>          "bulkId": "qwerty",
>          "version": "W\/\"4weymrEsh5O6cAEK\"",
>          "status": {
>            "code": "201"
>          }
>        },
>        {
>          "location":
>    "https://example.com/v2/Groups/e9e30dba-f08f-4109-8486-d5c6a331660a",
>          "method": "POST",
>          "bulkId": "ytrewq",
>          "version": "W\/\"lha5bbazU3fNvfe5\"",
>          "status": {
>            "code": "201"
>          }
>        }
>      ]
>    }

Should be:

> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>    Content-Type: application/json
> 
>    {
>      "schemas": ["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:BulkResponse"],
>      "Operations": [
>        {
>          "location":
>    "https://example.com/v2/Users/92b725cd-9465-4e7d-8c16-01f8e146b87a",
>          "method": "POST",
>          "bulkId": "qwerty",
>          "version": "W\/\"4weymrEsh5O6cAEK\"",
>          "status”: "201"
>        },
>        {
>          "location":
>    "https://example.com/v2/Groups/e9e30dba-f08f-4109-8486-d5c6a331660a",
>          "method": "POST",
>          "bulkId": "ytrewq",
>          "version": "W\/\"lha5bbazU3fNvfe5\"",
>          "status": "201"
>        }
>      ]
>    }

Phil

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