Identity CRUD Implementation Concepts #45
Conversation
fixed typos
|
I did a very quick review of this. In general, I think this language is good and helpful. However, I recognize that this comes from recent work in IETF SCIM WG and is oriented toward SCIM. Since this doc is protocol agnostic, I recommend we scrub the text for anything SCIM specific and remove it in favor of more generic text. |
|
Hi Dean,
I thought I remove all references to SCIM and even change it to be protocol agnostic.
In fact, I use the same concepts that is a good way to create the terminology of identity CRUD operations
I might miss something but if you compare both documents you see that the SCIM IETF is very protocol oriented, but the additions to the terminology in thi document tries to be proto on agnostic, but would be great to have help in this couple of paragraphs:)
Thank you,
Paulo
Sent from Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
…________________________________
From: Dean H. Saxe (Beyond Identity) ***@***.***>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 4:42:09 PM
To: openid/ipsie ***@***.***>
Cc: Paulo Jorge Correia (paucorre) ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [openid/ipsie] Identity CRUD Implementation Concepts (PR #45)
I did a very quick review of this.
In general, I think this language is good and helpful. However, I recognize that this comes from recent work in IETF SCIM WG and is oriented toward SCIM. Since this doc is protocol agnostic, I recommend we scrub the text for anything SCIM specific and remove it in favor of more generic text.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#45 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI3AT5LVLGKPX6QCNJ2FQZL2ODUVNAVCNFSM6AAAAABWNAHV2WVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMMZUGUYTAOJZGU>.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are two lines (maybe 3 if I include the client) that could be read as SCIM-oriented. Overall this is very helpful and should be included in the terminology. My comments are nits - if there's consensus that the text is fine as is, there is no reason to hold this back from being merged.
Paolo, thanks for the contribution. As I noted in the review, my comments are minor issues. If the consensus is to merge as is, I'm OK with the content. |
Some additions to the terminology with Identity CRUD Implementation Concepts