Subject: Re: [scim] scim Digest, Vol 8, Issue 26

From: Ganesh and Sashi Prasad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:23:29 +1000

>
> Ganesh - we are all participating as individuals in IETF. Maybe you should
> consult the rules for working groups as explained in:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc2418.pdf
>
> It is irrelevant whether you belong to a very large technology company, or
> are a technology analyst or whether you are just a great guy/gal.
>
> All the discussion has to be in the open and all sources (no confidential
> research reports!) have to be publicly made available.
>
> - prateek
>
> Fair enough. I was just concerned listening to Mark's comments (about
adoption being hindered because of complexity for SPs), that one interest
group may have undue influence over the WG. if that's not the case, I'm
happy :-).

Regards,
Ganesh

---

From: Trey Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:55:14 -0500

I believe Mark's comments are sound as they speak directly to the failure of SPML viz. lessons learned.  Since inception, SCIM has had an eye towards easing the pain for SPs.  History has proven that failure to do so may result in a technically solid spec with zero adoption.  

On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Ganesh and Sashi Prasad <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ganesh - we are all participating as individuals in IETF. Maybe you should consult the rules for working groups as explained in:
> 
> It is irrelevant whether you belong to a very large technology company, or are a technology analyst or whether you are just a great guy/gal. 
> 
> All the discussion has to be in the open and all sources (no confidential research reports!) have to be publicly made available.
> 
> - prateek
> 
> Fair enough. I was just concerned listening to Mark's comments (about adoption being hindered because of complexity for SPs), that one interest group may have undue influence over the WG. if that's not the case, I'm happy :-).
> 
> Regards,
> Ganesh
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim

---

From: Richard Sand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 01:22:37 -0400

I’d like to jump in here too in support of Mark’s comments. I see many on
the SCIM list who were former members or contributors to the OASIS PSTC and
the failings of SPML should be well know. What SPML failed to do was
provide a simple language for specific tasks – if a company just needed to
set up an endpoint to enable/disable accounts or perform password resets,
SPML was not purpose-build for this, and set requirements conformance that
made it ill-suited towards one-off usage as a tool to solve a specific
integration problem. SCIM as it is now addresses some of these shortcomings
– it does not require much of a burden to the SP, it language handles
identity management requirements at a slightly higher level than just
directory-style object-crud operations. So I would not deviate from these
principles, as lack of them did in what was otherwise a useful and
functional spec in SPML.

Standard Schema of course is another topic that SPML never adequately
addressed.

Richard Sand | Managing Director
PO Box 91824 | Austin | Texas 78709-1824 | USA
Office: +1 888 612 8820 ext 02 | Fax: +1 866 304 3754
Mobile: +1 267 984 3651

*From:* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On
Behalf Of *Trey
Drake
*Sent:* Saturday, August 11, 2012 12:55 AM
*To:* Ganesh and Sashi Prasad
*Cc:* [email-masked]
*Subject:* Re: [scim] scim Digest, Vol 8, Issue 26

I believe Mark's comments are sound as they speak directly to the failure
of SPML viz. lessons learned.  Since inception, SCIM has had an eye towards
easing the pain for SPs.  History has proven that failure to do so may
result in a technically solid spec with zero adoption.

On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Ganesh and Sashi Prasad <[email-masked]>
wrote:

- prateek

Regards,

Ganesh