Summary
=======
Document shepherd: Leif Johansson
Responsible AD: Barry Leiba
Publication type: Proposed Standard
The two documents (draft-ietf-scim-api and draft-ietf-core-schema) are
the core documents of the SCIM protocol - a simple API for "CRUD"
operations on (mainly) user and group objects associated with Internet
services (aka cloud services). The schema document defines the object
model for the core resources as well as extension mechanisms for adding
new resource types and extending core resources.
Review and Consensus
====================
The documents have been extensively reviewed and are being implemented
by multiple parties. The set of active contributors is mostly made up of
vendors and is relatively small. Most of the work has been done via
interim conference calls, which may have caused the set of active
contributors to be a bit smaller than otherwise might have been the
case, but it has also made the active contributors more active and
productive.
The current documents represent "version 2.0" of an existing standard
that was developed by an informal collaboration. Version 2.0 represents
a significant number of changes but there are already (partial)
implementations that have informed the WG. The documents have gone
through two WGLC's because a number of nits were discovered after the
first WGLC. It is the opinion of the shepherd that the WG has reached
broad consensus on the specification, and several vendors are getting to
a point where they could demonstrate interoperability between multiple
independent implementations. Although it may be possible to keep finding
nits for a while longer it is the view of the shepherd that the
documents should be published now as Proposed Standard, and revised soon
with any additional nits that are discovered during continued deployment
and interoperability-testing.
Intellectual Property
=====================
No issues
Other Points
============
A major change for version 2.0 is a switch from XML to JSON. The WG
would appreciate external review from the JSON community.
There is one nit for each document. Both issues are small enough to be
addressed together with the IESG comments.
There are no downref issues.