Thanks again for your efforts, Kaelin. We will review and return on Monday (I’m hampered a bit by an injured finger which means that I end up with a lot of typos).
Eliot > On 20 Mar 2026, at 15:32, Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi *Deb, Eliot, all, > > *Deb - As AD, please review the following changes to this document. > > You may view them in the diff here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-lastdiff.html. > > There is additional context in this email thread regarding these changes, but > we have summarized them below: > > Section 1.3: Added sentence re: line wrapping per RFC 8792. > Section 6.3.1: Updated paragraph that appears after Table 2. > Section 7.6: Removed sentence in first paragraph (per inclusive language > guidance). > Section 7.6.1: Updated definition of telemetryEnterpriseEndpoint. > Section 7.6.2: Updated one line of sourcecode. > > > Eliot, authors - Thank you for your review and replies. You may find the > updated files at the end of this email. > > A few follow-up questions: > > > i) For question 15 below, we have updated part a as requested. We want to > confirm how to proceed with the following: > > For part b -- should pointers to BLE 5.3 be updated to 5.4 throughout? > > For part c -- is the “Current” text the correct reference? > >> 15) <!-- [rfced] [BLE54]: Please review the following questions regarding >> this reference: >> >> a) We were unable to find "isRandom" mentioned in [BLE54] as seen >> below. Should this citation be updated? >> >> Original: >> >> isRandom: A boolean flag taken from [BLE54]. >> >>> You’re indeed correct. That flag itself is NOT taken from [BLE54]. The >>> description should be as follows: >>> >>> isRandom:A boolean flag. If FALSE, the device is using a public MAC >>> address. If TRUE, the device uses a random address. If an Identifying >>> Resolving Key (IRK) is present, the address represents a resolvable private >>> address. Otherwise, the address is assumed to be a random static address. >>> Non-resolvable private addresses are not supported by this specification. >>> This attribute is not required. It is mutable and is returned by default. >>> The default value is FALSE. See Vol 6 Part B, Section 1.3 of [BLE54] for >>> more information about different address types. >>> >>> We have one other issue to look at: we want to make sure we are pointing to >>> the amended 5.4 spec. The earlier one was withdrawn. The Section # above >>> is from the amended spec. >> >> b) We also note a few instances of "BLE core specifications 5.3" mentioned >> throughout this document. However, the Normative References section cites >> Version 5.4. Please review and let us know if/how to update accordingly. >> >> For example: >> >> "description": "The isRandom flag is taken from the BLE >> core specifications 5.3. If TRUE, device is using a >> random address. Default value is false.", >> >> c) Please review our updates to the text below. There are multiple volumes in >> [BLE54]; it appears Section 5.4.5 is referring to Volume 1, Part A, Section >> 5.4.5 of [BLE54]. Is this the correct section? >> >> Original: >> >> For more information about the use of the IRK, see Section 5.4.5 of >> [BLE54]. >> >> Current: >> >> For more information about the use of the IRK, see Volume 1, Part A, >> Section 5.4.5 of [BLE54]. >> --> >> >>> Yes. > > > > ii) To clarify, would you like these references below to remain as is (as two > separate references)? > >> 16) <!-- [rfced] References: >> >> a) We note that [draft-brinckman-nipc] was replaced by >> [draft-ietf-asdf-nipc]. >> Should these remain as two separate references? Or, would you like to remove >> the citation to [draft-brinckman-nipc] and only keep the >> reference to [draft-ietf-asdf-nipc]? >>> Yes. > > > iii) We have made the update below as requested. Please provide a reference > for [OAUTHv2]. > >> OLD: >> >>> Note that either clientToken or certificateInfo is used for the >>> authentication of the application. If certificateInfo is NOT present when >>> an endpointApp object is created, then the server SHOULD return a >>> clientToken. Otherwise, if the server accepts the certificateInfo object >>> for authentication, it SHOULD NOT return a clientToken. If the server >>> accepts and produces a clientToken, then control and telemetry servers MUST >>> validate both. The SCIM client will know that this is the case based on the >>> SCIM object that is returned. >> >> >> Now there’s a nice big SHOULD in the middle of that, but it leads to a >> question as to when that SHOULD doesn’t apply. The obvious answer is with >> OAUTH. So we think the following text would address that point: >> >> NEW: >> >>> If certificateInfo is provided by the client and is accepted by the server, >>> the server MUST return that multivalued attribute in its response. >>> Otherwise, the server is expected to return a clientToken. If the server >>> returns neither certificateInfo nor a clientToken, then external >>> authentication such as [OAUTHv2] MUST be pre-arranged. If the server >>> accepts a certificate and produces a clientToken, then control and >>> telemetry servers MUST validate both. > > > iv) We have added Sriram to the Acknowledgments. Please let us know if there > is any additional text to include. > >> Finally, these matters were brought to our attention by Sriram Sekar who I >> would ask to be added to the acknowledgments. > > > v) Note that we have updated the expansion of NIPC to Non-Internet-Connected > Physical Components (NIPC) per Rohit Mohan’s email. > >> c) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations. Please >> review >> each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >> >> Certificate Authority (CA) >> Near Field Communication (NFC) >> Non-IP Device Control (NIPC) >> Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) >> --> > > > vi) Also note that we have added this Perhaps text to the document for now. > We will discuss with the team whether RESTful should be marked as well-known > (and not require expansion). > >> b) May we expand "RESTful" by providing a definition as follows? >> >> Original: >> >> confirmationNumber: An integer which some solutions require in >> RESTful message exchange. >> >> Perhaps: >> >> confirmationNumber: An integer that some solutions require in >> a RESTful message exchange (where RESTful refers to the Representational >> State Transfer (REST) architecture). >> >>> While I leave this to the RPC, might I suggest that RESTful now be consider >>> one of those industry terms of art that doesn’t require expansion? > > > > — FILES (please refresh): — > > The updated files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944.xml > > Diff files showing changes between the last and current version: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff files showing changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9944 > > > Thank you, > > Kaelin Foody > RFC Production Center > > > On Mar 18, 2026, at 12:47 PM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi RFC Editor and chairs and AD: >> >> In operational practice we have noticed two issues we would like to address >> in the RFC before it is closed. The first has to do with the use of OAUTH >> as a means to authenticate SCIM connections. Today we say in Section 6.3.1: >> >> OLD: >> >>> Note that either clientToken or certificateInfo is used for the >>> authentication of the application. If certificateInfo is NOT present when >>> an endpointApp object is created, then the server SHOULD return a >>> clientToken. Otherwise, if the server accepts the certificateInfo object >>> for authentication, it SHOULD NOT return a clientToken. If the server >>> accepts and produces a clientToken, then control and telemetry servers MUST >>> validate both. The SCIM client will know that this is the case based on the >>> SCIM object that is returned. >> >> >> Now there’s a nice big SHOULD in the middle of that, but it leads to a >> question as to when that SHOULD doesn’t apply. The obvious answer is with >> OAUTH. So we think the following text would address that point: >> >> NEW: >> >>> If certificateInfo is provided by the client and is accepted by the server, >>> the server MUST return that multivalued attribute in its response. >>> Otherwise, the server is expected to return a clientToken. If the server >>> returns neither certificateInfo nor a clientToken, then external >>> authentication such as [OAUTHv2] MUST be pre-arranged. If the server >>> accepts a certificate and produces a clientToken, then control and >>> telemetry servers MUST validate both. >> >> >> This is a bit more crisp and prescriptive. >> >> Then in Section 7.6.1, we’ve noted one other issue: >> >>> telemetryEnterpriseEndpoint:A string representing a URL of the enterprise >>> endpoint to reach an enterprise gateway for telemetry. When the enterprise >>> receives the SCIM object from the onboarding application, it adds this >>> attribute to it and sends it back as a response to the onboarding >>> application. This attribute is optional, case sensitive, mutable, and >>> returned by default. The uniqueness is enforced by the enterprise. An >>> implementation MUST generate an exception if telemetryEnterpriseEndpoint is >>> not returned and telemetry is required for the proper functioning of a >>> device. >> >> >> It is possible that this service may be externalized. That is, it’s there, >> but the SCIM implementation for $REASONs doesn’t know about it. To address >> this point, we propose to replace the last sentence (“An implementation … a >> device.”) as follows: >> >> NEW: >> >>> This attribute is populated when the enterprise provides a telemetry >>> endpoint (e.g., hosted by the enterprise gateway). If a telemetry service >>> is not known by the SCIM server, the attribute will not be returned. In >>> such cases, if the application requires telemetry, separate arrangements >>> must be made. >> >> >> Two other points: >> >> To answer Kaelin’s earlier question, we propose to add a note in Section 1.3 >> as follows: >> >>> When JSON is presented in this memo, it is folded in accordance with RFC >>> 8792. >> >> >> Also, we caught one error in an example in Section 7.6.2. >> >> OLD: >> >>> "telemetryEnterpriseEndpoint": "https://example.com/\ >> >> NEW: >> >>> "telemetryEnterpriseEndpoint": "mqtts://example.com/\ >> >> >> >> Noting the change of URI scheme. >> >> Finally, these matters were brought to our attention by Sriram Sekar who I >> would ask to be added to the acknowledgments. >> >> Eliot >> >>> On 11 Mar 2026, at 19:39, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2026/03/11 >>> >>> RFC Author(s): >>> -------------- >>> >>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>> >>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>> >>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >>> your approval. >>> >>> Planning your review >>> --------------------- >>> >>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>> >>> * RFC Editor questions >>> >>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>> follows: >>> >>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>> >>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>> >>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>> >>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>> >>> * Content >>> >>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>> - contact information >>> - references >>> >>> * Copyright notices and legends >>> >>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >>> >>> * Semantic markup >>> >>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>> >>> * Formatted output >>> >>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>> >>> >>> Submitting changes >>> ------------------ >>> >>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >>> include: >>> >>> * your coauthors >>> >>> * [email protected] (the RPC team) >>> >>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>> >>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list >>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>> list: >>> >>> * More info: >>> >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>> >>> * The archive itself: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>> >>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and >>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>> >>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>> >>> An update to the provided XML file >>> — OR — >>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>> >>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>> >>> OLD: >>> old text >>> >>> NEW: >>> new text >>> >>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>> >>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >>> >>> >>> Approving for publication >>> -------------------------- >>> >>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >>> >>> >>> Files >>> ----- >>> >>> The files are available here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944.txt >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9944-xmldiff1.html >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9944 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9944 (draft-ietf-scim-device-model-18) >>> >>> Title : Device Schema Extensions to the SCIM model >>> Author(s) : M. Shahzad, H. Iqbal, E. Lear >>> WG Chair(s) : Nancy Cam-Winget >>> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters >>> >>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
