Internet DRAFT - draft-zollner-scim-domain-extension
draft-zollner-scim-domain-extension
SCIM D. Zollner
Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Informational 22 October 2021
Expires: 25 April 2022
SCIM Verified Domains Extension
draft-zollner-scim-domain-extension-00
Abstract
The System for Cross-domain Identity Management (SCIM) protocol
supports creation and management of identity resources such as users
between a client and a service provider. In some instances, a SCIM
service provider may maintain a list of DNS domains that an
organization using that service has registered for their exclusive
use with the service. This registration of domains is frequently
tied to some form of ownership verification for each domain. This
document defines an extension to the SCIM protocol introducing a new
'VerifiedDomains' resource type in order to allow a SCIM client to
confirm what domains have had ownership verified by the SCIM service
provider, as well as some information about whether the User
resource's userName and emails attributes require domain verification
in order for a value to possess that domain suffix.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 April 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zollner Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCIM Verified Domains Extension October 2021
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Verified Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1. ServiceProviderConfig Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2. VerifiedDomains Schema Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.3. Sample Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.3.1. Retrieving all verified domains . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.3.2. Querying verified domains by domainName value . . . . 5
6. Schema BNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The System for Cross-domain identity Management (SCIM) protocol
RFC7644 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7644) supports
creation, modification, and deletion of core identity resources. To
allow for efficient interactions between SCIM clients and multi-
customer SCIM service providers such as SaaS applications, the client
may wish to avoid sending creation or update requests that are
already known to contain attribute values that will be rejected by
the SCIM service provider.
A common source of creation and update failures when interacting with
SCIM service providers for SaaS applications is when the SCIM client
attempts to create or update the userName(adhering to RFC5321
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321) format) or emails
attribute on a user and the SCIM client provides a value with a
domain suffix that is not verified in the customer's tenant in the
service represented by the SCIM service provider.
This document defines a simple extension to the SCIM protocol and
core schema that adds support for a "VerifiedDomains" resource type
that can be queried to retrieve a list of verified domains in the
Zollner Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCIM Verified Domains Extension October 2021
SCIM service provider's environment so that a SCIM client can utilize
this information to apply additional logic and avoid sending requests
that will fail.
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
4. Definitions
Domain: At least a Second Level Domain (SLD) and a Top Level
Domain(TLD) registered with public DNS registrars and ICANN. Further
expansion to Third Level Domains (aka subdomains) are also permitted.
5. Verified Domains
A SCIM endpoint supporting the Domains extension MUST implement a
/VerifiedDomains resource as outlined in this document. This
extension is written with only the HTTP/REST GET method required, as
the data provided by the SCIM service provider is intended to be
read-only. POST, PUT, PATCH and DELETE requests to the
/VerifiedDomains resource MUST result in a HTTP Bad Request (400).
5.1. ServiceProviderConfig Extension
SCIM endpoints that support the Verified Domains extension MUST
advertise this support in the ServiceProviderConfig endpoint as
defined:
Zollner Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCIM Verified Domains Extension October 2021
verifiedDomains
A complex type that specifies Verified Domains configuration
options. REQUIRED.
supported
A boolean type that specifies if the Verified
Domains extension is supported.
userNameProperties
A complex type that specifies if the expected value for
userName follows the RFC5321 format, and if accepted
values following RFC5321 require a verified domain suffix.
emailsVerifiedDomainRequired
A boolean type that specifies if accepted values for
emails require a verified domain suffix.
5.2. VerifiedDomains Schema Extension
Any SCIM service provider that supports the Verified Domains
extension MUST implement the VerifiedDomains resource type with the
urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:2.0:VerifiedDomain schema defined in
this section:
The following singular attributes are defined:
domainName
A string attribute containing at least the Second Level Domain
(SLD) and Top Level Domain (TLD) of a domain verified in the
SCIM service provider's system. Subdomains (Third Level
Domains and below) are supported as well. REQUIRED.
allowSubdomains
A boolean attribute set to true for any verified domain
resource that should be interpreted by the client to
include all subdomains. REQUIRED.
verifiedDate
A dateTime attribute indicating the date and time at which the
domain resource was verified in the SCIM service provider's
system. OPTIONAL.
5.3. Sample Requests
5.3.1. Retrieving all verified domains
5.3.1.1. Request
Zollner Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCIM Verified Domains Extension October 2021
GET /VerifiedDomains
Host: example.com
Accept: application/scim+json
Authorization: Bearer 123456abcd
5.3.1.2. Response
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/scim+json
{
"schemas":["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:ListResponse"],
"totalResults":2",
"itemsPerPage":100,
"startIndex":1,
"Resources":[
{
"id":"1",
"domainName":"contoso.com",
"allowSubdomains":true,
},
{
"id":"2",
"domainName":"fabrikam.com",
"allowSubdomains":true
}
]
}
5.3.2. Querying verified domains by domainName value
5.3.2.1. Request
GET /VerifiedDomains?filter=domainName contains "contoso.com"
Host: example.com
Accept: application/scim+json
Authorization: Bearer 123456abcd
5.3.2.2. Response
Zollner Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCIM Verified Domains Extension October 2021
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/scim+json
{
"schemas":["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:ListResponse"],
"totalResults":1",
"itemsPerPage":100,
"startIndex":1,
"Resources":[
{
"id":"1",
"domainName":"contoso.com",
"allowSubdomains":true
}
]
}
6. Schema BNF
[
{
"id" : "urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:2.0:VerifiedDomain",
"name" : "Domain",
"description" : "DNS Domains",
"attributes" : [
{
"name" : "domainName"
"type" : "string"
"multiValued" : false
"description" : "Value for a domain name registered and
optionally verified in the SCIM service provider. The
value should represent a DNS domain name such as
'contoso.com' and optionally may contain
one or more subdomain levels such as 'scim.contoso.com'.
REQUIRED.",
"required" : true,
"caseExact" : false,
"mutability" : "readOnly",
"returned" : "default",
"uniqueness" : "server"
},
{
"name" : "allowSubdomains",
"type" : "boolean",
"multiValued" : false,
"description" : "A Boolean value indicating if subdomains
below the domain specified in domainName should be
treated identically to the value provided in domainName.
Zollner Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCIM Verified Domains Extension October 2021
OPTIONAL",
"required" : true,
"mutability" : "readOnly",
"returned" : "default"
},
{
"name" : "verifiedDate",
"type" : "dateTime",
"multiValued" : false,
"description" : "An optional dateTime value indicating
the time at which the domain specified in domainName
was verified. OPTIONAL",
"required" : false
"mutability" : "readOnly",
"returned" : "default"
}
]
"meta" : {
"resourceType" : "Schema",
"location" :
"/v2/Schemas/urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:2.0:VerifiedDomain"
}
}
]
7. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Author's Address
Danny Zollner
Microsoft
Email: danny@zollnerd.com
Zollner Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 7]
