# SCIM IG Meeting Notes Nov 3 2021

# Attendees
* Janelle Allen
* Shon Vella
* Pamela Dingle
* Paul Lanzi
* Danny Zollner
* Phil Hunt
* Nancy Cam-Winget

# Agenda
* review IETF Agenda: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-112-scim/
*

Notes (scribed)

Nancy: in the charter we talked about updating the 7643/7644 specs, in this presentation, I suggest whoever presents to just provide a quick overview of the functionality but really focus on the gaps to incite the discussion. That way you will get feedback to give guidance on what can be the seed documents for both the schema & protocol

Next action item: to get volunteers to put the documents together, I expect that the next block would be to work towards two new documents that update and enhance, one for schema

Pam: is everyone planning to attend? (everyone is)
Nancy: no pre-recordings allowed! I will put Pam down as facilitator for use cases.
Nancy: does anyone want to take lead for the intro?

Janelle, Danny: volunteer but want lots of eyeballs and feedback

Danny: to confirm, is the goal here for folks who aren't as familiar, is the goal to talk about what SCIM does?

Paul: you are welcome to take from our deck

Pam: suggest you talk about the big mechanisms of the spec, like schema & protocol, the endpoints offered, the extensibility points

Phil: one of the things you could cover is that there is an extension mechanism that runs via IANA, this is often overlooked

Phil: there is confusion about extended schema, for example if an extra attribute is thrown in there, the spec shouldn't blow up. Clients shouldn't freak out because the server doesn't understand custom schema. The whole world of JSON is "anti-schema" even though

Danny: is there a style guide for presentations? (Nancy says no)

Janelle: should we introduce the charter milestones & goals as part of the intro?

Nancy: I was just going to flash the charter, I only have 5 minutes. You could cover in intro but you only have 30 mins

Danny: we could just take 5 minutes, start with "what makes SCIM SCIM" and then quickly cover goals

Janelle: where is the papercuts doc?

Nancy: we covered in the BOF, there are meeting notes

Pam: maybe we should make a more formal papercuts doc?

Janelle: if we do that we can refer to it later

Pam: maybe this is use case interim work? (nancy agrees)

Janelle: Pam and I could work on this together?

Paul: There is already a papercuts document in HackMD: https://hackmd.io/0yy7QwYaR7ak0OUSw9pmpQ

Paul: I volunteer to add all the papercuts from notes into the doc

Nancy: the goal is to figure out which ones to address and include, these should inform use cases or requirements to be addressed in the schema/protocol

Nancy: now we have Janelle & Danny speaking, kickstart with the papercuts, Pam follows up with Use Cases - have had discussions of use

Pam: is anyone up to help create the initial assessment of the Use cases?

Paul: volunteers

Danny: volunteers

Pam: sounds like there will be a flurry of invites going out for Friday

Phil: Nancy I might ask you to change who is presenting, if Gregg Wilson wants to do the multi-filter extension piece. He is up to date on the why rather than the what

Nancy: logistics-wise, Nancy will take 2 note takers, can't move forward until she has them
* you can provide a summary of the presentations, but need to capture who asks question and what the feedback is
* most important is capturing the votes
* Pam/Paul will combine
* Document will be live, much like HackMD. Last time there were 3 people doing notetaking
*
Nancy: note on process - typically when there is a draft present, nancy will ask who has reviewed and will ask for feedback. I will ask for the author's intent on the draft, will it be adopted as a WG document? ie does the WG want to adopt the draft on the standards track? Since this is the first draft, Nancy will ask for reviewers, so that the next time there will be discussions from those reviewers

Nancy: The last 2 slides will be mine at the end, going to the tooling - Nancy's proposal is to use Github. This group is very collaborative, in my other groups, we only use Github for documents adopted by the group. Everybody gets access, and can comment

This makes it easier for me, I can use templates etc. I am open to other proposals, the IETF has a datatracker, but I prefer GitHub. I will be proposing, heads up.

If we need collaboration for editors, we could do something like that also under the Github structure.

Pam: are you planning to propose around a chat mechanism?

Nancy: we could do that, the two that get used are Telegram (the europeans like it) and Slack. I am open to creating whichever one

Pam: requirements are that everyone can join

Danny: we might also care about retention - Slack has a 90-day retention rule. Discord doesn't have history issues, but then everybody gets a new chat mechanism

Nancy: I'm using the free version of Telegram, I have many outstanding messages

Phil: for Slack, paid messages last forever unless the company sets a limit

Nancy: question is whether we do an editors slack or a WG slack - in most groups the editors just go off and set up their own channels

Danny: volunteered to reach out to Slack, maybe they will allow that kind of retention

Nancy: is assuming that for group-at-large meetings, I will put the question out as to how often for the whole WG to meet - not at all, every two weeks or every four weeks. I encourage everyone to do the dry run with meetecho, and there are different buttons to be aware of, especially in votes

Phil: it is a weird tool but it worked quite well at the last BOF

Danny: what are the names of the newcomer meetings?

Nancy: I will find a link...

Link for newcomers: https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/112/newcomers/

How-tos for RFCs: https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tutorials/process/creating-internet-drafts-and-rfcs/

* there are good templates for markdown, some countries still can't handle anything except raw text, which is why submissions are still preferred as