-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SCIM User selection #1459
Comments
The status (expired/active) is an attribute of the membership of a person within the Collaboration. A Collaboration is reported as a SCIM Group Resource. In order to express the status of that membership the following solution is proposed: Example (current situation)
Example (Proposed Solution):
Remarks:
Question:
|
Alternatief (om meer binnnen de SCIM specs te blijven) maar lastiger voor diensten om te parsen, is om de status toe te voegen aan het display attribuut. Dus bijvoorbeeld bij Bob de Bouwer, wordt dat dan:
|
I think we should approach this in the same way as in the ldap structure:
|
It seems we can simply use {
"schemas":
["urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:core:2.0:User",
"urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.25178.4.1"],
"id": "2819c223-7f76-453a-413861904646",
"externalId": "701984",
"userName": "[email protected]",
"name": {
"formatted": "Ms. Barbara J Jensen, III",
...
},
...
"urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.25178.4.1": {
"voPersonStatus": "expired",
"voPersonExternalAffiliation": "[email protected]",
...
},
"meta": {
"resourceType": "User",
"created": "2010-01-23T04:56:22Z",
"lastModified": "2011-05-13T04:42:34Z",
"version": "W\/\"3694e05e9dff591\"",
"location":
"https://example.com/v2/Users/2819c223-7f76-453a-413861904646"
}
} as described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7643#section-3.3 and https://github.com/voperson/voperson/blob/main/voPerson.md |
@HarryKodden please proceed with @baszoetekouw recommendation for updating SCIM as above. |
At this moment all CO members are selected during SCIM User and Group selection.
We would like to exclude the CO members which are expired in that CO.
The behaviour should be consistent with LDAP: so don't remove the users themselves, but add en extra attribute and remove from relevant groups.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: