Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
follows:
Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
Style Guide"). Please review.
Original:
Device Schema Extensions to the SCIM model
Current:
Device Schema Extensions to the System for Cross-Domain Identity
Management (SCIM) Model
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
3) <!-- [rfced] In the text below, we have updated "JSON Schema" to "JSON
Schemas" (plural)
and "OpenAPI" to "OpenAPI versions" (for consistency with the first sentence).
Please review to confirm these changes are accurate.
Original:
In addition, we provide non-normative JSON Schema [JSONSchema] and OpenAPI
[OpenAPI] versions in the appendices for ease of implementation, neither of
which existed when SCIM was originally developed. The only difference the
authors note between the normative schema representations is that JSON
Schema and OpenAPI do not have a means to express...
Current:
In addition, we provide non-normative JSON Schemas [JSONSchema] and OpenAPI
[OpenAPI] versions in the appendices for ease of implementation, neither of
which existed when SCIM was originally developed. The only difference the
authors note between the normative schema representations is that the JSON
Schemas and OpenAPI versions do not have a means to express...
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] Could the citations below be updated as follows for clarity?
We ask because it appears that attribute characteristics are defined
in Section 2.2 of RFC 7643, and that attribute datatypes are defined
in Section 2.3 of RFC 7643.
Original:
Attributes defined in the device core schema and extensions comprise
characteristics and SCIM datatypes defined in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of
[RFC7643].
Perhaps:
Attributes defined in the device core schema (see Section 2.2 of
[RFC7643]) and extensions comprise characteristics and the SCIM datatypes
(defined in Section 2.3 of [RFC7643]).
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text below as follows? Note that
this update is similar to text that appears in Appendix A.2.
Original:
For example, when used in conjunction with NIPC [I-D.brinckman-nipc],
commands such as connect, disconnect, subscribe that control application
sends to the controller for the devices any command will be rejected by
the controller.
Perhaps:
For example, when used in conjunction with Non-IP Device Control (NIPC)
[NIPC],
commands (such as connect, disconnect, and subscribe) that control
application
sends to the controller for devices will be rejected by the controller.
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] To make this definition more concise, may we combine the second
and fifth sentences as follows?
Original:
mudUrl: A string that represents the URL to the Manufacturer Usage
Description (MUD) file associated with this device. This
attribute is optional and mutable.
The mudUrl value is case sensitive and not unique.
When present, this attribute may be used as described in [RFC8520].
This attribute is case sensitive and returned by default.
Perhaps:
mudUrl: A string that represents the URL to the Manufacturer Usage
Description (MUD) file associated with this device. This
attribute is optional, case sensitive, mutable, and returned by default.
When present, this attribute may be used as described in [RFC8520].
The mudUrl value is case sensitive and not unique.
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions regarding the notation
used
in Tables 1 through 8:
a) We note different notation used for "ReadOnly" in
these tables ("R" vs. "RO"). Please review and let us know
which form you prefer so we may update for consistency:
R: ReadOnly
RO: ReadOnly
b) We note these notations also appear with and without a space. Please review
and let us know how to update for consistency:
WO: Write Only
WO: WriteOnly
c) We note that "Manuf" is not included in Table 2. May we remove it from the
legend listed directly after the table?
Manuf: Manufacturer
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust these definitions below in order to clarify what
list items "not" refers to?
Original:
It is not mutable, read-only, generated if no certificateInfo
object is provisioned, case sensitive and returned by default if it exists.
...
This attribute is not required, mutable, singular and NOT case
sensitive.
...
It is not required, multivalued, mutable, and returned by default.
Perhaps:
It is not mutable. It is read only, case sensitive, and generated if no
certificateInfo
object is provisioned. It is returned by default if it exists.
...
This attribute is not required and not case sensitive. It is mutable and
singular.
...
It is not required. It is multivalued, mutable, and returned by default.
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] How may we clarify "a trust anchor certificate" in the first
sentence
below? In addition, may we adjust the second sentence as follows, in order to
clarify what list items "not" refers to?
Original:
rootCA: A base64-encoded string as described in [RFC4648] Section 4
a trust anchor certificate. This trust anchor is applicable for
certificates used for client application access.
The object is not required, singular, case sensitive, and read/write.
Perhaps:
rootCA: A base64-encoded string as described in Section 4 of
[RFC4648]. It is a trust anchor certificate applicable for
certificates used for client application access.
The object is not required. It is singular, case sensitive, and
read/write.
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust the text below as follows to make these list
items
more parallel and readable?
Original:
SCIM provides various extension schemas, their attributes, JSON
representation, and example object.
Perhaps:
SCIM provides various extension schemas and their attributes, along with JSON
representations and example objects.
-->
11) <!--[rfced] Because these following URNs appear in an ordered list, the
indentation causes the lines to exceed the 72-character limit. In order to
fit the character limit, we suggest converting the ordered list into a
definitions list as follows. Please review.
Current:
ii. The pairingJustWorks extension is identified using the
following schema URI:
urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:pairingJustWorks:2.0:Device
The Just Works pairing method does not require a key to pair
devices. For completeness, the key attribute is included and
is set to 'null'. The key attribute is required, immutable,
and returned by default.
iii. The pairingPassKey extension is identified using the following
schema URI:
urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:pairingPassKey:2.0:Device
The passkey pairing method requires a 6-digit key to pair
devices. This extension has one singular integer attribute,
"key", which is required, mutable, and returned by default.
The key pattern is as follows:
^[0-9]{6}$
Perhaps:
pairingJustWorks extension: Identified using the following schema
URI:
urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:pairingJustWorks:2.0:Device
The Just Works pairing method does not require a key to pair
devices. For completeness, the key attribute is included and is
set to 'null'. The key attribute is required, immutable, and
returned by default.
pairingPassKey extension: Identified using the following
schema URI:
urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:pairingPassKey:2.0:Device
The passkey pairing method requires a 6-digit key to pair
devices. This extension has one singular integer attribute,
"key", which is required, mutable, and returned by default.
The key pattern is as follows:
^[0-9]{6}$
-->
12) <!-- [rfced] How may we make the two instances below complete sentences in
order to provide more context for the reader?
Original:
7.2. Wi-Fi Easy Connect Extension
A schema that extends the device schema to enable Wi-Fi Easy Connect
(otherwise known as Device Provisioning Protocol or DPP).
7.5. Zigbee Extension
A schema that extends the device schema to enable the provisioning of
Zigbee devices [Zigbee].
Perhaps:
7.2. Wi-Fi Easy Connect Extension
This section describes a schema that extends the device schema to enable
Wi-Fi Easy Connect
(otherwise known as Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP)).
7.5. Zigbee Extension
This section describes a schema that extends the device schema to enable the
provisioning of
Zigbee devices [Zigbee].
-->
13) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.4: FYI - We have added an introductory sentence to
the
URN below to match other instances in the document. Please review and let us
know if any further updates are needed.
Original:
The SCIM server MUST know how to process the voucher, either directly or by
forwarding it along to an owner process as defined in the FDO specification.
urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:fido-device-onboard:2.0:Device
Current:
The SCIM server MUST know how to process the voucher, either directly or by
forwarding it along to an owner process as defined in the FDO
specification. The extension is identified using the following schema URI:
urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:fido-device-onboard:2.0:Device
-->
14) <!--[rfced] We acknowledge this note included in the IANA Considerations
section:
Note that the line break in URNs should be removed, as should this
comment.
However, without the line breaks in the URNs, the tables exceed the 72-character
line limit. We have left the line breaks as is. To keep the URN lines unbroken,
we suggest reformatting to lists rather than tables.
For example:
URN: urn:iet:params:scim:schemas:extension:fido-device-onboard:2.0:Device
Description: FIDO Device Onboard
Resource Type: Device
Reference: RFC 9944, Section 7.4
-->
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].
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].
-->
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]?
b) [JSONSchema] also exists as an Internet-Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bhutton-json-schema/.
May we update this reference to point to the Internet-Draft?
c) We were unable to find Version 2.0 of [DPP2] "Wi-Fi Easy Connect
Specification". We did find Version 3.0 from 2022:
https://www.wi-fi.org/system/files/Wi-Fi_Easy_Connect_Specification_v3.0.pdf.
Should we update this reference to point to Version 3.0 of the "Wi-Fi
Easy Connect Specification"?
Current:
[DPP2] Wi-Fi Alliance, "Wi-Fi Easy Connect Specification",
Version 2.0, 2020.
Perhaps:
[DPP3] Wi-Fi Alliance, "Wi-Fi Easy Connect Specification",
Version 3.0, 2020, <https://www.wi-fi.org/system/files/Wi-
Fi_Easy_Connect_Specification_v3.0.pdf>.
-->
17) <!-- [rfced] Appendix C: Please review the ASCII artwork that appears at the
end of this section. The submitted ASCII artwork does not render or match its
SVG
equivalent. -->
18) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
values for "type"
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types)
does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.
Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
In addition, review each artwork element. Specifically,
should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another
element?
-->
19) <!-- [rfced] Terminology:
a) We note that the following items appear differently throughout this
document (with different quotation marks, capitalization, spacing, etc.).
Please review and let us know if any of these should be updated for
consistency:
the device
the Device
Device schema
device schema
"ResourceType" schema
EndpointApp schema
endpointApp schema
endpoint Apps extension schema
schema for "EndpointApp"
resource type 'Device'
resource type, Device
Device resource types
resource "Device"
'EndpointApp' resource type
'EndpointApp' resource
resource "EndpointApp"
resource "endpointApp"
endpointApp resource object
'deviceControl'
deviceControl
'telemetry'
telemetry
b) We note that different forms of "true" and "false" are used throughout this
document in running text. May we make these items consistent by updating to
"true" and "false" (lowercase) throughout?
TRUE, True > true
FALSE > false
c) We note a few instances of "NOT" capitalized throughout this document. May
we make these instances lowercase (change "NOT" to "not") for consistency and
so that these do not get mistaken for a BCP 14 keyword?
-->
20) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations:
a) Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), abbreviations should be
expanded upon first use. Please review the items below and let us know if/how
they should be expanded:
i) How may we expand "TO2" below?
After this flow is complete, the device can then first provisionally
onboard, and then later receive a trust anchor through FDO's TO2 process.
ii) Should "AP" be expanded as "Access Point", "Authenticating Party", or
something else?
If set to TRUE, the device could be expected to move within a network of
APs.
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).
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)
-->
21) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
For example, please consider whether "native" should be updated:
SCIM clients MUST NOT specify this to describe native IP-based devices.
-->
Thank you.
Kaelin Foody and Alanna Paloma
RFC Production Center
On Mar 11, 2026, at 11:39 AM, [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]
