Hi Danny and Anjali, Anjali — As Danny noted, the diff is not showing the full file. Your contact information is listed in the RFC — please see <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.html#name-authors-addresses>.
Danny, thank you for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9865>. We have received approvals from each of the authors, so we will continue with the publication process at this time. Thank you, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Oct 1, 2025, at 12:39 PM, Danny Zollner <[email protected]> wrote: > > @Sehgal, Anjali I think it’s just being cut off by the diff viewer. Looking > at the full document here (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.html) > it shows your name. > @Sandy Ginoza, I’ve reviewed and the most recent version of the document > (same link as above) looks good to me. Thanks, > Danny Zollner > From: Sehgal, Anjali <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 2:43 PM > To: Matt Peterson <[email protected]>; Sandy Ginoza > <[email protected]> > Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>; Danny Zollner > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nancy > Cam-Winget <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9865 > <draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination-11> for your review > Hi Sandy, > @Matt Peterson pointed out that my contact info does not appear in the > Authors’ section. > But I saw in the file itself the Addresses were there. Is it just a viewing > problem for diff? > <image001.png> Thanks > Anjali > From: Matt Peterson <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 3:05 PM > To: Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]>, "Sehgal, Anjali" > <[email protected]> > Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Nancy Cam-Winget > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [EXT] [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9865 > <draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination-11> for your review > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. Ne > cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez pas > confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que le > contenu ne présente aucun risque. > Hi Sandy, I have reviewed the comprehensive diffs. No further updates > needed. > -- > Matt Peterson > From: Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 8:40 AM > To: Sehgal, Anjali <[email protected]> > Cc: Matt Peterson <[email protected]>; RFC Editor > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Nancy Cam-Winget <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9865 > <draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination-11> for your review > Hi Anjali, Thank you for your review. We have noted your approval on the > AUTH48 page <https: //urldefense. com/v3/__https: //www. rfc-editor. > org/auth48/rfc9865__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2DvWC-I8$>. > Hi Anjali, > > Thank you for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9865__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2DvWC-I8$>. > > > We will wait to hear from your coauthors before continuing with the > publication process. > > Thank you, > Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > > > On Sep 30, 2025, at 4:24 AM, Sehgal, Anjali <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Sandy, > > > > Looks good. No further updates needed. > > > > Thanks > > Anjali > > > > On 2025-09-26, 11:25 AM, "Sandy Ginoza" <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > > the content is safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. > > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez > > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que > > le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document as described > > below. The revised files are available here: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.xml__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2Cq2mFwM$ > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.xml__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2Cq2mFwM$> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.txt__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2MYUfQo4$ > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.txt__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2MYUfQo4$> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.pdf__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2OgvAw5X$ > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.pdf__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2OgvAw5X$> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2LrSrfLt$ > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2LrSrfLt$> > > > > > > AUTH48 diffs: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-auth48diff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2AIL98Vi$ > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-auth48diff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2AIL98Vi$> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2Cz2oY-y$ > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2Cz2oY-y$> > > (side by side) > > > > > > Comprehensive diffs: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-diff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2MxvXH1E$ > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-diff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2MxvXH1E$> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-rfcdiff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2DzVm23F$ > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-rfcdiff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2DzVm23F$> > > (side by side) > > > > > > > > > > Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed or if you > > approve the RFC for publication. > > > > > > Thank you, > > Sandy Ginoza > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sep 25, 2025, at 5:55 AM, Sehgal, Anjali > >> <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> Thank you @Matt Peterson for sending out the response. > >> I have also reviewed the content of the updated doc with editorial updates > >> [ > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-rfcdiff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2DzVm23F$ > >> > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-rfcdiff.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!ZO70vKQ_hrRb2d2w-bOyX9ns3HKTtVkRmoAPjRRHpEN_UkfBxCyV7tKhgGEAhotsJ1UU6KjQF3P7hddtjEnY2DzVm23F$> > >> (side by side)]. > >> They all seemed fine. > >> Added a note around the 10) <!-- [rfced] As, "and Contributions" was added > >> to the "Acknowledgements" inline below. > >> Thanks > >> Anjali > >> From: Matt Peterson <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 at 5:52 PM > >> To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Sehgal, Anjali" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> Subject: RE: [EXT] [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9865 > >> <draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination-11> for your review > >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > >> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > >> the content is safe. > >> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. > >> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne > >> pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas > >> certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > >> 1) <!-- [rfced] This document updates RFCs 7643 and 7644. As such, please > >> review the errata reported for both RFCs and confirm that they are not > >> relevant to this document. > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7643__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!bj6L_sjloeSF6ghwhfr3qv5DF3cgzT_jT1j93MoqS3a5QDpxuLUzJdLa6S7VkPh1RNiPdQToiNTpTsQC9RQ2uc7C5ZM$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7643__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!bj6L_sjloeSF6ghwhfr3qv5DF3cgzT_jT1j93MoqS3a5QDpxuLUzJdLa6S7VkPh1RNiPdQToiNTpTsQC9RQ2uc7C5ZM$> > >>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7644__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!bj6L_sjloeSF6ghwhfr3qv5DF3cgzT_jT1j93MoqS3a5QDpxuLUzJdLa6S7VkPh1RNiPdQToiNTpTsQC9RQ2SOqLK18$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7644__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!bj6L_sjloeSF6ghwhfr3qv5DF3cgzT_jT1j93MoqS3a5QDpxuLUzJdLa6S7VkPh1RNiPdQToiNTpTsQC9RQ2SOqLK18$> > >>--> > >> > >> [Matt] Reviewed. No errata is relevant to this document > >> > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > >> the title) for use on > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!bj6L_sjloeSF6ghwhfr3qv5DF3cgzT_jT1j93MoqS3a5QDpxuLUzJdLa6S7VkPh1RNiPdQToiNTpTsQC9RQ2-iFUo9U$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!bj6L_sjloeSF6ghwhfr3qv5DF3cgzT_jT1j93MoqS3a5QDpxuLUzJdLa6S7VkPh1RNiPdQToiNTpTsQC9RQ2-iFUo9U$>.--> > >> > >> [Matt] No additional keywords needed. > >> > >> > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "Section 3.4.1 of [RFC7644]" to point to > >> Section 3.4.2 instead, as Section 3.4.2 defines "totalResults". Please let > >> us know if this is incorrect. > >> > >> Original: > >> As described in Section 3.4.1 of [RFC7644] service providers should > >> return an accurate value for totalResults which is the total number > >> of resources for all pages. > >> > >> Definition from Section 3.4.2 of RFC 7644: > >> totalResults The total number of results returned by the list or > >> query operation. The value may be larger than the number of > >> resources returned, such as when returning a single page (see > >> Section 3.4.2.4) of results where multiple pages are available. > >> REQUIRED. > >> --> > >> > >> [Matt] Your update is correct. Thank you. > >> > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing "and must value identical > >> count". Please clarify. > >> > >> Table 3 Original: > >> | invalidCount | Count value is invalid. Count | GET (Section | > >> | | value must be between 0 and | 3.4.2 of | > >> | | service provider's maxPageSize | [RFC7644]) | > >> | | and must value identical count | | > >> | | of the initial query. | | > >> --> > >> > >> [Matt] > >> OLD > >> | invalidCount | Count value is invalid. Count | GET (Section | > >> | | value must be between 0 and | 3.4.2 of | > >> | | service provider's maxPageSize | [RFC7644]) | > >> | | and must value identical count | | > >> | | of the initial query. | | > >> > >> NEW > >> | invalidCount | Count value is invalid. Count | GET (Section | > >> | | value must be between 0 and | 3.4.2 of | > >> | | service provider's maxPageSize | [RFC7644]) | > >> | | and must be equal to the count | | > >> | | value of the initial query. | | > >> > >> > >> > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Is "Resources" here capitalized because it refers to the > >> field in the sourcecode that follows, or should it be lowercase as it > >> appears elsewhere (except for the code)? Please review. If it should be > >> capitalized, please let us know if any other updates are required. > >> > >> Section 2.3 Original: > >> (Resources omitted for brevity) > >> > >> Section 2 Original - similar use: > >> (actual resources removed for brevity) > >> --> > >> > >> [Matt] Yes “Resources” should be capitalized because it references the > >> “Resource” property in the example response body. For consistency, > >> “(Resources omitted for brevity)” should be used all instances: > >> > >> OLD > >> The SCIM service provider in response to the query above returns > >> metadata regarding pagination similar to the following example > >> (actual resources removed for brevity): > >> > >> OLD > >> The SCIM service provider in response to the query above returns > >> metadata regarding pagination similar to the following example > >> (Resources omitted for brevity): > >> > >> > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] The following line extends one character beyond the > >> 72-character limit. Please consider how this line may be reduced by one > >> character or broken across lines. > >> > >> "schemas": ["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:SearchRequest"], > >> --> > >> [Matt] > >> OLD > >> { > >> "schemas": ["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:SearchRequest"], > >> "attributes": ["displayName", "userName"], > >> "filter": "displayName sw \"smith\"", > >> "cursor": "", > >> "count": 10 > >> } > >> > >> NEW > >> { > >> "schemas": [ > >> "urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:SearchRequest" > >> ], > >> "attributes": ["displayName", "userName"], > >> "filter": "displayName sw \"smith\"", > >> "cursor": "", > >> "count": 10 > >> } > >> > >> > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] We updated "Server provider" to "Service provider". Please > >> let us know if any corrections are needed. > >> > >> Original: > >> * In alignment with Section 2, cursor values are URL-Safe strings > >> that are opaque to clients. Server providers should obfuscate > >> cursors values to prevent clients from interpreting cursors or > >> forging new cursors. Service providers should be able to easily > >> detect forged cursor values and immediately return an > >> invalidCursor as described in Section 2.1 > >> --> > >> > >> [Matt] Thank you. "Service provider" is correct. > >> > >> > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Should "Clients should authenticate" be "Clients should use > >> authentication"? > >> > >> Original: > >> * Clients should authenticate to retrieve large result sets. > >> --> > >> > >> [Matt] The original is correct. “Client should use authentication” is also > >> correct and (maybe) more readable? > >> > >> > >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Because "SCIM Server-Related Schema URIs" is a registry > >> within the "System for Cross-domain Identity Management (SCIM) Schema URIs" > >> registry group, and two of the actions are being made to values registered > >> in the "SCIM Schema URIs for Data Resources" registry, we have altered the > >> IANA Considerations to specify the specific registries being updated. > >> Please review and let us know if any updates are needed. > >> --> > >> > >> [Matt] alterations to add specific registries are good > >> > >> 10) <!-- [rfced] As "and Contributions" was added to the "Acknowledgements" > >> section title in a recent I-D, it seems you'd like to recognize some of the > >> individuals as Contributors. The RFC Style Guide allows for an optional > >> Acknowledgements section and an optional Contributors section. We > >> recommend dividing "Acknowledgments and Contributions" into two sections to > >> clarify acknowledgements and contributors. Please review and let us know > >> how to update the text. > >> > >> Original: > >> 8. Acknowledgments and Contributions > >> > >> The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Paul Lanzi > >> (IDenovate) in leading the writing of security considerations > >> section. > >> > >> The authors would also like to acknowledge the following individuals > >> who provided valuable feedback while reviewing the document: > >> > >> * Aaron Parecki - Okta > >> > >> * David Brossard - Axiomatics > >> > >> * Dean H. Saxe - Independent > >> > >> * Pamela Dingle - Microsoft > >> > >> --> > >> > >> [Matt] Danny please respond to this rfced comment > >> [Anjali] Paul Lanzi should be considered under Contributors section as he > >> led the security consideration section. Aaron, David, Dean, Pamela under > >> Acknowledgements sections as they helped in reviewing the doc by providing > >> critical feedback. Danny let us know if you think otherwise. > >> > >> > >> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > >> online Style Guide > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/>*inclusive_language__;Iw!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!bj6L_sjloeSF6ghwhfr3qv5DF3cgzT_jT1j93MoqS3a5QDpxuLUzJdLa6S7VkPh1RNiPdQToiNTpTsQC9RQ2lRqT8KE$> > >>and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > >> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > >> > >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > >> still be reviewed as a best practice. > >> --> > >> > >> [Matt] Reviewed. No changed needed > >> > >> > >> Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are intended solely > >> for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If > >> this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute > >> or disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust > >> immediately and delete the message from your system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
