Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
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://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7643 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7644 --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 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. --> 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. | | --> 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) --> 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"], --> 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 --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Should "Clients should authenticate" be "Clients should use authentication"? Original: * Clients should authenticate to retrieve large result sets. --> 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. --> 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 --> 11) <!-- [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. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center On Sep 22, 2025, at 1:19 PM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/09/22 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/rfc9865.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9865-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9865 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9865 (draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination-11) Title : Cursor-based Pagination of SCIM Resources Author(s) : M. Peterson, D. Zollner, Ed., A. Sehgal 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]
