As I discovered during my foray into SCIM-land, the proposed user provisioning API is extremely clumsy and non-intuitive (check out these examples for yourself), and this is mainly because of multi-valued attributes. By converting multi-valued attributes (arrays) into "key-per-value" attributes (dictionaries), I argued that a much simpler and more elegant API could be developed. While some members accepted that my API was more elegant, the SCIM spec committee overall rejected my proposal as unimplementable. And this was not bloody-mindedness on their part. It is genuinely difficult for existing cloud providers to adopt a sensible and elegant API for user provisioning because they are stuck with legacy data stores that have to support multi-valued attributes, and LDAP directories are the prime culprit. Relational databases are perhaps a tad more flexible than LDAP directories, but it comes down to whether Service Providers would be willing to make changes to their relational schemas. We can pretty much guess the answer to that!
However, it seems a shame to abandon efforts to simplify and standardise the user provisioning API, which is what the SCIM effort should have been all about. Enterprise clients don't care about the legacy constraints of Service Providers. They want a simple and standard API for user provisioning. There may also be emerging Service Providers who are not encumbered by legacy constraints, and who would be willing to explore a better option than SCIM. [There are 3 Gartner people on the SCIM spec committee, but predictably enough, none of them chose to speak up on behalf of their paying customers (enterprise clients) and the one that did speak up supported the interests of incumbent service providers. That sort of behaviour is what lies behind the saying "Gartner spelt backwards is rent-rag."]
I last blogged about the need for "NoLDAP", which I described as stores of JSON documents that permitted no arrays, only dictionaries. Actually, this doesn't have to be restricted to JSON. Any data store that outlaws multi-valued attributes would do as well. In other words, all documents have to be nested dictionaries if they are to allow simple manipulation. The abbreviation "ND" then led to the initially flippant name "NDAP Directory" as an alternative to LDAP directories. But in retrospect, "NDAP Directory" isn't a bad term at all. The "access protocol" part of NDAP is just the RESTful API which includes the "Best Practice" use of PATCH that I suggested earlier.
Here's a high-level picture of how a Service Provider could configure their infrastructure to provide support to conventional authentication mechanisms as always, yet simplify the user provisioning process that has to happen behind the scenes.
The NDAP Directory is the source of truth, and the LDAP Directory is a read-only replica that is used for authentication and retrieval of common user attributes.
Perhaps such a hybrid architecture will be more practical. Will any next-generation SPs rise to the challenge?