November 2015 - WG-UMA - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

Fwd: [OAUTH-WG] Announcing new Identity Events Discussion List (id-event)
by Justin Richer 03 Nov '15

03 Nov '15

Apologies for cross-posting to multiple lists. A new mailing list is spinning up to discuss a potential abstraction that could include the “auditable transaction receipt” and “consent receipt” concepts in its milieu. This would be covering the technical aspects of the receipt construct, as well as potentially the delivery and notification aspects of these kinds of objects. If you’re interested in that conversation, please join the list. — Justin > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt(a)oracle.com> > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Announcing new Identity Events Discussion List (id-event) > Date: November 3, 2015 at 3:13:33 PM GMT+9 > To: SCIM WG <scim(a)ietf.org>, "<oauth(a)ietf.org>" <oauth(a)ietf.org> > Cc: <id-event(a)ietf.org> > > At IETF94, a number of us got together to discuss the emerging event work that is emerging in the Identity space: > > * OIDF RISC > * OIDC Logout > * SCIM Notify Events > * OAuth Token Revocations > * Consent Events > > The Id-Event discussion list is intended to begin discussion around developing new IDs (and potentially form a WG) for the purpose of defining a JWT message format for Identity Events and to define a possible approach for distribution. > > The list was formed after several participants noticed common event requirements that have emerged from SCIM provisioning, OIDC (eg. Logout), RISC Events (e.g. account suspension, reset, take-over), as well as OAuth2 (e.g. token revocations), and consent notification (e.g. consent from a distributes OAuth/UMA system). > > At this time, the process and route to standardization for identity events has not been determined. I expect that to be one of the discussions we will have on the list. > > The web page for the mailing list is: > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event> > > Regards, > > Phil > > @independentid > www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com/>phil.hunt(a)oracle.com <mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth(a)ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

1 0

Notes from UMA legal subgroup telecon 2015-10-30
by Eve Maler 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

Fri Oct 30 8-9am PT Voice: Skype: +99051000000481 or US +1-805-309-2350 (international dial-in lines <https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html>), room code 178-2540# Screen sharing: http://join.me/findthomas <http://join.me/findthomas> - NOTE: IGNORE the join.me <http://join.me/> dial-in line shown here in favor of the dial-in info above (Kantara "line C" and the Skype line) UMA calendar: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar> Report from IIW Eve will post John Wunderlich’s Consent Receipt demo video before the meeting There was a lot more relevant discussion too Input from Andrew Hughes — is he ready yet? Walk through Binding Obs to look for fodder What can we draw from all of this to shape our next outputs? AOB Attending: Eve, Jon, Adrian, Ann, Steve, Thomas, Andrew H, Joni, Mark Blockchains These were big at IIW 21! Take a look at the notes page <http://iiw.idcommons.net/IIW_21_Notes> generally, compared to six months ago, when there was one session. A blockchain is a distributed ledger. Our our call today, Thomas, Adrian, and Steve “speak blockchain” pretty well. Thomas noted that MIT Media Labs has a full-time digital currency initiative to combat some of the key (perceived or real) vulnerabilities. One particular session <http://iiw.idcommons.net/BlockChain_&_UMA_%E2%80%93_Two_Great_Tastes%E2%80%…> focused on blockchain wrt UMA. The session participants came up with four ideas for potential synergies. The most attractive was using a blockchain for receipts. The newer implementations give the features you’d need for this with colored coins <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Colored_Coins>. The costs are latency (hour->day) and monetary costs ($.01 per transaction). In the case of using this technology for contracts, the incentives may be perverse regarding revocation: You typically want each party to protect their private key with their lives. But for contracts, one party may want to go to the judge and say “Sorry, I lost my key, so in fact I can’t prove and you can’t prove I took part in these transactions!” That sounds pretty bad. Then you’re back to key escrow. How much does that solve vs. “centralized” mechanisms? The data is still stored in a decentralized fashion. BLT It’s not just a sandwich anymore. There’s a bourbon, lemon, and tonic cocktail! PTP This is the Pumpkin Theater Protocol. Sarah had a consent receipts session act out the UMA protocol with receipts added, protecting a little autumn pumpkin as the resource. Consent Receipts vs. Auditable Transaction Receipts Consent Receipts in UMA is the session <http://iiw.idcommons.net/Consent_Receipts_in_UMA> where Sarah came up with the PTP. We liked the idea of defining a little spec for what Adrian calls a “notice endpoint”. UMA could choose to add this optionally to the protection and authorization APIs, for resource owners and requesting parties, at the authorization server if it wants to. This could make the AS one hub of receipt storage. Andrew notes it could be called the “shoebox endpoint”! :-) Adrian suspects that this could do away with the notion of “informed consent” completely. Wow. This is similar to an article <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512205?query=TOC> he’s seen making the case that deidentification no longer puts you into a Safe Harbor by avoiding authorization and accountability. API.ConsentReceipts.org This API <http://api.consentreceipt.org/> from the CISWG illustrates how they are going about defining the “minimum viable consent receipt” spec. We showed how it produces (supposedly) human-readable receipts; the JSON output seemed not to be working for the moment but Eve saw it in John Wunderlich’s demo this week (for which she will hopefully be posting video soon). It appears that UX for the policy generator at CR.org is a new substitute for “markdown editing” (or whatever it is) presented in CommonAccord, and the “legal stack” that you can get out of CommonAccord as a template generator could be managed, versioned, and then hashed as a representation of what your contract is. When you put something onto the blockchain, the way the storage works, you only have a tiny amount of space into the scripting area. In the case of ColoredChains.org, they put the distributed hash table key into BitTorrent. You might have a much larger document with megabytes of data that you want to claim and provide a verifiable token for. The blockchain gives you the verifiability you need. A “colored coin” is just the hash piece. BitTorrent uses SHA-1, which isn’t considered secure anymore. So you use SHA-256, use three address slots, and use the second two for a SHA-256 hash broken into two pieces. HIE of One Dazza is running Future of Commerce on Nov 20-22, and Adrian will be launching HIE of One here, which is meant to be the “simplest practical UMA use case”. HIE of One’s project goal is to "provide a standards-based platform for durable relationship between customers and vendors. Our approach lowers the barrier to adoption by the vendors by (i) not introducing a new party to their base customer relationship, (ii) allowing the vendor the option to authenticate any requesting party, just like they do already, and (iii) offering an accessible reference implementation for both the vendor and any requesting party client to test against. The benefit of this approach to both the customer and the vendor is trust, in that valuable behavioral data does not leak to intermediary brokers. We will use UMA 1.0.1 as the core standard and suggest changes for UMA 2.0 as gaps are identified. OpenID Connect, CommonAccord, and MVCR will be referenced as appropriate.” Binding Obligations review Eve reviewed very briefly how the Binding Obs spec <https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/draft-uma-trust.html> is supposed to work. Andrew is working on doing the same approach for other identity-related protocols. Next steps If Andrew can provide us with his requirements by next time, it appears we’ll be very well positioned to start filling in at least some UMA-specific and non-UMA-specific clauses and deciding what technical approach to use and what “legal stacks” to define. One question: Are we interested to use the “sociotechnical systems” language? Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com

7 11

Reminder: V1.0.1 45-day public review ends tomorrow (and some follow-on odds and ends)
by Eve Maler 01 Nov '15

01 Nov '15

As you should be well aware by now, WG members have special responsibilities when it comes to public review, IPR, how to report comments, etc. Details are here: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/2015-September/002762.html In preparation for next week’s meeting (VOTERS PLEASE ATTEND so we can make quorum), I’ve begun cleaning up minor editorial issues in the specs. See the seven commits made on Oct 28: https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/commits/master If you’ve been hanging onto additional clearly editorial issues (typos and such), please do report those ASAP, any way you like (even emailing me is fine). I’ve been considering issue #229 as an editorial clarification issue, since the truth of RPT-to-ticket relationship just is what it is. If I don’t hear from anyone else by public review close time, I’ll change the wording to “any RPT”: https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/229 Thanks, Eve Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com

1 0