December 2017 - WG-UMA - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

URGENT: The UMA 2.0 specifications are now in Kantara All-Member Ballot
by Eve Maler 11 Dec '17

11 Dec '17

I'm pleased to report that the Draft Recommendations, which our WG approved to progress to the LC, and which the LC certified in a very efficient amount of time, have been put into All-Member Ballot by Kantara staff in a likewise extremely efficient manner. Special thanks to Andrew Hughes and Megan Cannon for their assistance! I have prepared a Get Out The vote (GOTV) Google spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/a/meshfire.com/spreadsheets/d/1FpiB6PMH9Tx4nbn3PYuM…> to help us reach out to Kantara members and member reps individually, to make the best use of this two-week balloting period. It will go by FAST. I invite you all to please help by going into the spreadsheet (I will share with any WG participant who requests access), filling in Kantara member/rep names, and -- especially -- *marking yourself down as a "champion" to reach out personally to ask these people ASAP to vote YES on the ballot*. There are tabs in the spreadsheet that even suggest email template text to make things extra easy. ;) By the way, several Kantara individual members are also UMA WG participants, and I will be dropping each of you a note shortly! Thank you -- please do take action on this as soon as you can, because the ballot runs from today only until *DECEMBER 11*! *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

2 8

Notes from UMA Legal telecon 2017-12-08
by Eve Maler 08 Dec '17

08 Dec '17

https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+not… 2017-12-08 Attending: Eve, Devon, Tim, Sal, Jeff NO MEETING on *December 15* (next week). YES MEETING [image: (smile)] on *December 22* (the week after). That will be our last meeting of the year! Regarding our planning around getting the framework ready for end-of-year review, let's discuss the definitions. We should put them in the back, in an appendix, because they don't flow narratively. We should cross-refer to them from the narrative text and we could support that reference with some illustrative diagrams to help make sense out of them. The legal definitions have an RSO definition that is nearly there, but seems to be missing the connection with the RO. E.g., if you look at the definition of an RS in the Grant spec, it is "*A server that hosts resources on a resource owner's behalf* and is capable of accepting and responding to requests for protected resources." The PCT is not like an RPT; it doesn't mean "I've got access to all this stuff, so please let me in to it again", it means "I've got Bob with me again, so can I please get access to whatever stuff Bob gets access to?" Though the UMA specs avoid the word "consent" (much as the OAuth spec does except in a single, probably accidental case), this framework doc need not, and can actually advocate for the case that UMA is directly and concretely relevant to data subject consent. This is because we can make an *unbroken* chain from technical artifacts and entities to parties' delegation of authorization and permissions. Or, depending on the audience, the reverse! Do we really need an unbroken chain, or is that technical/spec thinking that isn't applicable in the legal-framework case? It's Eve's theory because of the whole "prose objects" approach, "smart contracts", and the like. We'll have to see. (Tim suggested Devon could put some thinking into that. [image: (smile)]) There is a specific use case when Alice herself acts as the RqP. In this case, the CO role is outsized because all the weight of "who Alice is sharing with" gets placed on who/what the CO is. Could the client (or Bob) require that a consent receipt be issued around the RqP-CO delegation relationship? This could be considered a best practice, as part of the UMA-CR joint work. *AI:* Tim: Revise legal definitions before inserting into the doc, to ensure they align with our latest analysis of the delegation and licensing mechanism and that the RSO definition connects with the RO in some fashion. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

We have a Legal telecon tomorrow
by Eve Maler 07 Dec '17

07 Dec '17

There are some action items from last week to review, I believe. And Tim and I created some new delegation-related diagrams we can share/insert. I am not available for a call next Friday (December 15). Are enough people available to meet on December 22 to close out 2017? Eve (sent from my iPhone, possibly with Siri's "help": +1-425-345-6756)

1 0

No WG call tomorrow / Recommendation publication
by Eve Maler 06 Dec '17

06 Dec '17

Hi folks— The ballot closes Monday and there are some efforts going on behind the scenes in anticipation of passage and publication (e.g. put together a press release). If you’re interested to offer help, please get in touch. Thanks. Eve (sent from my iPhone, possibly with Siri's "help": +1-425-345-6756)

1 0

Second call for contributions for PII handling based on user privacy preference
by n-sakimura 03 Dec '17

03 Dec '17

Hi A new call for contributions for ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27/WG 5 on Framework for user-centric PII handling based on privacy preference management by users was issued. The document number is WG5 N1100. It should become soon available at the liaison committee. If WG UMA has not yet done so, it might be a good idea to do so. Best, Nat Sakimura PLEASE READ :This e-mail is confidential and intended for the named recipient only. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail.

1 0

Notes from UMA Legal telecon 2017-12-01
by Eve Maler 01 Dec '17

01 Dec '17

https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+not… 2017-12-01 Attending: Eve, Kathleen, Tim, Devon, Theresa, John, Bjorn, Mark Agenda: - Review what we learned in yesterday's joint UMA/Consent Receipts call - Look at new language in Business Model Paper 5 - Figure out what we can accomplish by the end of the year In HIPAA, there's "consent directives". "Release of information", "patient right of access", and "authorization" all mean the same thing. There is no authorization required for TPO (treatment, payment, and operations). For operations, an entity has to have, or have had, some kind of relationship with the patient. A "covered entity" (a term of art) would then have "HIPAA consent" (different from regular consent, which the patient has no ability to *not* grant). There's implied and specific consent. ISO standard 17975 <https://www.iso.org/standard/61186.html>, *Health informatics -- Principles and data requirements for consent in the Collection, Use or Disclosure of personal health information*, lays this out. HITECH has now been absorbed under HIPAA. If you pay for any services completely out of pocket, then the provider must honor your "dissent" (an opt-out). "Grantor's choice" is where the provider has no choice; it's another kind of directive regarding a "right-of-access request". Can we map UMA's sweet and sour spots to these definitions of consent, for various laws and regulations? The paper needs to do this at a shallow level to be credible; the tools need to do this at a deeper level. The theory is that our framework can lighten the load of anyone building their legal/contractual/licensing layer not only through templating but also, potentially, through business process modeling. This is where a CommonAccord workflow can help as part of the tooling. *AI:* Eve: Talk to Andrew about whether our WG can get access to the ISO standard through KI's liaison relationship. *AI:* Eve: Work on legal diagrams. *AI:* Tim: Add legal definitions to the paper. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0