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

Notes from UMA telecon 2017-07-13
by Eve Maler 19 Jul '17

19 Jul '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-13 MinutesRoll call Quorum was not reached. Approve minutes Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2017-06-29 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-06-29>: Deferred. UMA 2.0 work *#328 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/328>:* how client-contributed scopes are mapped to resources during authorization assessment: Eve's first iteration was "Treat each scope in ( *ClientRequested* ∩ *ClientRegistered*) as applying to all matching resource-bound scopes in *PermissionTicket*." She's thinking that it would be more accurate to say something like "...all scopes associated with resources appearing in *PermissionTicket*", and then we could add ", with the scope matching performed as described in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC3986] (Simple String Comparison)." Let's give this wording a try in context (published draft) and see if it makes sense there. #334 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/334>: the IANA registration request for the JWT permissions claim and its constituent parts: Justin suggests that we need to have a paragraph talking about the security and privacy considerations of putting this information into the token vs. an introspection response, because the token is exposed to the client. The permissions claim and its sub-claims give tools directly usable by those who want to use the "local validation of self-contained tokens" path. Furthermore, the sentence in the Introduction is too modest: "Further*, with the use of token introspection,* authorization grants can increase and decrease at the level of individual resources and scopes." We can get rid of the italicized stuff. We have the following options: 1. Remove our registration request. 2. Specify how to "validate a self-contained token locally" in a separate document, with security and privacy considerations. Do we have enough real-world implementation experience to know what the considerations are? What is the sensitive information in the token? In a typical OAuth access token, there are typically scopes. In our permissions structure, there are resource IDs, scopes, expirations, etc. Also, there may be permissions that cross RS's. Is this sensitive wrt an individual RS too? Maybe it's trivial for an RPT that doesn't cross RS's, but not otherwise. Maybe it requires encryption per array object or something. Any considerations section would have to explicitly push responsibility onto the implementer. Eve speaks in favor of option 2. Kathleen notes that it's good to keep solving this properly on the roadmap. Sal agrees. James agrees. We have consensus. Editorial actions: Remove the IANA request for JWT claims, and edit the Intro sentence. Finalizing the specs Sample motion when the time comes: "Approve UMA 2.0 Grant and FedAuthz revs 06 as amended by the instructions of UMA telecon 2017-xx-xx as Draft Recommendations and forward them to the Kantara Leadership Council to request certification for an All-Member Ballot as Recommendations." UMA logo ideas tbs Attendees As of 7 Mar 2017, quorum is 4 of 7. (Domenico, Sal, Andi, Maciej, Eve, Mike, Cigdem) 1. Sal 2. Maciej 3. Eve Non-voting participants: - Justin - Kathleen - Bjorn - Scott F - John W - Jin - James - Robert Regrets: - Domenico *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 1

Agenda for UMA telecon 2017-07-20
by Eve Maler 19 Jul '17

19 Jul '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-20 Date and Time - *Thursdays, 9-10am PT* - Screenshare and dial-in: http://join.me/findthomas - UMA calendar: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar Agenda - Roll call - Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2017-06-29 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-06-29> and UMA telecon 2017-07-13 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-13> - UMA V2.0 work: - All GitHub issues for V2.0 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+l…> /Grant swimlane <https://www.websequencediagrams.com/files/render?link=GDUuGPibcbXrR5uWBSQP> , FedAuthz swimlane <https://www.websequencediagrams.com/files/render?link=tGft5o5ErGvUWj4X3o-O> /Release Notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Release+Notes> /UIG <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Implementer%27s+Gui…> /Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access> - Discuss proposed items from #337 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/337> (forthcoming) - Discuss any proposed wording from #332 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/332> (forthcoming) - Review in-progress Disposition of Comments document (forthcoming) - Finalizing the specs - When will we be ready to vote on progressing specs to the LC and then to All-Member Ballot? - UMA2 logo ideas - AOB *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Agenda for UMA telecon 2017-07-13
by Eve Maler 12 Jul '17

12 Jul '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-13 Date and Time - *Thursdays, 9-10am PT* - Screenshare and dial-in: http://join.me/findthomas - UMA calendar: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar Agenda - Roll call - Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2017-06-29 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-06-29> - Public Comment/IPR Review period concluded on July 12 at 11:59 UTC - UMA V2.0 work: - All GitHub issues for V2.0 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+l…> /Grant swimlane <https://www.websequencediagrams.com/files/render?link=GDUuGPibcbXrR5uWBSQP> , FedAuthz swimlane <https://www.websequencediagrams.com/files/render?link=tGft5o5ErGvUWj4X3o-O> /Release Notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Release+Notes> /UIG <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Implementer%27s+Gui…> /Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access> - Issues #326-#330 have been implemented - Please check out draft solution <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/commit/1abd77b46e29fdd0d3e0b606…> for #328 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/328>: how client-contributed scopes are mapped to resources during authorization assessment - Let's briefly discuss #334 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/334>: the IANA registration request for the JWT permissions claim and its constituent parts - Several of the items in #337 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/337> are worth discussing - If you want to review and weigh in on the other public-comment-period issues, please do it before the call - Release notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Release+Notes> are getting more fleshed out; review (and contributions) welcome - Finalizing the specs - When will we be ready to vote on progressing specs to the LC and then to All-Member Ballot? - UMA2 logo ideas - AOB *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Several comments
by Guttner, Ondrej 12 Jul '17

12 Jul '17

Hi all, During the implementation of the standard, I came across several points I think needs to be cleared (at least to me, and I hope the reason is not my stupidity). I know the public comment period ends tomorrow, so I rather use this method of communication, so as, if there is something useful in the list, it is not missed. I wrote some of these remarks down during reading of the older versions, and now I tried to look whether it has already been changed, so excuse me, if I miss something, that was already added. https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/oauth-uma-federated-authz-2.0-05.…: 1) 5.1.1: For exp, the behavior for absent value is defined. iat and nbf are missing definition for this state. Although it is quite intuitive (“if absent, the token-level value takes precedence”), might be worth include it to prevent possible misunderstandings. https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/oauth-uma-grant-2.0-05.html: 1) 3.3: “The client has obtained OAuth client credentials from the authorization server, …, and is prepared to authenticate itself to the token endpoint if appropriate.” RFC6749 – 3.2.1: “Confidential clients or other clients issued client credentials MUST authenticate with the authorization server as described in Section 2.3 when making requests to the token endpoint.” Doesn’t this mean, that in UMA, the client requesting at the token EP MUST always authenticate? The formulation from uma_grant 3.3 may lead to a conclusion there exists a situation in which it is not necessary to authenticate. 2) 3.3.2: If AS supports RFC7591, it MUST allow clients to register claims_redirect_uri (as mentioned in 2.), but it is not defined, how this parameter looks like (array?, space separated?) Shouldn’t it be better to have “claims_redirect_uris”? (RFC7591 defines redirect_uris also in plural). In RFC6749, redirection URI (which is similar from the security point of view to the claims redir URI) SHOULD require the use of TLS and MUST be registered for public clients. In addition, an incomplete redirection URI is enabled, and some other features. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to define claims redirection URI with reference to the definition of redirection URI? 3) 3.3.3: I personally would extend the first sentence to “ … of the claims redirection URI resolved according to the algorithm described in previous section using the …”. Otherwise, any preregistered claims redirection URI might be used (I know you would need to be an evil implementer to do this, but hey, who isn’t a bit?). 4) 3.3.3: The example response from AS is actually a request. 5) 3.3.4: This whole section makes the permission concept unclear to me. I suppose, that a request for RPT can contain multiple tuples (resource, scopes), where the scopes for each resource may be different. Section 3.3.4 puts an impression on me, that all these scopes sets are actually identical. Namely: “Let a set called PermissionTicket stand for the scopes associated with the permission ticket” does not distinguish between all the permissions that can be bound to the permission ticket. The example does not help in this either, as it concerns only a single resource. I’d suggest to add something like: “This authorization assessment holds for any permission bound to the permission ticket received by the AS.” Subsequently, it needs to be made clear, what happens if CandidateGrantedScopes < RequestedScopes for not all of the requested permissions. 6) 3.3.5: Described in https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/332 7) 5.6: Permission ticket is similar in use to authorization code in OAuth (both are single use, may be transferred over plain HTTP), but the latter is influenced by additional security measure – if the same code is observed twice by AS, it should attempt to revoke all access tokens issued based on that code. Shouldn’t this be considered also for the permission ticket and relevant RPTs? I hope, it was not a loss of time for you to read through these lines. Kind regards, Ondrej Atos IT Solutions and Services, s.r.o. - CEO: Martin Sùra - registered in the Commercial Register of the Municipal Court in Prague, Sec. C, File 8954, Registered office: Doudlebská 1699/5, 140 00 Prague 4, Czech Republic, IÈ: 44851391, DIÈ: CZ44851391, Bank connection: UniCredit Bank Czech Republic a.s., Na Pøíkopì 858/20, 113 80 Praha 1, Acc. Nr. CZK: 1001885001/2700, IBAN CZK - CZ4627000000001001885001; Acc. Nr. EUR: 1001885095/2700, IBAN EUR - CZ3027000000001001885095 Tato zpráva má pouze informativní charakter, který vychází z podkladù, které byly odesílateli pøedány, nebo zaslány. Obsah této zprávy odesílatele nezavazuje, pokud to v ní není výslovnì uvedeno a odesílatel nemá v úmyslu na základì této zprávy uzavøít smlouvu, pøijmout nabídku, potvrdit uzavøení smlouvy ani nezakládá pøedsmluvní odpovìdnost jejího odesílatele, ledaže je odesílatelem ve zprávì uvedeno výslovnì jinak.Tato zpráva je urèena pouze pro osobní a dùvìrné užití osobou (osobami) uvedenou (uvedenými) výše. Nejste-li osobou, které je tato zpráva urèena, upozoròujeme Vás, že jakékoli šíøení, distribuce èi kopírování této zprávy je zakázáno. Jestliže tuto zprávu omylem obdržíte, prosíme, oznamte tuto skuteènost odesílateli a vymažte ji ze svého systému. The sole purpose of this message is to provide information based on materials that were given or sent to the sender. The content of the message does not place its sender under any obligation, unless expressly stated otherwise, and the sender has no intention to conclude a contract, accept an offer or confirm the conclusion of a contract on the basis of this message nor shall the message give rise to pre-contractual liability of the sender, unless it expressly states otherwise. The message is only intended for private, confidential use by a person (persons) mentioned above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying thereof is prohibited. If you have received the message in error, please, inform the sender of the fact and delete it from your system.

2 1

Fwd: Registration Now Open - WG11 Midyear Meeting on Sept. 18-19, 2017 in San Diego
by John Wunderlich 12 Jul '17

12 Jul '17

For lawyers in the UMA legal group: https://thesedonaconference.org/node/108179? Two issues raised may be of interest to this group: - The latest draft of a commentary on reasonable or unreasonable data security measures - A brainstorming group outline on legal issues in cloud computing John Wunderlich, BA, MBA @PrivacyCDN <https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN> *Privacy Tools* Kantara Initiative <https://kantarainitiative.org/>: Consent Receipt Specification <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Consent+Receip…> JLINC Labs <https://www.jlinclabs.com/>: Data Provenance Solutions <https://www.jlinclabs.com/solutions/> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: The Sedona Conference <info(a)sedonaconference.org> Date: 12 July 2017 at 09:34 Subject: Registration Now Open - WG11 Midyear Meeting on Sept. 18-19, 2017 in San Diego To: John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> [image: Logo] [image: Facebook] <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> [image: Twitter] <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> [image: LinkedIn] <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> Working Group 11 on Data Security and Privacy Liability *Midyear Meeting 2017* Sept. 18-19 San Diego, CA When: September 18-19, 2017 Where: Rancho Bernardo Inn San Diego, CA Registration Fee: Regular Registration Fee: $1195 Government Employees: $895 Register Now <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> Schedule of Events: - Meet-and-greet reception: 6:00 pm – September 17 - Start of Meeting: 8:45 am – September 18 - Reception: 5:15 pm – 7:15 pm - September 18 - End of meeting: 1:00 pm – September 19 MCLE: We are applying for MCLE credit. *REGISTRATION NOW OPEN* Register now for the 2017 Midyear Meeting of Working Group 11 at the Rancho Bernardo Inn in San Diego, California, on Monday-Tuesday, September 18-19, 2017. A welcome reception will be held on the evening of Sunday, September 17, from 6-8 pm. Please click here to visit the meeting webpage and to register <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> . The meeting’s focus will be on new and updated work product in need of WG11 member review and comment, including: - Privilege in the data security litigation context - Law firm data security - Data security and privacy issues in civil litigation - Reasonable or unreasonable data security measures - Legal issues in cloud computing In addition, the meeting will again feature a data protection regulator roundtable. International developments in the field of data security and privacy issues will also be discussed, and the data security and privacy implications of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and Blockchain will be the focus of dialogue. Please check back in the next week or so for the complete agenda, and for names and biographies of confirmed dialogue leaders. Hotel Room Information We have obtained a very favorable room rate for WG11 members of $239 per night, plus tax. This favorable room rate is available for three nights preceding and three nights following the meeting, subject to standard guestroom availability. *Our room block expires on Thursday, August 25, 2017, so please register soon while rooms are available.* Complete hotel reservation details will be provided with your meeting registration confirmation. Membership *In order to attend the meeting you must be a member of WG11. If you are interested in attending the meeting but are not yet a member, you can become a member by signing up for a Working Group Series (WGS) membership <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…>.* Once a WGS member, one is eligible to take part in the activities of all Working Groups, including WG11. If you have any questions about how to sign up for a membership, register for the meeting, or encounter any difficulties while doing either, please contact Irina Goldberg at IGG(a)sedonaconference.org. Please join your fellow WG11 members at the 2017 Midyear Meeting in San Diego! ------------------------------ 301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-297, Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone 602-258-4910 <(602)%20258-4910> Email info(a)sedonaconference.org ------------------------------ Copyright 2017 The Sedona Conference You are currently signed up to receive newsletters. To unsubscribe click here <https://thesedonaconference.org/index.php?q=civicrm/mailing/optout&reset=1&…> If you would like to resubscribe to receive emails from The Sedona Conference click resubscribe <e.4389.4148193.12910ccda163eff1@thesedonaconference.org?subject=I%20would%20like%20to%20resubscribe%20to%20TSC%20emails&I%20would%20like%20to%20resubscribe%20to%20TSC%20emails> -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

1 0

Re: [WG-UMA] Minor comment
by Justin Richer 12 Jul '17

12 Jul '17

This is a good point, might as well spell it out. --Justin Sent from my phone -------- Original message --------From: James Phillpotts <james.phillpotts(a)forgerock.com> Date: 7/11/17 3:57 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Eve Maler <eve(a)xmlgrrl.com> Cc: "wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org UMA" <wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org> Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] Minor comment Only in that in UMA 1.0 the token type hint was not access_token. J. On 11 July 2017 at 02:14, Eve Maler <eve(a)xmlgrrl.com> wrote: Since both PATs and RPTs are already formally defined, and function, as OAuth access tokens, I wonder if it's necessary to spell this requirement out. (The protection API is just about introspecting the RPT.) Eve Maler (sent from my iPad) | cell +1 425 345 6756 On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:44 AM, James Phillpotts <james.phillpotts(a)forgerock.com> wrote: Hi all, In https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/oauth-uma-federated-authz-2.0-05.… given we just talk about RPTs and PATs, should we specify that the token_type_hint (if used) should be set to access_token? ref: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7662#section-2.1 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7009#section-4.1.2.2 CheersJames _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma

2 1

Minor comment
by James Phillpotts 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

Hi all, In https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/oauth-uma-federated-authz-2.0-05.… given we just talk about RPTs and PATs, should we specify that the token_type_hint (if used) should be set to access_token? ref: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7662#section-2.1 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7009#section-4.1.2.2 Cheers James

2 2

Notes from UMA Legal telecon 2017-07-07 / a few extra notes and requests
by Eve Maler 07 Jul '17

07 Jul '17

A few more notes and requests: - There is *no Legal call next Friday*, as I've got a conflict. - Everyone please comment on the definitions <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kantara-initiative-uma-wg/553hZKy8h…> *Tuesday, July 18*. Please send to the whole list. Ideally, don't just reply to this note; start a new thread with "Legal" in the subject. - *Tim,* if you're okay with it, let's please meet soon after that date to ensure you have what you need for deliverable #3. (I can also meet Mon-Thu next week.) - If anyone has any questions or thoughts, as always, please let me know. Thank you! http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+note… 2017-07-07 Attending: Eve, Kathleen, John, Ann, Mark, Tim Tim sent definitions according to the "exercise" Eve set. He derived many of them from UCITA, and some from prior UMA materials, including the draft model clauses, and then "protected resource" is new and may need more work. Let's treat these definitions, not as final model definitions, but our working draft that could be published in deliverable #3 (potentially accompanied by some diagrams showing mapping relationships) to show where the framework is headed. We can all review the document prior to the next call and send comments. *Access Contract:* *A contract or agreement to obtain by electronic means access to, or information from, an information processing system of another Person, or the equivalent of such access.* What is the difference between an access contract and an information sharing agreement? The former is a term out of UCITA law, so that's why he grabbed it. *Resource Owner:* *A Person with legal authority to grant access rights to Protected Resources; authorized to delegate access control functions to an ASO and to license access and use rights (permissions) relating to Protected Resources; acts as licensor to the Resource Server Operator.* Do both parts of the second clause relate to the ASO, or does licensing access and use rights pertain to the RO alone and not something the ASO mediates? The theory was that the ASO mediates this because it manages and executes/makes decisions on the RO's policies (which it does). Does taking out "*and*" in "*and to license access*" fix this, roughly? It seems so. Note: In UMA, the policy does not inherently travel with the resource, without some other layer of technology ("sticky policy" technology or similar). Do we need to define *Policy* (or *Authorization Policy*) vs *Business Policy* somehow? Does that add value to what we're doing? *Person:* *An Individual or Legal Person.* Great, same as before. *Legal Person:* *A legal entity means a corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, governmental subdivision, instrumentality, or agency, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.* This seems to need just a touch of wordsmithing, e.g., "*A legal entity; a corporation...*". *Protected Resources:* *All data, applications, or software in which a Person either has Informational Rights or gives the Person the ability to exercise Informational Rights.* First, should this be singular? Second, regardless of singular or plural, the RSO has inherent authority in various aspects of "what counts as a resource" and "what types of access are possible to perform on a resource", as described here <https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/oauth-uma-federated-authz-2.0-05.…> (so possibly it's worth breaking down into *Resource* and then *Protected Resource*, as the former is RS-related and the latter is AS-related?). Is it interesting to consider mentioning "URI" as the location of the resource somehow, or no? *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Reminder: We have a Legal telecon tomorrow (Friday)
by Eve Maler 07 Jul '17

07 Jul '17

8am PT/11am ET/4pm UK/5pm CET http://join.me/findthomas Agenda: - Review a final proposal for UMA roles, their definitions, and licensing mappings and relationships, and other language to use/stick to in describing this world - Take a look at a visual formalism for explaining all this *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

2 1

Notes from UMA Legal subgroup telecon 2017-06-30
by Eve Maler 01 Jul '17

01 Jul '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+note… 2017-06-30 Attending: Eve, Tim, Kathleen, John W, Bjorn, Colin, Mark L, Sal, Mary Let's clarify all our role terms and concepts today: 1. *Resource Owner** (was Grantor)* 1. *Data Subject* *(was Resource Subject)* (has privacy framework meaning) - could be the Resource Owner or has delegated authority to a separate Resource Owner by law or contract 2. *Authorization Server Operator* - Agent (fiduciary?) of the Resource Owner - role is controlled by the PAT, and in practice it issues the end-to-end licenses because it issues the RPTs 3. *Resource Server Operator* - Data Controller (has privacy framework meaning) - is the Resource Server Operator 4. *Client Operator* - 1st-tier Data Processor (has privacy framework meaning) - is always the Client Operator? or if the Resource Owner grants access in order to make the Requesting Party be another Data Controller, what does that make the Client Operator in this case? 5. *Requesting Party* - 2nd-tier Data Processor (has privacy framework meaning) - is always the Requesting Party? - or maybe the Resource Owner wants to make the Requesting Party be another Data Controller? 1. *Access Beneficiary*??? - a party that the Requesting Party is acting on behalf of, either themselves or another party - a better name for this? We definitely don't like the word "ownership" of data or records. Is there licensing of data, or a record, or what? Since the access grant could be about disclosure of data, or deletion of data, or execution of an algorithm, or whatever, the licensing similarly could be sophisticated. It could specify that the recipient gets a copy of the data, etc. We want to have a concordance between all of these roles and the UMA flow. Do we use the role terms *Licensor* and *Licensee* at different points in our clause text vs. the terms above? Or can we punt on that for now? E.g., maybe the Resource Owner becomes (dons a role of) a Licensor at a certain point in a contract, and a Requesting Party becomes a Licensee. Two of the parties listed above would be parties to the license/contract, and others are subsidiary. But we still need to complete our mapping work to understand the precise relationships of them all, wrt UMA. The Resource Owner is the one that has to hire/contract with the ASO, because it can't be someone who doesn't have legal capacity etc. Or even if the Data Subject contracted with some agent, say, an attorney, to take care of financial business or whatever for them, then that Resource Owner really does function as their delegated agent and contracts with the ASO on their behalf. Of course, just as in Google Docs, the agent might need to "transfer ownership" of resources back to the data subject at some point – and the IRM group's design guidelines include just such actions! Delegable, Transferable, etc. This justifies our "indenting" the Data Subject role; it's "offline" wrt UMA, and our model. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0