August 2021 - WG-UMA - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

Draft minutes of UMA telecon 2021-08-26
by Alec Laws 26 Aug '21

26 Aug '21

https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-08-26 MinutesRoll call Quorum was NOT reached. Approve minutes - Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2021-06-10 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-06-10> , UMA telecon 2021-06-17 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-06-17> , UMA telecon 2021-06-24 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-06-24> , UMA telecon 2021-07-01 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-01> , UMA telecon 2021-07-08 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-08> , UMA telecon 2021-07-15 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-15> , UMA telecon 2021-07-22 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-22> , UMA telecon 2021-07-29 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-29> , UMA telecon 2021-08-05 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-08-05> , UMA telecon 2021-08-12 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-08-12> , UMA telecon 2021-08-19 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-08-19> Deferred Minimal Interop Profile Let's get to some test cases/requirements? PAT is fairly impl specific, could be given to the Mock RS test suite - auth code flow - can become first point of non-interop Goal: make sure that AS's are interoperable , eg one AS can be 'swappable' with other ASs. Understanding of 'extras'/vendor specific values that degrade that interop. As an RS the more ASs I can support define the 'wide' ecosystem I can support Scope of test - 1 AS under test - 1 Mock RS test suite - 2+ ROs - clear success cases (including error conditions) - response testing for unexpected values returned → WARN - Minimum Viable ONLY Input to Mock RS Test Suites - name of 'rreguri' endpoint at the AS - multiple PATs to represent the RO context - at least 2 - value for _id, ie what key will the AS return - resource descriptions keys supports - Only required content is resource_scopes - Optional to push other keys (type, desc, name, icon_uri) - create support for user_access_policy_uri - use of introspection - optional support for exp, iat, nbf (maybe too much since this is OAuth introspection scope) 1. resource registration 1. Error cases 1. PAT less requests 2. get/put/delete, requests without known id 3. leaking between PATs 2. Create resource description: POST rreguri/ - should always work, returns new id - performs 5+ times for each PAT 3. Read resource description: GET rreguri/_id 1. ready all created 2. should always work for returned ids 4. Update resource description: PUT rreguri/_id - should always work, return same id 5. Delete resource description: DELETE rreguri/_id 1. should always work 2. removed from list after deleted 3. future: effect on RPTs/tickets 6. List resource descriptions: GET rreguri/ 1. only returns created resources for this PAT 2. likely interjected between other cases, ensure state is reported accurately 2. permission ticket creation 1. all scopes for single resource 2. multiple resources, all scopes 3. single resource, subset of scopes 4. multiple resource, subset of scopes 5. error cases 1. wrong resource for PAT 2. wrong scopes for resource id 6. future, 1. AS overriding resource/scope sets 3. introspection (optional) 1. keep in mind, introspection is an OAuth defined item, want to limit to UMA defined functionality to remain minimal viable 2. RPT issued with all resources from permission ticket 3. RPT used with correct PAT 4. active:true, must have the 'permissions' array 5. how to test active:false response? 1. would require manual intervention at the AS? 6. error cases 1. wrong PAT for RPT 7. (future) AS imposed changes based on policy The test suite could be 'random' ie for scope generation? Real application, UMA protect userinfo (OIDC scopes) Relationship Manager - user stories / *Discovery* 1. As a Client, I want to be able to declare types I understand, in order to successfully use complex APIs 2. As an RS, I want to defer permission ticket creation, in order to a) not have to understand the Client b) not make authZ decisions (tell me don’t make me think) 3. As an ASO, I want to pre-register Clients, in order to assess their appropriateness, capability and complete non-technical activities 4. As a Client, I want to pre-register with ASs, in order to a) test my UX and technical integrations b) declare my capabilities UMA in Wikipedia Have started an open document with the current english content. Everyone is welcome to suggest and edit and we can review next week https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbD4ODQOdQkLwHjlpjTQ4lbEPMbky67O8Clrzxe… Attendees As of October 26, 2020, quorum <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Participant+Roster> is 5 of 9. (Michael, Domenico, Peter, Sal, Thomas, Andi, Alec, Eve, Steve) Voting: 1. Eve 2. Alec 3. Steve Non-voting participants: 1. Scott 2. Anik

1 0

Agenda for UMA telecon 2021-08-26
by Alec Laws 26 Aug '21

26 Aug '21

1 0

Draft minutes of UMA telecon 2021-08-19
by Alec Laws 19 Aug '21

19 Aug '21

https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-08-19 MinutesRoll call Quorum was NOT reached. Approve minutes - Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2021-06-10 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-06-10> , UMA telecon 2021-06-17 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-06-17> , UMA telecon 2021-06-24 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-06-24> , UMA telecon 2021-07-01 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-01> , UMA telecon 2021-07-08 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-08> , UMA telecon 2021-07-15 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-15> , UMA telecon 2021-07-22 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-22> , UMA telecon 2021-07-29 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-29> , UMA telecon 2021-08-05 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-08-05> , UMA telecon 2021-08-12 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-08-12> Deferred UMA in Wikipedia Have started an open document with the current english content. Everyone is welcome to suggest and edit and we can review next week https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbD4ODQOdQkLwHjlpjTQ4lbEPMbky67O8Clrzxe… Relationship Manager - user stories 1. As a Client, I want to be able to declare types I understand, in order to successfully use complex APIs 2. As an RS, I want to defer permission ticket creation, in order to a) not have to understand the Client b) not make authZ decisions (tell me don’t make me think) 3. As an ASO, I want to pre-register Clients, in order to assess their appropriateness, capability and complete non-technical activities 4. As a Client, I want to pre-register with ASs, in order to a) test my UX and technical integrations b) declare my capabilities Minimal Interop Profile Goal: What parts of the spec will be test? Should we separate Grant from Fedz? What is takes around the UMA AS 1. Mock RS (well known resources/scopes) 2. Mock Client (well known requests) 3. Mock IDP (well known RO/RqP) Fedz: - Mock RS test client - PAT creation - RS client credentials - RO authorization → auth code flow - 1 resource registration - set of resources, scopes, - 2 permission ticket creation - 3 introspection Grant: - Mock Client test client - Client Credentials → static/ well defined - RPT endpoint - claims pushing, multiple rounds of pushing? - error - claims pushing or gathering - request submitted - PCT - claims gathering endpoint Policy: - RqP has the rights via identity - Other requirements, agree to ad-hoc TOS - specific acr/scopes in claims token from FR AS: https://github.com/ForgeRock/frdp-uma-resource-server/wiki - claims pushing (IDToken) - no - PCT - not quite - request_submitted is supported, creates a pending req for RO, not using ticket/interval though - redirect_user / interactive claims gathering, gets a claims token through an auth_code flow IDENTOS AS: - interactive claims gathering - RSasRO, RO has client credentials with AS - no - request_submitted - PCT - claims pushing *Discovery* Per RS-directed - the RO can tell the RS that some resources are public/discoverable (their existence not their content...) - RO is able to share that discovery URL to the RqP, - doesn't mean the RqP can access all → could UMA protect discovery/webfinger, and get back the specific "stuff" that RqP can access - this is instead of sharing many specific URLs - RO has abstracted URLs for specific resources, this is separate from discovery? File names... in medical case the resources don't have 'names', A LOT of info falls under simple types. Eg sleep records vs infectious disease, should the RqP be able to discover the existence of both types even if they can only access the sleep records. AS-directed (or discovery service-directed) - An RqP goes to the AS and asks for all the resources granted to the RqP - the AS has the resource and the policy about which RqPs can access - can the RqP learn about the resource URLs (across many RSs) it can access - Similar to Pension Dashboard case, discover and register all pensions with a single AS. RqP (user or financial advisor) go to the AS to find the locations and authZ to access - Identos use-case, - the Client understands specific types of resources (eg xrays) - send the RqP to the to the AS to - i) know who the RqP is and (eg the Primary Care Physician) - ii) which resources that RqP have that match the type (all their patients xrays) - iii) choose which of those to share with the client (a specific patients for a specific encounter) Two discovery endpoints 1. protected discovery → managed by AS 1. (or indapendant discovery service?) 2. OIDC distributed claims (endpoint, token) that the RP can get claims from there 3. the AS doesn't know the endpoint in UMA today 2. public discovery → managed by RS 1. in FR impl, the RS proxies Client requests to the AS, to reduce who the client needs to talk to and could provide the more wholesome discovery Attendees As of October 26, 2020, quorum <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Participant+Roster> is 5 of 9. (Michael, Domenico, Peter, Sal, Thomas, Andi, Alec, Eve, Steve) Voting: 1. Thomas 2. Alec Non-voting participants: 1. George 2. Scott Regrets: 1. Steve

1 0

Agenda for UMA telecon 2021-08-13
by Alec Laws 18 Aug '21

18 Aug '21

1 0

Agenda for UMA telecon 2021-08-12
by Alec Laws 11 Aug '21

11 Aug '21

1 0

Draft minutes of UMA telecon 2021-08-05
by Alec Laws 10 Aug '21

10 Aug '21

https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-08-05 MinutesRoll call Quorum was NOT reached. Approve minutes - Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2021-06-10 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-06-10> , UMA telecon 2021-06-17 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-06-17> , UMA telecon 2021-06-24 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-06-24> , UMA telecon 2021-07-01 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-01> , UMA telecon 2021-07-08 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-08> , UMA telecon 2021-07-15 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-15> , UMA telecon 2021-07-22 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-22> , UMA telecon 2021-07-29 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2021-07-29> Deferred UMA in Wikipedia https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access Anyone familiar to wikipedia to update content? Can/should the group review and create some more accurate content? - Alec to create a google doc with the current content for the group to iterate on Relationship Manager - user stories 2. As Alice, I want a way to grant Bob access to my resources without knowing the URLs, in order to a) not deal with URLs b) share more complex resources (ex not a PDF, a health record) The RS registers a name and description at the AS, which is how Alice can differentiate resources In the FR impl, the RS after registering a resource, saves the resource id (and other metadata), and *then* generates the URL. The URL is created after registration, which is what Alice is meant to share with Bob. There was also resource discovery at the RS, that would allow the RqP to query based on specific other claims, this feature is turned on by the RO for each resource. Part of the random URL strategy was to improve the privacy of including information in the URL, instead of sharing rs.com/georges_photos you can share rs.com/<uuid> without leaking information. The URI registration would allow RqP discovery of resources across RSs. If we consider discovery as a layer ontop on UMA, we can separate the mappings from the authorization path. The URL can change over time, the RS can update the URL separate from any discovery needs. The RS can also define the hierarchy of policy and groups many resources in a single resource registration, ie taking 1000 or URLs and putting registering a single resource. When does an AS become as RS to expose a list of protected/available resources? Doesn't necessarily need to be the AS, or can be a separate url discovery service. Registration can be 1-n, not 1-1 eg many resources in one registration. If there are public/private photos, then a request for a public photo can include all public photo resource id, a request for a private resource includes only the single resource id. The registered resources could be 'public photos' and 'private photos'. What is the UX of Alice managing her resources and policy? What is the UX of Bob being granted access to resources? Where does sharing occur, from the RS or AS? The idea of a privacy wallet, people keep a record of their identity relationships themselves. That ANCR record defines the PII controller and contact info. Creates a privacy rights access point, in addition to the policy. People can broadcast their services for discovery. This is done so that on each new session the user can compare the privacy statement against the previously agreed to one. How does Bob reach out to Alice's resources in order to determine where to go? Alice sends a receipt with her policy to Bob, including a URI to the calendar (or to her Privacy Wallet?). If the URI is to his calendar, then Bob can start an UMA flow. Bob would end up with receipts for Alice's AS and her calendar service Privacy aspects are internal to the AS today in UMA, or are implementation specific. Alice shares a purpose, which must be mapped to authorization for Bob. UMA isn't prescriptive about scopes, there can be a scope such as 'do_not_share' that tell Bob's client to not retransmit to 3rd parties. However these scopes are legal by nature and not technically enforced. The RqP/Client can need to push claims declaring their agreements (eg a receipt) that include the PII controller who is taking custodianship of the information granted to Bob. Just as discovery is capability on top on UMA, the privacy framework can be a profile on top of UMA. It provides implementation specifics where end-user legal privacy controls are required. Could this use UMA resource scopes sufficiently cover this? Or the claims pushing of a new claim_type eg a ANCR receipt/rights claim? https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/rec-oauth-uma-grant-2.0.html#rfc.… 1. As Bob(RqP), I want to be able to discover resources available/shared with me, in order to not need URLs sent by Alice 2. As a Client, I want to be able to declare types I understand, in order to successfully use complex APIs 3. As an RS, I want to defer permission ticket creation, in order to a) not have to understand the Client b) not make authZ decisions (tell me don’t make me think) 4. As an ASO, I want to pre-register Clients, in order to assess their appropriateness, capability and complete non-technical activities 5. As a Client, I want to pre-register with ASs, in order to a) test my UX and technical integrations b) declare my capabilities AOB Attendees As of October 26, 2020, quorum <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Participant+Roster> is 5 of 9. (Michael, Domenico, Peter, Sal, Thomas, Andi, Alec, Eve, Steve) Voting: 1. Domenico 2. Alec Non-voting participants: 1. George 2. Ian 3. Scott Regrets: 1. Steve

1 0

Agenda for UMA telecon 2021-08-05
by Alec Laws 04 Aug '21

04 Aug '21

1 0

UMA in Wikipedia
by Eve Maler 02 Aug '21

02 Aug '21

I just noticed that there are five different language versions <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access> of the User-Managed Access entry in Wikipedia. Neat. The page(s) could use some updates to reflect UMA 2.0, deployments of same, scenarios, new work, and so on. Anyone up for contributing a few edits? Eve Maler | cell and Signal +1 425.345.6756

1 0