UMA telecon 2021-01-21
Date and Time
• Primary-week Thursdays 6:30am PT
• Screenshare and dial-in: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/485071053
• United States: +1 (224) 501-3316, Access Code: 485-071-053
• See UMA calendar for additional details: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar
Agenda
• Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2021-01-07, UMA telecon 2021-01-14
• LC Speakers Corner topic
• Pensions Dashboard. continue profile review
• AOB
Best,
- Alec
https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-12-17
MinutesRoll call
Quorum was reached.
Approve minutes
- Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2020-12-03
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-12-03>
, 2020-12-10 <http://Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2020-12-03,
2020-12-10>
Deferred.
Queuing up Pensions Dashboard profile next steps
(This description is legally non-normative!) Looking at the IPR policy for
this WG ("RAND
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=41025…>"),
the contributions we make and the drafts we produce are licensed to each
other for development purposes. Final specs ("Recommendations" that have
been approved by the Kantara membership) are ultimately licensed to
arbitrary parties in such a way as to enable faithful reproduction and
implementation. The Recommendation stage reflects a process of 45-day IPR
review.
There may be timeframe pressures around getting to that final specification
stage. And yet it's been observed that there is a potential design pattern
behind the PD profile that could be valuable to capture as a "class" of
which PD is an "instance". Healthcare might be yet another "instance".
Notice that CIBA went through something similar, where FAPI and MODRNA
ultimately became profiles in different sectors of the base spec. We might
be able to factor out the common elements more readily having made the
observation now.
Getting the PD profile (essential as-is) into the form of an UMA Work Group
output, as discussed last week, will help even if we decide to revise the
profile subsequently.
Speaking of CIBA, this profile could stimulate some additional discussion
and work that we've never fully completed around the CIBA/UMA relationship.
The UMA concept of PCTs could – Ian surmises – supplant CIBA given the PD
profile approach. This is because step one enables Alice (same person as RO
and RqP but strongly authenticated on RqP side) at the dashboard to vouch
for herself. It seems like this could be true.
In the past we have discussed additional/alternate mechanisms to solve this
problem, such as an extension to UMA that leverages some proof or claim
about Alice flowing over some existing AS-to-client channel that UMA
already has so that Bob can be assured about her identity, without the
"two-step" UMA dance of the PD profile. Peter's company has an UMA-like
approach that involves identity documents (like passports) proving Alice's
identity in use cases such as Global Entry. We've heard tell that GNAP
could make Bob's self-proof for purposes of access to Alice's resources and
Alice's self-proof for purposes of Bob's (say) auditing very symmetrical in
their operation.
Speaking of the potential for a common design pattern, in the PD use case,
the motivation for the "step 1" was discovery and aggregation both. It has
a "Pension Finder service". What might be the motivation(s) in other cases?
Is this the test for whether the design pattern applies? This seems to
relate to the relationship manager/policy manager work, which could be done
with a "step 1" for Alice (that is, using UMA itself) in preparing her to
share resources out to Bob ("step 2").
Attendees
As of October 26, 2020, quorum
<http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Participant+Roster> is
5 of 9. (Michael, Karim, Domenico, Peter, Sal, Thomas, Andi, Alec, Eve)
1. Michael
2. Domenico
3. Peter
4. Alec
5. Eve
Non-voting participants:
1. Colin
2. Ken
3. Scott
4. Ian
5. Anik
6. Tim
7. Bjorn
*Eve Maler*Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter:
@xmlgrrl
https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-12-10
MinutesRoll call
Quorum was reached.
Approve minutes
- Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2020-12-03
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-12-03>
Deferred.
New Pensions Dashboard profile
The profile was originally developed about a year ago and reviewed by a few
UMA experts. The Pensions Dashboard Program leaders are studying the
implications of the contribution path that's been taken.
We are thinking it would be valuable to get the contributions into work
streams that reflect the WG's intention to work on them soon, and so the
editors are interested to put them into report/specification form as
appropriate. A sample report looks like this
<https://kantarainitiative.org/download/7568/>. A sample specification
looks like this
<https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/rec-oauth-uma-grant-2.0.html> (but
these would be editors' drafts initially, not recommendations). Style
doesn't matter, just presence of metadata and correct headers and footers.
The Operating Procedures
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/37750179/KI%2…>
provide
guidelines for publication and branding, and there are logos and templates
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/GI/Logos+and+Templates> that
can be used.
This will help WG members review the material in a familiar form. There may
be a few changes forthcoming.
Sal noted that "PDP" is an acronym that has multiple definitions, and could
be misunderstood! It might not need to appear anywhere in the flows.
There are a number of questions and issues embedded in the profile text.
Ultimately these could be collected in GitHub.
Charter refresh
Our charter <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Charter>
hasn't
been refreshed in nearly two years. Nominally it's not too out of date and
might just need a bit of brushing up. We've had ambitions about
interoperability and conformance testing that haven't borne fruit, but the
charter wording wasn't too specific. The PD work may require some
interoperability testing.
On the other hand, the work we've been doing on the resource definition,
policy manager, etc. profiles seems pretty consequential for ensuring that
the "negative trust" between RS and client can hold; it could be considered
significant new UMA work. This, along with the PD work, seems significant
indeed as a body of work. How much should this be reflected in the charter?
Alec and Eve should confer a bit on this and come back with a
recommendation.
Attendees
As of October 26, 2020, quorum
<http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Participant+Roster> is
5 of 9. (Michael, Karim, Domenico, Peter, Sal, Thomas, Andi, Alec, Eve)
1. Michael
2. Domenico
3. Sal
4. Thomas
5. Alec
6. Eve
Non-voting participants:
1. Ken
2. Ian
3. Colin
4. George
5. Scott
6. Nancy
7. Vlad
*Eve Maler*Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter:
@xmlgrrl
All,
Eve mentioned that she was expecting a new profile contribution to support the UK Pensions Dashboards Programme.
This initiative is one of enormous ambition and has a real social purpose. Origo has created a profile of UMA to support the specific requirements of this use case. This was authored for us by Mike Pegman, who some of you may know.
We are pleased to now contribute this profile to the UMA Working Group for consideration. We hope that the group is encouraged about the use of UMA in a project of national importance and international interest that will benefit millions of people.
The draft profile we have supplied is a result of many years of collaborative work between Origo, the UK Government's Department for Work Pensions (DWP), the UK's Government Digital Service and others (including some UMA working group members) to develop and demonstrate the architecture. We are proud to have worked with Industry and Government stakeholders in developing a truly world-class solution using UMA.
I have attached 4 documents.
A short introductory Background document that describes the context. This also explains why we are asking the working group to accept and progress this contribution as a matter of some urgency.
A Design Document to accompany the draft UMA profile. This document:
* provides the context, rationale and explanations for the non-normative aspects of the Pensions Dashboard profile and the ecosystem digital architecture being proposed;
* explains important design decisions;
* provides guidance on what we believe is required from UMA vendors/implementers that will facilitate onboarding of pensions providers and in doing so create a market for UMA.
The draft Profile Document with three sections:
* Section 1 for the Pensions Dashboard UMA Grant draft profile;
* Section 2 for the Pensions Dashboard UMA FedAuthz draft profile;
* Section 3 for wider security considerations.
There are sequence diagrams embedded in the Design Document to illustrate and explain each flow. If you would like to view / edit these separately then this can be done using the links in the attached Sequence Diagrams document.
My colleague, Ian Muir, and I will join today's call. We would be happy to explain some of the history and background to the group.
We look forward to speaking with you shortly.
With best wishes,
Ken
Kenneth May
Chief Architect
Origo Services Ltd
0131 451 5181
0131 451 1152 (Direct)
kenneth.may(a)origo.com<mailto:kenneth.may@origo.com>
www.origo.com<http://www.origo.com/>
E-mail disclaimer
The information in this e-mail is sent in confidence for the addressee only and may be legally privileged. Unauthorised recipients must preserve this confidentiality and should please advise the sender immediately of the error in transmission and then delete this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on its content is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Origo Services Limited accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of this e-mail or the contents. It is your responsibility to scan for viruses. Origo Services Limited reserves the right to monitor e-mails sent to or from addresses under its control. When you reply to this e-mail, you are consenting to Origo Services Limited monitoring the content of the e-mails you send to or receive from Origo Services Limited. If this e-mail is non-business related Origo Services Limited is not liable for any opinions expressed by the sender. The contents of this e-mail are protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Origo Services Limited is a company incorporated in Scotland (company number 115061) having its registered office at 7 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, EH12 9DH
Origo Services Ltd.<https://www.origo.com>
https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-11-19
MinutesRoll call
Quorum was reached.
Approve minutes
- Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2020-10-01
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-10-01>
, 2020-10-15
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-10-15>
, 2020-10-22
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-10-22>
, 2020-10-29
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-10-29>
, 2020-11-05
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-11-05>
, 2020-11-12
<https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2020-11-12>
MOTION: APPROVED by acclamation.
MOTION: Moved by Domenico, seconded by Andi: The Working Group recognizes
and appreciates the significant contributions made by the outgoing
vice-chair, Maciej Machulak, to the development and progress of the UMA
specifications. APPROVED by acclamation.
Continue Policy Manager / Trust Model discussion and agree on use cases
The discussion last week was about how UMA fits into existing trust models.
Identos's motivation in developing the draft user stories was that having
even more OAuth-like flows could promote adoption. UMA AS's have have trust
schemes for all the parties but needs to have knowledge of the resource
semantics. That's where the user story elements of "recognized standards",
"resource types and scope", and "push RARs" come from. The last user story
came out of a discussion with George. Alec has seen some work in GNAP
around this, but it's difficult to do.
With permission requests, there can be multiple resource IDs and scopes,
and you may not know what RS they originally came from. It's a no-no to
give a client a token that it can redeem in multiple places. The reason we
care about this, since this would have been impossible in "regular UMA", is
because we're inventing something new here: The client could request a
resource by type, and that means all of the resources that satisfy that
type could span resources. Reminder: We are enabling C → AS first. The
"community AS" has become a virtual registry of resources on each RO's
behalf that can cross RS's. (Shades of Liberty Discovery Service.) It's not
just C → AS, it's actually enabling the RqP to do something new at the AS,
and that's where we have higher-level user stories:
*As RqP Bob, I want to be able to request access to a set of Alice's
resources directly from Alice's AS without knowledge of their location,
because I don't have to bother getting or caring about all the locations
from Alice first.*
*As client C used by RqP Bob, want to be able to request access to a set of
Alice's resources directly from Alice's AS on Bob's behalf without
knowledge of their location, because I don't have to retrieve the locations
first.*
Maybe there are more low-level/technical stories here to do with
request_submitted and different ways of handling it, but we can deal with
that later.
In our 2020-11-05 call, three "models/degrees of freedom" were defined. The
ecosystem gets further and further constrained with each choice. They
function as profiling – and compliance – choices. There's 1) a *data
model* underlying
the API being used by the client (by analogy think of a "media type"); 2)
the *authorization protocol* protecting that API, such as OAuth (by analogy
think of a "scheme"); and 3) the *trust model* that actually constrains
access by that specific client in making API calls using that authorization
protocol (back to a CA). There is a persistent desire to get more
distributed about that last one.
Resource Definitions is one distinct deliverable we want to have. "Trust
model" isn't a spec deliverable, but we think we should ponder the concept
and see if it generates any (e.g.) security considerations for each new
spec we do generate.
As an example of walking through every (pair of) entities/parties, the
old "binding
obligations" spec shows how we did it back in the old days.
Next time: Domenico's EU report (and UMA implications), and Alec's user
stories docs.
Attendees
As of October 26, 2020, quorum
<http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Participant+Roster> is
5 of 9. (Michael, Karim, Domenico, Peter, Sal, Thomas, Andi, Alec, Eve)
1. Michael
2. Domenico
3. Peter
4. Thomas
5. Andi
6. Alec
7. Eve
Non-voting participants:
1. Scott
2. Lisa
3. Tim
4. Colin
5. Nancy
*Eve Maler*Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter:
@xmlgrrl
