- WG-UMA - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

Avoiding huge holes in our WG meeting schedule
by Eve Maler 19 Apr '16

19 Apr '16

To smooth out our meeting schedule a bit, I'm hoping we can add a couple of non-Thursday meeting times to make up for missed meetings. Rather than a heavyweight process, I'm going to propose a few particular dates/times that work for me, and ask for private responses back from those people who tend to attend. Week of Apr 18: WG call Apr 21 canceled due to Eve absence (still have a legal call Apr 22) - How about meeting *Wed Apr 20 9am PT*? (usual hour for WG calls, one day earlier) - Topic: Justin's #wideeco (and #IoT and #simplify and...?) solution proposal Week of Apr 25: WG call Apr 28 canceled due to IIW (still have a legal call Apr 29) - No replacement meeting Week of May 2: WG call May 5 canceled due to Eve absence - Legal call May 6 may be canceled as well due to Eve absence - But if not, would *Fri May 6 9am PT* make a good substitute for a WG call? - Likely topic: more #wideeco, likely still Justin's proposal Week of May 9: WG call May 12 canceled due to EIC (legal call May 10 also canceled) - No replacement meeting Rest of May: Back to regular meetings Thanks in advance. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 1

Interested in 20% off IIW tickets?
by Eve Maler 19 Apr '16

19 Apr '16

Kantara is a sponsor, and there are some discounted passes available with this link! https://iiw22.eventbrite.com/?discount=KANTARA_XXII_20 *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

2 1

Shared Door Challenge - Was: Asking #wideeco "solution champions" to prepare to present their ideas at upcoming WG calls
by Adrian Gropper 14 Apr '16

14 Apr '16

Here's how a shared door lock would work today: Step 1: Bob approaches the shared door and sees a sign telling him how to access the building directory 2: Bob connects his phone to the local wi-fi access point 3: Bob types the URL of the building directory into his browser - the door lock RS serves up a directory page 4: Bob clicks Alice's link in the RS directory page - is redirected to Alice's AS 5: Alice's AS challenges Bob somehow - it could be that Bob has to enter his cell phone number, or open a WebRTC call with Alice - whatever 6: Alice thinks up an access PIN for Bob - enters Bob's cell phone number and PIN into her AS 7: Alice tells Bob the PIN - however she does that 8: Bob enters the cell phone number and PIN into the AS 9: The RS opens the door Case A (LAN only): The sequence above mirrors what happens today when Bob talks to Alice and is "buzzed-in". The only difference is that Alice must sign-in to her AS to enter a phone number and PIN and Bob must enter the same two things into the AS. This is not a great user experience but it is needed because we took away the proprietary buzzer connecting Alice to the lock. The benefit is that Alice can decide when Bob's PIN must expire. Case B: Add a WAN connection and an IDP that might or might not be trusted. Alice's AS asks Bob for his IDP and name https://onename.com/agropper . Alice's AS either accepts Bob's attributes automatically or it sends a text message to Alice with the link. Alice replies to the text message with yes and an optional expiration date. I'm not sure what the challenge analysis document is. Adrian On Sunday, April 10, 2016, Eve Maler <eve(a)xmlgrrl.com> wrote: > Adrian, so far this looks like a use case (and an interesting IoT use case > at that) -- but not quite a solution description, in that we don't know if > it actually resolves #wideeco problems we've identified. E.g., the > mechanism of providing claims works great in narrow and medium ecosystems > already, but it seems to break down in wide ecosystems for various reasons. > > Can you please start a new thread, and also be sure to describe which > challenges in the challenge analysis document (and/or any other new > challenges not previously discussed) your solution purports to solve? It's > perhaps also worth noting that there are smart door looks and doorbell > products on the market, if not ones with UMA capabilities; can we learn > from what they do now? > > (We'll probably want a new thread per solution area.) > > > > *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper(a)healthurl.com> > wrote: > >> AI for discussion: Different patterns of Alice's AS and RS's accepting >> and providing federated logins? (Adrian) >> >> I would like to champion a #wideeco solution called "A Lock to Alice's >> Shared Door" as follows: >> >> - The RS is an IoT lock on the shared door of a multi-unit condo. >> - The lock has to work even if disconnected from the internet. >> - Alice has her own AS in her own condo. >> - Alice has to be able to unlock the shared door even if disconnected >> from the internet. >> - Alice carries a smartphone that can connect to the RS and AS >> locally and via the internet. >> - Bob is a guest that wants to access the shared door based on >> Alice's AS policies. >> - Bob carries a smartphone that can connect to the RS and AS locally >> and via the internet. >> - The shared door RS and Alice's AS are each built on standard >> commodities that include a typical secure element. >> - e.g.: https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoMKR1000 including >> http://www.atmel.com/products/security-ics/cryptoauthentication/ecc-256.aspx >> - Bob can present claims to Alice's AS: >> 1. by referencing a personal certificate previously stored in the >> AS (e.g.: using PGP, a FIDO key, or equivalent) >> 2. by contacting Alice out-of-band for a one-time credential into >> her AS >> 3. by authenticating to the RS (assuming the RS has been >> configured as an IdP and is trusted by the AS) >> 4. by authenticating to an IdP (assuming the internet is working >> and the IdP is trusted by the AS) >> 5. by authenticating to a blockchain persona like >> https://medium.com/@ConsenSys/uport-the-wallet-is-the-new-browser-b133a83fe… >> this could involve a camera and face recognition as in >> http://www.planetbiometrics.com/article-details/i/4238/desc/google-triallin… >> 6. by following a claims gathering process directed by Alice's AS >> >> I believe these 6 are the only distinct categories and I would hope that >> Alice's AS supports all of them if Alice is willing to take the time to >> configure them. Within each category, there will be various user >> experiences depending on what kind of technology Bob has in his pocket. >> >> Adrian >> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Eve Maler <eve(a)xmlgrrl.com> wrote: >> >>> I've also done a little bit of suggested reordering of the roadmap >>> <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Roadmap+for+2016> >>> priorities to account for the appearance of so many use case buckets in the >>> first bullet in the list, and other realities; please see what you think. >>> Essentially, we can't really consider Justin's proposals for #wideeco >>> without also considering their #simplify impact, and some of their #IoT >>> impact, but some other #IoT analysis will have to wait a bit longer. Also, >>> we don't have any #security work on our docket at the moment, but more >>> could arise at any time, and there's some constant legal-subgroup work >>> being done. Etc. >>> >>> Oh, and I've put the named people who I hope will take on action items >>> directly on the cc list this time, to draw their attention to my request. >>> >>> Happy Friday! :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Eve Maler <eve(a)xmlgrrl.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all-- The agenda for our call yesterday tried to summarize what I >>>> think is the most up-to-date list of ideas I've heard so far: >>>> >>>> >>>> - Examining solutions for wide ecosystem challenges (Eve's >>>> challenge analysis doc >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lJXDFzlq8j-m0f8mELjqYcX6PPcYSjOuxiGHzwU…>) – >>>> look at: >>>> - UMA-protected UserInfo? (various) *[Mike]* >>>> - Different patterns of Alice's AS and RS's accepting and >>>> providing federated logins? (Adrian) >>>> - "Multi-party" proposal? (Justin) (engages with #APIsec and >>>> #simplify use case buckets too) *[also #IoT as discussed on >>>> Thursday]* >>>> - AS requests claims and client does act_as Bob to send them? >>>> (Mike, James) >>>> - Alice's AS dynamically gets client credentials to Bob's claim >>>> sources? (various) *[Eve]* >>>> - Meta-suggestion: Should trust elevation methods be >>>> modularized? (James) >>>> - Others? >>>> >>>> >>>> Can the people identified above please take action items to present at >>>> upcoming calls? If you're not clear on what this is about, or if you can't >>>> do this action, please let me know. Thanks! >>>> >>>> And remember, we've got some upcoming "holes" in our Q2 WG meeting >>>> schedule. I've just deleted some of our Thursday meetings (Fridays haven't >>>> been impacted yet), with possibly a couple more to come. We've got some >>>> exciting work coming up, so let's try to press ahead with offline prep such >>>> as this. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Adrian Gropper MD >> >> PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! >> HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data. >> DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/ >> > >

3 4

Agenda for UMA telecon 2016-04-14
by Eve Maler 13 Apr '16

13 Apr '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2016-04-14 Date and Time - *Thu Apr 14,* 9-10am 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 - *NOTE:* *IGNORE* the 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 Agenda - Roll call - Approve minutes of UMA telecons 2016-03-24 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2016-03-24> and 2016-03-31 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2016-03-31> - Solution proposals against wide ecosystem challenges (Eve's challenge analysis doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lJXDFzlq8j-m0f8mELjqYcX6PPcYSjOuxiGHzwU…>) – today's solution proposals include: - Alice's AS dynamically gets client credentials to Bob's claim sources (Eve) - Different patterns of Alice's AS and RS's accepting and providing federated logins (Adrian) - (Adding a new solution proposal to the list for a future meeting: Sourcing Bob's claims from a distributed ledger (champion?)) - AOB *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

[legal] Use cases and design patterns for resource owner/Grantor/Resource Subject
by Eve Maler 12 Apr '16

12 Apr '16

*Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

2 3

[legal] Newly revised versions of RSO - ASO model clauses, with questions/commentary
by Eve Maler 12 Apr '16

12 Apr '16

We agreed to start with the RSO - ASO trust relationship because it's most "upstream" and has no dependencies. It also turns out to be one of the most simple, at least in terms of previously brainstormed obligations/clauses. Below, I've taken the original obligations/duties and revised and commented on them given recent conversations. Let's discuss tomorrow. ==== *Condition applying to all:* For the period that the {Resource_Server_Operator} and {Authorization_Server_Operator} have mutually agreed to serve in these respective roles for each other… *Candidate duty A.* “RSO-Register-Accurately-and-Timely” …the RSO gains an obligation to the ASO to register resource set descriptions accurately and timely. Q A1. Do we have to qualify the wording above any further (given that we haven’t reached “Resource Subject/Grantor mention stage” yet) to talk about which resource set descriptions need to be registered? Note that there is no obligation for any RS to give any Grantor a choice about which resources to put under/take out of AS protection etc. It’s actually totally up to the RS. *Candidate duty B.* “RSO-Respect-Permissions” …the RSO gains an obligation to the ASO to respect the permissions that the AS associates with “bearer”-type RPTs when such RPTs are later borne to the RS by Clients. Q B1. This gets to the heart of our #RSctrl issue, as represented by the decision tree in these January meeting notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+note…>. Do we need to rejigger this so that it is a) finer-grained and/or b) per-Resource Subject or on a case-by-case basis vs. per-ASO? Note that this a matter for ASO liability, as much as for Resource Subject concern, so this trust relationship does need to bear some of the weight. Much work to do here! Q B2. The “bearer”-type token profile is mentioned specifically because each token profile comes with its own distribution of policy decision-making responsibility between RS and AS. Does this make sense? *Candidate duty C.* “ASO-Elevate-Trust-Accurately” …the ASO gains an obligation to the RSO to perform trust elevation accurately and represent the results of trust elevation accurately in permissions in “bearer”-type RPTs. Q C1. This is the reciprocal liability duty that the ASO carries regarding the RSO. Does that make sense? ==== What other clauses might make sense to add? ==== The theory is that if we get the RSO - ASO clauses right, then these would all be prerequisite for the next two batches, Grantor - ASO and Grantor - RSO. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

2 5

$100 to support UMA
by Mike Schwartz 11 Apr '16

11 Apr '16

Please vote "YES" if you can contribute $100 to an UMA video being shot at IIW! http://gluu.co/iiw-uma-video-poll It would be great if we could get 15 people before Eve offers to contribute, because you all know how much she's done for this effort! - Mike ------------------------------------- Michael Schwartz Gluu Founder / CEO mike(a)gluu.org

1 0

Smart Contracts - Bridging the Gap Between the Real World and Blockchain - Blockchain News
by John Wunderlich 10 Apr '16

10 Apr '16

Saw this on another list, and thought some of you might be interested: http://www.the-blockchain.com/2016/04/06/smart-contracts-bridging-the-gap-b… Sincerely, John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN Call: +1 (647) 669-4749 eMail: john(a)wunderlich.ca -- 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

Asking #wideeco "solution champions" to prepare to present their ideas at upcoming WG calls
by Eve Maler 10 Apr '16

10 Apr '16

Hi all-- The agenda for our call yesterday tried to summarize what I think is the most up-to-date list of ideas I've heard so far: - Examining solutions for wide ecosystem challenges (Eve's challenge analysis doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lJXDFzlq8j-m0f8mELjqYcX6PPcYSjOuxiGHzwU…>) – look at: - UMA-protected UserInfo? (various) *[Mike]* - Different patterns of Alice's AS and RS's accepting and providing federated logins? (Adrian) - "Multi-party" proposal? (Justin) (engages with #APIsec and #simplify use case buckets too) *[also #IoT as discussed on Thursday]* - AS requests claims and client does act_as Bob to send them? (Mike, James) - Alice's AS dynamically gets client credentials to Bob's claim sources? (various) *[Eve]* - Meta-suggestion: Should trust elevation methods be modularized? (James) - Others? Can the people identified above please take action items to present at upcoming calls? If you're not clear on what this is about, or if you can't do this action, please let me know. Thanks! And remember, we've got some upcoming "holes" in our Q2 WG meeting schedule. I've just deleted some of our Thursday meetings (Fridays haven't been impacted yet), with possibly a couple more to come. We've got some exciting work coming up, so let's try to press ahead with offline prep such as this. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

2 3

Notes from UMA legal telecon 2016-04-08
by Eve Maler 10 Apr '16

10 Apr '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+note… 2016-04-08 - Our budget request was accepted! Let's work out a timeline - Work on RSO - ASO model clauses more – can we get to "beta" quality today? - How are invitations to our April 15 meeting going? Attending: Eve, Andrew, Ann, Adrian, Mark, Kathleen Budget request accepted The Kantara board has asked us for a cash flow timeline. Eve's estimate was that we could develop our requirements by early Q3, say no later than July, and identify a contractor by early-mid Q3, and ideally conclude the project by the end of Q3 (Sep). This gives us a forcing function to have a credible set of beta model text to work with by Q2. We seem to be able to accept this, even though there are some question marks. AI: Eve: Reach out to our community of "legal eagle" participants to wake up active participation once again. Realistic first beta review timelines Is it realistic to invite anyone to our Apr 15 call? Are we ready with text? There are two parts to this: Can external parties attend, and do we have enough text/materials? Adrian proposes that Kathleen is on the critical path here. Kathleen just wants to run a FHIR pilot based on our clauses! And doesn't see Andrew's use case as incompatible. What's most practical? Kathleen suggests that getting to the point of real clauses is really the most practical. Let's work hard to continue putting our model clauses together, and reassess just before the IIW timeframe as well as think about a June forum for external review. Model definition and clause work The FHIR connectathon is in May. She would like to "XMLize" the clauses for that target. What actual language is being executed here (since XML is just the "punctuation", if you will), if FHIR has a place in the code for a Grantor etc.? It sounds like they are using UMA authorization servers to consume standardized policy expressions in XML (if not necessarily XACML) format, and this would map to the Grantor's wishes for sharing. This could come down to a particular set of trust relationships, and the question of whether it splits into "active" policies vs. things like consent receipts. Our Grantor - RqP (Grantee?) trust relationship already mentions consent receipts, and we've already discussed how CRs need to be part of a workflow that shows the Grantor what it is they're consenting to (or proactively sharing/delegating or whatever, i.e. setting a policy/sharing preference), so we could already be in the ballpark here. FHIR is using its audit logging framework for this workflow. Adrian had made a generic "NPE Release of Information Form 1" sample form <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1A43_OrXPIe26IaE4AVBgaRR7wXacWIGXX36X1D1LHB…> a few months ago, and Kathleen observes that with a few additions this could be something like what FHIR needs. Adrian is intending this to be used by the RS/RSO for setting up phase 1 (that is perhaps a rathole for our purposes for today's agenda; Eve suggests that Adrian and Kathleen discuss offline as appropriate). Eve shared a slide deck <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/17760302/UMA%2…> that runs through various design patterns for splitting the technical resource subject and legal Grantee roles. This deck now has some explanation on the first slide about how the technical UMA flow can stay the same, while the trust relationships and legal/contractual backing might vary significantly. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

2 1