https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+note... 2020-01-28 Attending: Eve, Domenico, Colin, Tim, Lisa This is the last time we'll be meeting at this hour where it's the "biz-legal call". We'll see what the results of the Doodle poll are in terms of a new hour. Please fill out that poll <https://doodle.com/poll/th8ahr8dnqa8zi8u>! Tim likes that the Guardianship paper really wrestles with the temporal dynamics of guardianship. Tim had introduced the concept of "diachronic" issues in our work on the first Report, though it looks like the word itself didn't survive the editing process through to the final version. These aspects reflect (literal) life cycle changes that traditional IAM typically handles through workflow approvals and the like. Colin would have liked to see a reflection of existing work. Likely people are not fully understanding both UMA and OAuth, both of which handle delegation of authorization in some subtle ways. We need to make this really easy to understand with some demos. The very first step in a Me2B relationship, delegating a guardian – or other RRA (resource rights administrator) – relationship, is not yet today interoperable in an OAuth or UMA world. Does profiling OAuth with a claim representing this semantic make sense? We looked at the original NZ POC case study <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Case+Study:+Users+Managing+Delegated+Access+to+Online+Government+Services> to see if it had any examples of guardianship or interesting delegation. The Aroha/Bailey use case is about "classic" delegation of access, though it includes mobile notifications of IoT data, which is nice. The ministry of education/picking up kids use case is about chaining delegation. At Kantara we produce reports and specifications. We could analyze the use cases covered by the paper; our BLT work address guardianship along with various non-guardianship delegation use cases between data subjects and RRAs. UMA's architecture and Sovrin's architecture are pretty different. However, Identos has created an extension that seems to be potentially valuable in privacy-enhancing an UMA AS in an SSI-ish context, and Adrian and his cohorts have integrated uPort for providing RqP verifiable claims. We'd like to get a broader shared understanding in the group about these options. *Eve Maler*Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl