Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • NOTE: As of Sept 15, 2022, quorum is 3 of 5. (Peter, Sal, Alec, Eve, Steve)

  • Voting:

    • Steve

    • Alec

  • Non-voting participants:

  • Regrets:

...

https://fapi.openid.net/ 

Marked up UMA spec: UMA telecon 2022-10-20

Last discussion:UMA telecon 2022-10-27

Goal: existing OAuth clients are able to get access tokens, the RS/AS are using UMA

UMA concepts to keep:

  • AS is a gatekeeper for multiple RSs

    • alternative, each RS is also an AS (requires client registrations to each RS)

    • alternative, API gateway in front of many RSs, client has some API-key

  • UMA Fedz, language to talk about resources and scope (fine-graned authZ, ability to have scopes with appropriate resources/endpoint boundaries)

RS first flow challenges

  • URL sharing (RO->RqP)

  • haven’t seen OAuth software that follows www-authenticate responses

  • another option (depending if the RS is accessed through a browser or directly) is have the RS be the client to the AS

    • Client <> AS to Client <> RS <> AS

AS first flows

  • resource discovery & selection, not part of the client/AS protocol

  • RO shares URL of AS (with some ticket/scope attached)

    • RO can create these URLs through interaction with the AS

    • Client has a scope of type they can request, RqP selects resources at the AS through interactive claims gathering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaroons_(computer_science) could be used at an AS for RO policy definition and limiting of RqP access

AOB

  • December schedule:

    • planning to cancel the Dec 22 and 29th meeting

  • could we have a technical companion to the Julie Use-case? It would show a specific deployment/integration architecture and how those components map to UMA roles and configuration. Could compare to an OAuth only solution

Potential Future Work Items / Meeting Topics

...