Abstract
This document contains non-normative release notes produced by the User-Managed Access Work Group explaining how new versions of the UMA specifications differ from previous ones.
...
| V1.0.1 | V2.0 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
.well-known/uma-configuration | .well-known/uma2-configuration | The same authorization server can have two different discovery endpoints, one serving UMA1 metadata and one serving UMA V2.0 metadata. |
OAuth endpoints:
| OAuth endpoints:
| Previously, the token endpoint issued both PATs and AATs. In V2.0, the token endpoint issues PATs, and now RPTs as well; there are no AATs. (Note that the authorization endpoint is used for authenticating resource owners only, not requesting parties.) |
Protection API:
| Protection API:
| In the case of the first two endpoints, there are both design (primarily syntax ; (tbs: link to section(s))) and naming differences, which also affects their corresponding metadata in the authorization discovery document. |
Authorization API:
| - | The prior function of the RPT endpoint is served by the OAuth token endpoint. |
| Requesting party claims endpoint | Claims interaction endpoint |
...
After the AS initially generates the permission ticket and the RS conveys it to the client, whenever the client subsequently approaches the AS token endpoint or redirects the requesting party to the AS claims gathering endpoint, the AS is required to rotate the value of the permission ticket every time it hands a ticket value back to the client. This action obsoletes any need for the Claims-Gathering Extension specification (see this explanation).
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The specialized RPT endpoint was removed in favor of using the standard OAuth token endpoint. A formal extension OAuth grant was defined, working with regular OAuth capabilities and OAuth error codes to the extent possible. This enabled reuse of large portions of the threat model, the client type model, the ability to use client credentials to be authenticated at the token endpoint (see the next section for additional discussion). (153, 165)
AAT Removed in Favor of PCT
tbs: discuss implications, step-up authentication An end-user requesting party no longer needs to mediate issuance of an AAT at the AS, and the client no longer needs to use an AAT in order to request a token; it simply uses its own client credentials at the OAuth token endpoint as in a normal grant (see Token Endpoint Replaces RPT Endpoint and Client-Side Communications Defined as Grant). Thus, the first time the requesting party needs to interact with the AS, if at all, is to provide claims interactively when redirected by the client as part of claims collection. This is in contrast to UMA1, where an end-user requesting party would have been expected to engage in an interactive OAuth flow to log in and then authorize AAT issuance at the AS's authorization endpoint. In UMA1, the (required) AAT could have been used by the AS as a reminder of claims about the current requesting party. In UMA2, the (optional) PCT is available to serve in this capacity instead, without the OAuth mechanism being involved. UMA2 does not require the AS to involve the requesting party in an interactive flow authorizing PCT issuance. (154, 264)
Deprecated Response-Body Permission Ticket Return Option By RS Removed
...
Previously, the security considerations around accepting policy-setting context information from an incompletely trusted AS were not covered. Now they cover the user_access_policy_uri property, which is the only policy-setting context information passed from AS to RS. (185) (RSR Sec 4)
Specification Reorganizations
The specifications, particularly Core Sec 3, were reorganized in the fashion of OpenID Connect, with the goal of giving a subsection to every request and response message. Other notable changes include:
...
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Following is a catalog of notable changes to the specifications in the pre-V1.0 timeframe.
Core Changes
Internet-Draft Rev 11 to Rev 12
...