Technology Matrix
The following matrix compares and contrasts UMA (in combination with some relationship management application interface) with other related technologies.
|
UMA + reln mgr |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
login-time attribute transfer |
|
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
back-channel controlled access |
yes |
|
yes |
|
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
separate policy decision hub |
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
yes |
|
|
|
on-board storage of user data |
yes (if RM is a Host) |
yes (self-issued cards) |
yes (self-issued cards) |
yes |
|
|
|
yes (required) |
|
|
user-imposed policy (unilateral) |
yes |
|
|
|
yes |
yes (through XACML/CARML) |
yes (through CARML) |
? |
|
|
user-imposed terms (agreed) |
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes (link contract) |
partial (user selection among RP terms) |
binding of ID(s) to data shared |
late |
early (usually) |
early (usually) |
early |
late |
late |
|
late |
|
early |
RESTful/resource oriented |
yes |
|
|
yes |
yes |
potentially (ID-WSF Evo) |
|
yes |
|
yes |
co-ownership of data write access |
pseudo |
|
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following are some potential synergies between UMA and the other technologies mentioned.
- UMA and InfoCard:
- Claim on card presented to UMA Host could specify location of user's desired AM (UMA step 0)
- Claim on card presented to UMA Requester could specify URL of resource to be shared rather than resource by value (UMA step 1)
- UMA and R-Card:
- Same as InfoCard; special R-Card UDR claim could have lessons for UMA about provisioning pointers to locations of resources and multi-resource packages
- UMA and OpenID:
- UMA should not depend on OpenID but could take advantage of something like the OpenID/OAuth hybrid (and possibly build on top of the actual OpenID/OAuth hybrid) for a smooth integrated experience
- UMA and OAuth:
- UMA is intended to build on top of OAuth and reuse true OAuth as closely as possible in achieving its goals
- Some service-access use cases for UMA involve OAuth explicitly
- UMA and ID-WSF:
- ID-WSF Web Service Provider (WSP) works like an UMA Host and Web Service Consumer (WSC) works like an UMA Requester
- "RESTful ID-WSF" work involves OAuth-based introductions of WSPs to Discovery Service closely akin to UMA's Step 0
- UMA distributed-services scenario is similar to canonical ID-WSF service discovery model
- UMA and XACML:
- UMA is like "user-driven XACML", with user-selected policies and terms governing a policy decision point's (PDP's) behavior
- UMA could be seen as a "RESTful binding" of a protocol inspired by XACML's decision-making protocol
- The XACML policy expression language, and policy languages such as CARML that profile this language, are candidates for UMA's terms-setting ability.
- UMA and Mine!:
- The Mine! assumes a relationship manager component that aggregates/co-locates what UMA would call AM and Host functionality
- Implementations of the Mine! might decide to implement UMA-compliant AM and Host protocol endpoints
- UMA and XRI:
- UMA's notion of user-driven terms appears conceptually identical to XRI's notion of link contracts and could possibly serve as a concrete solution for them
- XRI's XRD metadata spec could, in a manner similar to ID-WSF's Discovery Service, be useful in a service catalog role in combination with UMA
- UMA (as could OAuth?) could protect an XRD metadata resource in order to contribute to "trusted discovery" of it
- UMA and CX:
- UMA and CX share a goal of binding data sharing to terms
- CX could have lessons for UMA in using cryptography to make contracts highly enforceable, as well as lessons in handling user-driven terms