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.
This document includes final release notes for the UMA V1.0.1 Recommendations and draft release notes for the UMA V2.0 Draft Recommendations.
The User-Managed Access Work Group operates under Kantara IPR Policy - Option Patent & Copyright: Reciprocal Royalty Free with Opt-Out to Reasonable And Non discriminatory (RAND) (HTML version) and the publication of this document is governed by the policies outlined in this option.
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.
NOTE: Reading the release note is not a substitute for reading the specifications carefully. In each specification release, much work is typically done to improve clarity and applicability for implementers and others. See the UMA Implementer's Guide for additional commentary.
The UMA specifications use Semantic Versioning:
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
The following shorthand terms and abbreviations are used in this document (see also the terminology, including abbreviations, defined in the specifications):
Where a change relates to a GitHub issue, the linked issue number is provided.
The UMA V2.0 specifications (Grant, FedAuthz – currently these links go to revisions 08) (tbs: link to final specs, and to final spec sections throughout) are in Draft Recommendation form. This section will be completed, and updated as required, as the specifications progress to Recommendation status. Differences and changes noted are between V2.0 and V1.0.n generally; note that internal revision differences between UMA2 revisions are not tracked. (You may find it helpful to refer to the Disposition of Comments document, a record of specification changes during the Public Comment period.) Where the distinction between V1.0 and V1.0.1 is important, it will be noted; otherwise the label "UMA1" is used.
The following sequence diagrams may be of assistance as brief summaries of changes made:
The major themes of this version, as determined by the Work Group's 2016 roadmap planning process, were to:
The two specifications were divided differently until late April 2017. Core and RSR were recombined into Grant and FedAuthz, as follows:
https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/profiles/prot-ext-1.0, https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/profiles/authz-ext-1.0, and https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/profiles/rsrc-ext-1.0 were removed and replaced with recommendations (Grant Sec 4 and FedAuthz Sec 1.3) to define profiles as needed and to use uma_profiles_supported metadata (Grant Sec 2) to declare them.It is now optional to implement the features appearing in FedAuthz; thus, this specification effectively defines a conformance level. (Note: To receive the full benefits of "user-managed access", it is best to implement and use the features of both specifications.)
Note the following terminology changes made throughout the specifications. (256) See also Summary of API and Endpoint Changes below for naming changes made to some of the endpoints.
| UMA1 | UMA2 | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| configuration data | metadata, discovery document | For better clarity and OAuth alignment |
| policies | authorization grant rules, policy conditions | For better consistency |
| protection API token (PAT) | protection API access token (PAT) | For better clarity and OAuth alignment |
resource set, resource set registration | resource, resource registration (protected while registered) | For better clarity and OAuth alignment |
authorization API | UMA grant (an extension OAuth grant) | Result of redesign (see Token Endpoint Replaces RPT Endpoint; Client-Side Communications Defined as Extension Grant) |
| authorization API token (AAT) | goes away; a new related token is persisted claims token (PCT) | Result of redesign (see AAT Removed in Favor of PCT) |
register a permission (for permission ticket) | request (one or more) permission(s) (on behalf of a client) | For better clarity |
trust elevation | authorization process and authorization assessment | Result of redesign (see Authorization Assessment Gains Precision) |
claims pushing + claims gathering = (n/a) | claims pushing + claims gathering = claims collection | For better consistency |
step-up authentication | (n/a); just authorization process | Result of redesign (see AAT Removed in Favor of PCT and Authorization Assessment Gains Precision) |
RPT as an UMA access token | RPT as an OAuth access token | Result of redesign (see Token Endpoint Replaces RPT Endpoint; Client-Side Communications Defined as Extension Grant) |
These design changes include naming changes made to some of the endpoints.
| UMA1 | UMA2 | 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 UMA2 metadata. |
OAuth endpoints:
| OAuth endpoints:
| Previously, the token endpoint issued both PATs and AATs. Now the token endpoint issues PATs and RPTs; there are no AATs. (Note that the authorization endpoint is used for authenticating resource owners only, not requesting parties.) |
Protection API:
| Protection API (now OPTIONAL):
| In the case of the first two endpoints, there are both design (primarily syntax) and naming differences, which also affects their corresponding metadata in the authorization server discovery document. |
Authorization API:
| - | In UMA2, there is no authorization API. The prior function of the RPT endpoint is served by the existing OAuth token endpoint. |
| Requesting party claims endpoint | Claims interaction endpoint | This is just a naming difference. |
UMA1's endpoint and feature discovery mechanism was defined in total by its Core specification. UMA2 makes use of the OAuth discovery mechanism instead, eliminating metadata fields already defined by the OAuth discovery or OpenID Connect specification. The Grant (Sec 2) and FedAuthz (Sec 2) specifications each define only the metadata fields they require. (59, 157, 159, 305)
The new metadata field claims_redirect_uris enables the client to pre-register claims redirection URIs. (Grant Sec 2, Sec 3.3.2, Sec 7.3) (337 sub-issues c and d)
Previously, it was intended to make an IANA registration request of the claims inside the introspection object as independent JWT claims. This would enable them to be formally used in RPTs, such that an RS can validate the access token locally with these claims packed inside it. Because of potential security and privacy considerations, it was determined not to define this token format for now. (FedAuthz Sec 9) (334)
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 permission ticket value back to the client (Grant Sec 3.3.3, Sec 3.3.6). This action obsoletes the need for the UMA Claims-Gathering Extension for Enhanced Security specification (see this explanation of that specification for more information).
The specialized RPT endpoint was removed in favor of using the standard OAuth token endpoint (Grant Sec 3.3.1). A formal extension OAuth grant was defined (same section), working with regular OAuth capabilities and OAuth error codes to the extent possible (Sec 3.3.6). This enabled reuse of large portions of the threat model and the client type model, along with the ability for the client to request scopes and to authenticate using its own client credentials at the token endpoint (see the next section for additional discussion). (153, 165)
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 (Grant Sec 3.3.1). Note that UMA2 does not require the AS to involve the requesting party in an interactive flow authorizing PCT issuance (Grant Sec 3.3.3). (154, 264)
In UMA V1.0.1 the RS was able to return the initial permission ticket to the client in the response body for backwards compatibility with UMA V1.0, but this option was deprecated; now this option has been removed. (233)
In UMA V1.0.1 the AS was able to return the permission ticket to the client along with the redirect_user hint, but the client was not supposed to depend on ticket accuracy, and the supply of this ticket was deprecated. Now all permission tickets directly supplied by the AS are rotated and the value is safe for the client to depend on (Grant Sec 3.3.6). (233)
The instruction for the RS to request permissions on the client's behalf (which can be a private interface or the standardized interface governed by FedAuthz) is now defined as a recommendation ("SHOULD") to be reasonable for the client's resource request, rather than being required to meet it ("minimally suffices"). The UMA Implementer's Guide has a section on Considerations Regarding Resource Server Permission Requests that explains how and why this level of discretion is more appropriate.
The JSON nested object structure of the need_info error response from the AS has been flattened. Now it directly contains a permission ticket and either a required_claims or a redirect_user hint (or both) (Grant Sec 3.3.6). (237, 308)
The UMA1 error not_authorized has been renamed to request_denied. Note that this error was re-added only in a later revision of UMA2. See the UMA Implementer's Guide section called Understanding Authorization Server Response Options From the Token Endpoint to understand AS error semantics. (Grant Sec 3.3.6) (340)
An optional interval parameter was added to the request_submitted error to enable the AS to inform the client about appropriate polling intervals. (Grant Sec 3.3.6) (341)
It has been clarified that the AS can issue a refresh token and the client can use the refresh token grant to attempt to get a new RPT with it (Grant Sec 3.3.5, Sec 3.6). (238, 284)
Inputs to authorization assessment and results calculation are more normative and precise. It is also now possible for permissions with zero scopes to be granted (Grant Sec 3.3.4). (266, 310, 317)
The permission ticket generation ecosystem has been rationalized. In UMA2, a permission ticket is always generated, and the value rotated, in cases of a redirect back from the claims interaction endpoint and in cases of need_info and request_submitted errors from token endpoint requests, and never in cases of other errors. An authorization process is still ongoing while the authorization server is still generating permission tickets. (275, 279, 298)
UMA2 includes more comprehensive and normative logic around RPT upgrading (Grant Sec 3.3.5, 3.3.5.1). (281)
UMA2 includes more comprehensive and normative text around token revocation, and defines a token type hint for PCTs (Grant Sec 3.7). (295)
UMA2 ensures that the logic of downscoping during token refreshing is properly defined given that UMA scopes are bound to resources, and clarifies that the AS does not perform authorization assessment in this context (Grant Sec 3.6). (306)
The API available at the resource registration endpoint required the path to contain the string resource_set. This string has ben removed (FedAuthz Sec 3.2). (155)
The AS is no longer expected to resolve scope description details at resource registration time or at any other run-time requirement (FedAuthz Sec 3.1.1). (269)
The uri parameter in the resource description was removed due to potential security and privacy concerns. (FedAuthz Sec 3.1)
Resource description documents and scope description documents each now have a new parameter, description, for a human-readable string describing the resource or scope (respectively) at length. (271, 272)
The scopes parameter in the resource description document has been renamed to resource_scopes (FedAuthz Sec 3.1). (318)
For a typical variety of malformed-request errors, a response of an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) status code and an optional invalid_request error code is now defined. (FedAuthz Sec 3.2) (354-1)
It is now possible for the RS to request multiple permissions on the client's behalf, not just one; this enables the RS to request "packages" of multiple resources that are likely to need to be accessed together. It is also possible for the RS to supply zero scopes on a requested permission (FedAuthz Sec 4.1); this is because the client can request its own scopes directly from the AS (for more discussion see Token Endpoint Replaces RPT Endpoint; Client-Side Communications Defined as Extension Grant). (317)
The scopes parameter in the token introspection response object has been renamed to resource_scopes (FedAuthz Sec 5.1.1). (158)
In UMA2, the RPT is explicitly a type of OAuth access token, and it has been clarified that the token can be self-contained and valided locally by the RS, or introspected at the AS at run time, or its cached value used as appropriate (FedAuthz Sec 5). (261)
If token introspection is used (see Options Not to Use Token Introspection Explicitly Allowed), the introspection object can no longer be extended to replace the permissions claim with an entirely different structure. (322)
The statement about the permission claim's exp sub-claim not expiring if it is absent was removed for the multi-part rationale given in the linked issue. (337 sub-issue a)
The UMA V1.0 specifications (Core, RSR) were approved in March 2015. The UMA V1.0.1 specifications (Core, RSR) are were approved in an All-Member Ballot to be Kantara Recommendations and were published in December 2015.
The following release notes are catalogued according to their impact on software implementations (where impact on client software in addition to authorization server or resource server software is denoted with (+Client) in the section title). Links to relevant GitHub issues and specific section numbers are provided where possible, enabling old-to-new text comparisons and tracking of discussions and rationales.
The following themes animated the V1.0.1 release process:
Minor changes, such as changes that don't impact implementations or specification interpretations, are not discussed in this section. To see a full list of issues disposed of and specification commits related to V1.0.1, see the list of GitHub issues with the "V1.0.1" label and the commit histories for Core and RSR.
Following are specification changes in V1.0.1 that affect authorization servers, and possibly clients that interact with them as well.
Previously, the client was instructed to present the ordinary OAuth redirect_uri endpoint to which the AS should redirect requesting parties back after claims gathering, but this was ambiguously specified and incorrect. Now the client has a unique endpoint, claims_redirect_uri, that it needs to register. (144)
Previously, little guidance was offered on how to manage permission tickets. Now some implications are explored, particularly as they relate to client interaction. (172) (Core Sec 3.2.2)
Previously, the matching of the "extents of access" of the requested permission registered by the RS and the permission ticket issued by the AS was implicit. Now it is spelled out. (175) (Core Sec 3.2)
Previously, the AS was required to repeat the client’s permission ticket back to it in a ticket property when offering a redirect_user hint in error_details. Now this is optional and the client is encouraged to ignore the property's value, preparatory to removing the property entirely in a future UMA version. The reason is that the value can't be guaranteed good; repeating the value was in order to save the client work; and having the client check the value would ultimately have caused both sides work for no gain. (205) (Core Sec 3.5.4.2)
Previously, the requirement for an Update method in resource set registration to completely replace the previous resource set description was implicit. Now it is spelled out. (177) (RSR Sec 2.2.3)
Previously, a naive implementation could have resulted in accidental default-permit authorization data issuance in some cases. Now a default-deny authorization assessment model has been made explicit, with an example given of how implementations could get into trouble. (194) (Core Sec 3.5.2)
Previously, the wording about base64url-encoding pushed claims was ambiguous about whether double-encoding was necessary in the case of claim formats that were already base64url-encoded. Now it has been clarified that double-encoding should not be performed. (206) (Core Sec 3.6.2)
Previously, the security considerations around accepting policy-setting context information from an incompletely trusted RS only covered "bad icon URIs". Now they cover all such policy-setting context information, following roughly the OAuth example. (151) (RSR Sec 4)
Previously, the security considerations around client-pushed claims were explored only in a very cursory fashion in the body of the text. Now they are treated at length in a new subsection. (160) (Core Sec 7.4.1)
Previously, little was said about privacy implications of requesting party claims being transmitted to the AS. Now this section has been greatly expanded. (211) (Core Sec 8.2)
Following are specification changes in V1.0.1 that affect resource servers, and possibly clients that interact with them as well.
Previously, the specification was missing an important caveat: Based on a client's initial RPT-free resource request, the RS needs to know the correct AS, PAT, and resource set ID to include in its follow-on call to the permission request endpoint at the AS. Thus, the API of the RS needs be structured so that it can derive this information from the client's request. Now this caveat appears in several locations. (161, 162, 225)
Previously, the specification wording was inconsistent and problematic regarding how the RS responds to a client request accompanied by no RPT or an RPT with insufficient authorization data (assuming permission request success). Now the ability not to respond at all is more fully acknowledged; all responses intended to be interpreted in an UMA fashion are required to be accompanied by a WWW-Authenticate: UMA header; the permission ticket is required to be returned in a new ticket parameter in that header; complete freedom is given regarding the RS's choice of HTTP status code; and only in the case of a 403 choice is a ticket in a JSON-encoded body suggested, preparatory to removing the body option in a future UMA version. The rationale for this somewhat dramatic set of changes is that the original prescription to return HTTP status code 403 was incorrect; the specification gave too little guidance about responses other than 403 responses to be useful for client interoperability; and its requirement to return the permission ticket in a JSON-encoded body regardless of expected content type was an issue. (163, 164, 168) (Core Sec 3.3.1)
Previously, the specification gave no guidance on how the RS should respond to the client in case of permission registration failure at the AS. Now, if the RS responds at all, it is required to substitute a Warning: 199 - "UMA Authorization Server Unreachable" header for WWW-Authenticate: UMA. (176) (Core Sec 3.3.2)
Previously, the value of the as_uri property that the RS returns to the client was described somewhat vaguely as the authorization server's URI. Now it has been clarified to be the issuer URI as it appears in the AS configuration data of the AS. (199) (Core Sec 3.3.1)
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)
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:
Sections are presented in original V1.0 (black) Table of Contents order, mapped to their corresponding draft V1.0.1 sections (green). Where a V1.0.1 section or block of sections is repeated, it redistributes material previously appearing in the V1.0 sections under which the mentions appear.
Found in Core V1.0 (go)
Find in Core draft V1.0.1 (go)
1. Introduction (go)
1.1. Notational Conventions
1.2. Terminology
1.3. Achieving Distributed Access Control
1.3.1. Protection API
1.3.2. Authorization API
1.3.3. Protected Resource Interface
1.3.4. Time-to-Live Considerations
1.4. Authorization Server Configuration Data
1. Introduction (go)
1.1 Notational Conventions
1.2 Terminology
1.3 Achieving Distributed Access Control
1.3.1 Protection API and Protection API Token
1.3.2 Authorization API and Authorization API Token
1.3.3 Protected Resource Interface and Requesting Party Token
1.3.4 Time-to-Live Considerations
1.4 Authorization Server Configuration Data
2. Protecting a Resource (go)
2. Protecting a Resource (go)
3. Getting Authorization and Accessing a Resource (go)
3.1 Client Attempts Access to Protected Resource
3. Getting Authorization and Accessing a Resource (go)
3.1 Client Attempts Access to Protected Resource
3.1.1. Client Request to Resource Server With No RPT (go)
3.1.1 Client Request to Resource Server With No RPT (go)
3.3 Resource Server Responds to Client (go)
3.3.1 Resource Server Response to Client on Permission Registration Success
3.3.2 Resource Server Response to Client on Permission Registration Failure
3.1.2. Client Presents RPT (go)
3.1.2 Client Request to Resource Server With RPT (go)
3.3 Resource Server Responds to Client (go)
3.3.1 Resource Server Response to Client on Permission Registration Success
3.3.2 Resource Server Response to Client on Permission Registration Failure
3.3.3 Resource Server Response to Client on Sufficiency of Authorization
3.2. Resource Server Registers Requested Permission With Authorization Server (go)
3.2 Resource Server Registers Requested Permission With Authorization Server (go)
3.2.1 Resource Server Request to Permission Registration Endpoint
3.2.2 Permission Ticket Creation and Management
3.2.3 Authorization Server Response to Resource Server on Permission Registration Success
3.2.4 Authorization Server Response to Resource Server on Permission Registration Failure
3.3. Resource Server Determines RPT's Status (go)
3.3.1. Token Introspection
3.3.2. RPT Profile: Bearer
3.4 Resource Server Determines RPT Status (go)
3.4.1 Token Introspection Process
3.4.2 RPT Profile: Bearer
3.4. Client Seeks Authorization for Access (go)
3.5 Client Seeks Authorization for Access (go)
3.4.1. Client Requests Authorization Data (go)
3.5.1 Client Request to Authorization Server for Authorization Data (go)
3.5.2 Authorization Assessment Process
3.5.3 Authorization Server Response to Client on Authorization Success
3.5.4 Authorization Server Response to Client on Authorization Failure
3.4.1.1. Authentication Context Flows (go)
3.6 Client Responds to Authorization Server's Request for Additional Information (go)
3.6.1 Client Redirects Requesting Party to Authorization Server for Authentication
3.4.1.2. Claims-Gathering Flows (go)
3.6 Client Responds to Authorization Server's Request for Additional Information (go)
3.6.2 Client Pushes Claim Tokens to Authorization Server (go)
3.6.3 Client Redirects Requesting Party to Authorization Server for Claims-Gathering
4. Error Messages (go)
4.1. OAuth Error Responses
4.2. UMA Error Responses
4. Error Messages (go)
4.1 OAuth Error Responses
4.2 UMA Error Responses
5. Profiles for API Extensibility (go)
5.1. Protection API Extensibility Profile
5.2. Authorization API Extensibility Profile
5.3. Resource Interface Extensibility Profile
5. Profiles for API Extensibility (go)
5.1 Protection API Extensibility Profile
5.2 Authorization API Extensibility Profile
5.3 Resource Interface Extensibility Profile
6. Specifying Additional Profiles (go)
6.1. Specifying Profiles of UMA
6.2. Specifying RPT Profiles
6.3. Specifying Claim Token Format Profiles
6. Specifying Additional Profiles (go)
6.1 Specifying Profiles of UMA
6.2 Specifying RPT Profiles
6.3 Specifying Claim Token Format Profiles
7. Compatibility Notes (go)
n/a
8. Security Considerations (go)
7. Security Considerations (go)
8.1. Redirection and Impersonation Threats (go)
7.1 Requesting Party Redirection and Impersonation Threats (go)
8.2. Client Authentication (go)
7.2 Client Authentication (go)
8.3. JSON Usage (go)
7.3 JSON Usage (go)
8.4. Profiles, Binding Obligations, and Trust Establishment (go)
7.4 Profiles and Trust Establishment (go)
n/a
7.4.1 Requirements for Trust When Clients Push Claim Tokens (go)
9. Privacy Considerations (go)
8. Privacy Considerations (go)
8.1 Resource Set Information at the Authorization Server
8.2 Requesting Party Information at the Authorization Server
8.3 Profiles and Trust Establishment
10. IANA Considerations (go)
9. IANA Considerations (go)
10.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registration (go)
10.1.1. Registry Contents
9.1 JSON Web Token Claims Registration (go)
9.1.1 Registry Contents
n/a
9.2 OAuth Token Introspection Response Registration (go)
9.2.1 Registry Contents
10.2. Well-Known URI Registration (go)
10.2.1. Registry Contents
9.3 Well-Known URI Registration (go)
9.3.1 Registry Contents
11. Acknowledgments (go)
10. Acknowledgments (go)
12. References (go)
12.1. Normative References
12.2. Informative References
11. References (go)
11.1 Normative References
11.2 Informative References
Found in RSR V1.0 (go)
Find in RSR draft V1.0.1 (go)
1. Introduction (go)
1.1. Notational Conventions
1.2. Terminology
1.3. Authorization Server Configuration Data
1. Introduction (go)
1.1 Notational Conventions
1.2 Terminology
1.3 Authorization Server Configuration Data
2. Resource Set Registration (go)
2. Resource Set Registration (go)
2.1. Scope Descriptions (go)
2.1.1 Scope Descriptions (go)
n/a
2.1.2 Scope Interpretation (go)
2.2. Resource Set Descriptions (go)
2.1 Resource Set Descriptions (go)
2.3. Resource Set Registration API (go)
2.3.1. Create Resource Set Description
2.3.2. Read Resource Set Description
2.3.3. Update Resource Set Description
2.3.4. Delete Resource Set Description
2.3.5. List Resource Set Descriptions
2.2 Resource Set Registration API (go)
2.2.1 Create Resource Set Description
2.2.2 Read Resource Set Description
2.2.3 Update Resource Set Description
2.2.4 Delete Resource Set Description
2.2.5 List Resource Set Descriptions
3. Error Messages (go)
4. Security Considerations
5. Privacy Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
7. Example of Registering Resource Sets
8. Acknowledgments
9. References
9.1. Normative References
9.2. Informative References
3. Error Messages (go)
4. Security Considerations
5. Privacy Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
7. Example of Registering Resource Sets
8. Acknowledgments
9. References
9.1 Normative References
9.2 Informative References
Following is a catalog of notable changes to the specifications in the pre-V1.0 timeframe.
Claim Profiles 00: