UMA telecon 2022-09-08

Date and Time

• Primary-week Thursdays 06:30am PT; Secondary-week Thursdays 10:00am PT

  • Screenshare and dial-in: https://zoom.us/j/99487814311?pwd=dTAvZi9uN0ZmeXJReWRrc1Zycm5KZz09

  • United States: +1 (224) 501-3316, Access Code: 485-071-053

  • See UMA calendar for additional details: http://kantara.atlassian.net/wiki/display/uma/Calendar

Agenda

• Approve minutes since UMA telecon 2022-06-30

• Core UMA content (no use-case)

• FAPI discussion

• AOB

Attendees

• NOTE: As of October 26, 2020, quorum is 5 of 9. (Michael, Domenico, Peter, Sal, Thomas, Andi, Alec, Eve, Steve)

• Voting:

  • Alec

  • Peter

• Non-voting participants:

• Regrets:

  • Steve

Quorum: No

Meeting Minutes

Approve previous meeting minutes

• Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2022-08-11, UMA telecon 2022-08-25

• Deferred - no quorum

Topics

Core UMA content (no use-case)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YU-AjYx6xmolHGowrlkC2fg_QRXjoP7BuAW7JuCaMM8/edit# (will need to request access)

FAPI discussion

https://fapi.openid.net/ 

Part 1: Baseline https://openid.net/specs/openid-financial-api-part-1-1_0.html

https://openid.net/specs/openid-financial-api-part-2-1_0.html

AOB

• could VCs be used to model polices, and the combination of user and system policies?

  • use case is joint custodianship of data, eg me and the hospital that took an medical image, or an issuer that is legally obligated to control where data is shared

    • hard for an organization to maintain compliance and give me complete control

  • ex, a RS issues a VC to me, with some attached policies. When presenting that VC, I should respect the system policy. IN the reverse I can push policy that intersects with system policies

  • back to policy manager concept that requires some API language to model the policies (where the policy manager work stalled somewhat)

    • similar to resource description and scope description, could have baseline ‘policy description’ to give some transferable language about policies

      • resource_id,

      • some previous notes around what’s required in a policy: UMA telecon 2020-10-08

    • VCs have some concept of predicates around presentation

    •  

  •  

Potential Future Work Items / Meeting Topics

• 100 FAPI Review (FAPI + UMA) 

  • scope: how the FAPI work could be applied to UMA ecosystems

  • review may inform what profiling work is required, eg if UMA must support PAR to work with FAPI

• 20 Confluence clean up, archive old items and promote the latest & greatest

  • 10 UMA glossary – Steve has started 

• 600 Review of the email-poc correlated authorization specification

  • https://github.com/umalabs/correlated-authorization

  • https://groups.google.com/g/kantara-initiative-uma-wg/c/BntTknCOAAE/m/EzL9i_VIAwAJ

  • https://groups.google.com/g/kantara-initiative-uma-wg/c/ablVJ9cAreg/m/a_ZpCVrcCQAJ

• 120 A financial use-case report (following the Julie healthcare template)

  • either open banking or pensions dashboard

  • openbanking is to FHIR(data model) as FAPI is to SMARTonFHIR(authZ protocol profile)

  • Who would lead this/ needs this for UMA in open banking contexts? Should come after FAPI review?

• 300 mDL + UMA

  • scope: how mDL could work in UMA ecosystems, how mDL could be a claim to UMA 

  • is there a role for UMA in token fabrication and referencing it as the RS?

• 500 UMA + GNAP https://oauth.xyz/specs/ 

  • would we have an UMA GNAP version (eg extension of GNAP or UMA? UMAonGNAP) 

  • will GNAP meet all the UMA outcomes?

• 170 UMA + Verifiable Credentials

  • how would VCs work in an UMA ecosystem? How could VCs be used as claims in UMA

  • There are openapi specs for VC formats

  • Could UMA protect a VC presentation or issuance endpoint?

  • There's a lot of openid4vc profiles 

• IDPro knowledge base articles

• UMA 2 playground/sandbox

  • eg https://developers.google.com/oauthplayground/, https://www.oauth.com/playground/

• 150 Minor profiling work,

  • resource scopes → scopes 

  • PAR as dynamic scopes eg fhir query params

  • policy manager & policy description

  • 110 pushed claims types: templates + profiles (beyond IDTokens): 171 VCs, 113 consent, policy, mDL

    • use-case, consent as claims (needs_info),

      • if the client has gathered RqP consent, can it be presented to the AS

      • the policy to access a resource says "you must have agreed to this TOS/consent"

      • compare to interactive claims gathering where the AS would present this consent/TOS to the RqP

      • intersection with ANCR/consent receipt/trust registry work in other Kantara groups

Upcoming Conferences

• IIW 35,  November 15 - 17