The User-Managed Access (UMA) Work Group's UMA V2.0 Draft Recommendations have undergone two Public Comment and IPR Review periods, the first 25 May 25 - 12 July 2017 and the second 28 Sep - 12 Nov 2017. This document records the group's disposition of comments received for the entire period 25 May to 12 Nov.
- Comment Reference: The GitHub repository issue number of the comment and possibly a reference to a subpart of that issue. All issues relevant to the Public Comment and IPR Review period use both the label "V2.0" and the label "public comment period". The content of all comments has been stored in GitHub.
- Issue Description: Characterization of the issue in a short phrase. May be different from the issue name in GitHub.
- Specification Reference(s): A reference such as "Grant Sec n.n" or "FedAuthz Sec n.n", indicating actual sections that were edited. "Grant" refers to User-Managed Access (UMA) 2.0 Grant for OAuth 2.0 Authorization revision 05 and "FedAuthz" refers to Federated Authorization for User-Managed Access (UMA) 2.0 revision 05, the Draft Recommendations under review in the case of the first Public Comment period for most of the comments, or in the case of the final n issues, User-Managed Access (UMA) 2.0 Grant for OAuth 2.0 Authorization revision 08. Issues relevant to each specification were labeled "grant" and "fedauthz", respectively. Some new sections were added and some sections were rearranged in the course of editing, but only rev 05/rev 08 section numbers are used so that commenter references will be normative.
- Editorial/Technical: Whether the comment involves an editorial change (a change to interpretive wording, generally minor) or a technical one (a change to normative language that requires substantive specification change). A label of "editorial" was applied to issues that appeared, at first blush, to be editorial. Note that applying these categories itself requires interpretation, and there is some gray area between them. Implementers seeking to understand changes and to develop conforming UMA implementations are encouraged to study all changes carefully.
- Disposition: The Work Group's conclusion about the action to take in response to the comment. "Commit" links go to specific GitHub commits showing exact specification text changes.
- Report Out: Whether the commenter submitted comments through the official Public Comment period channel, and requires reporting back of the disposition. Kantara staff should take action on this column.
- Notes: Context that may be helpful for the Leadership Council.
|Comment Reference||Issue Description||Specification Reference(s)||Editorial/ Technical||Disposition||Report Out||Notes|
|#326||Improve and reorder definition of permission ticket||Grant Sec 1.3||Editorial||Commit||Editorial improvement to a spec definition suggested, agreed by WG, and implemented.|
|#327||Rationalize usage of "object" vs "parameter" labeling||Grant Sec 3.3.6||Editorial||Commit||Simple editorial wording fix suggested, agreed by WG, and implemented.|
|#328||Interpreting how client-contributed scopes are mapped to resources during authorization assessment||Grant Sec 3.3.4||Editorial||Commit||Interpretation issue raised; editorial enhancement removing ambiguity adopted by the WG.|
|Typo: Fix cross-reference internal section target||Grant 7.4.1||Editorial||Commit||Incorrect cross-reference noted; fix applied without WG intervention required.|
|#330||Typo: Fix cross-reference external specification target||FedAuthz Sec 9.2||Editorial||No change||Simple editorial correction suggested; fix was overcome by events (see #334 below).|
|#331||Typo: Fix reference to item being registered||FedAuthz Sec 9.3||Editorial||Commit||Simple editorial correction suggested; fix applied without WG intervention required.|
|#332||Test whether definitions of PCT are sufficient||Grant (various)||Editorial||No change||Interpretation question raised; WG decided to keep the existing wording.|
|#333||Enhance ||Grant Sec 3.3.6||Editorial||Commit||Simple editorial enhancement requested; fix applied without WG intervention required.|
|#334||Treating token introspection response claims as generic JWT claims in local token validation environments||FedAuthz Sec 1, FedAuthz Sec 9.2||Editorial||Commit||Issue raised due to lack of implementation experience; editorial resolution adopted by WG involving removal of IANA registration request section for JWT claims (meaning that claims are not yet made available for use in a formal sense inside self-contained RPTs that the RS would validate locally vs. introspect at the AS).|
|Distinguish UMA versions of terms from OAuth ones||Grant (various), FedAuthz (various)||Editorial||No change||Yes||Editorial improvement requested; editor recommended no change.|
|#335b||Spell out key UMA terms more fully||Grant (various), FedAuthz (various)||Editorial||Commit||Yes||Editorial improvements requested; small edits applied without WG intervention required.|
|#335c||Separate out sequence diagrams according to resource owner-side vs requesting party-side interactions||Grant Sec 1.3||Editorial||Commit||Yes||Editorial improvement to diagram(s) requested; editor recommended and implemented introductory text edits instead.|
|#335d||Simplify sequence diagrams, e.g. to separate claims pushing from interactive claims gathering||Grant Sec 1.3||Editorial||Commit||Yes||Editorial improvement to diagram(s) requested; added only clarification to existing single diagram after WG consultation.|
|#336||Clarify that RPT takes a ||FedAuthz Sec 5.1||Editorial||Commit||Editorial clarification requested, agreed by WG, and implemented.|
|#337a||Rationalize/complete definitions of token introspection response claims||FedAuthz Sec 5.1.1||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG determined an editorial improvement.|
|#337b||Clarify the situation with respect to client types in the UMA grant||Grant Sec 3.3.3||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG determined an editorial improvement.|
|#337c,d||Create and document a concrete method to require and enable clients to pre-register claims redirection URIs||Grant Sec 2, Grant Sec 3.3.2, Grant new Sec 7.3||Technical||Commit||Request for new mechanism for dynamic client registration mechanism and clarity; WG agreed. The new metadata field, |
|#337e||Typo: Example that should show a response message is a request message||Grant Sec 3.3.3||Editorial||Commit||Simple editorial correction requested; fix applied without WG intervention required.|
|#337f||Clarify how permission requests with multiple permissions in them contribute to set math||Grant Sec 3.3.4||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG determined an editorial improvement.|
|#337g||Ensure authorization servers apply the maximum security checks on permission tickets||Grant (various)||Editorial||Commit||Additional security considerations requested; WG agreed to add a form of security considerations that gives more discretion to the authorization server than was requested.|
|#338||Typo: Example shows the wrong endpoint path component||FedAuthz Sec 3.2.1||Editorial||Commit||Simple typo correction requested; fixed without WG intervention required.|
|#339||Clarify whether an array can be used for a request for a single permission||FedAuthz Sec 4.1||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG confirmed correct interpretation and clarification text.|
|#340||A unique error should be available for a definitive policy-failed error||Grant Sec 3.3.6, Sec 7.4.1||Technical||Commit, commit, commit, commit||Change requested; WG reintroduced and renamed an UMA1 error code that was removed in Apr 2017: in UMA1 (see Core V1.0.1 Sec 3.5.4) was |
|#341||The ||Grant Sec 3.3.6, Sec 5.6||Technical||Commit||Change requested to make the permission ticket optional on the AS response; WG made a different change, still requiring the ticket but adding an optional new |
|#342||Security considerations need to be made clearer and more to the point, especially Grant Sec 5.2||Grant Sec 5||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG determined an editorial improvement.|
|#343||Refer to RFC 6749 token endpoint error codes specifically||Grant Sec 3.3.6||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG agreed an explicit reference to 6749 would be helpful.|
|#344||Explain what to do if the client presents an invalid or expired claim token||Grant Sec 3.3.6||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG confirmed the correct interpretation and clarification text: these conditions require one of the existing errors.|
|#345||Explain what to do if the client presents a claim token in a format the authorization server can't handle||Grant Sec 3.3.6||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG confirmed the correct interpretation and clarification text: this condition requires one of the existing errors.|
|#346||ClientedRegistered scopes should not be a first-class set math citizen||Grant Sec 3.3.4||Editorial||No change||Clarification requested; commenter decided to close own issue without action.|
|#347||The authorization server should be given discretion to determine if it's an error when the client requests a scope it did not pre-register for||Grant Sec 3.3.6||Editorial||Commit||Change requested; WG broadened the authorization server's behavior, giving it discretion to report the requested error.|
|#348||On the refresh flow, the authorization server should be given discretion to perform authorization assessment||Grant Sec 3.3.1, Sec 3.6, new Sec 6.1, FedAuthz Sec 1.4.1, Sec 8||Editorial||Commit||Change requested; WG did not make the change but clarified that no discretion is possible. Also confirmed error and non-error cases in the RPT upgrade flow, which is like UMA-specific refreshing.|
|#349||Explain what to do if the client presents an invalid or expired RPT for upgrading||(see above)||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG confirmed the correct interpretation and clarification text. (See #348 above for details.)|
|#350||Explain what error code to return when CandidateGrantedScopes < RequestedScopes||Grant Sec 3.3.4||Editorial||Commit, commit||Yes||Clarification requested; WG confirmed the correct interpretation and clarification text, resolving several inconsistencies in the authorization assessment normative text and incompleteness in the worked example.|
|#351||Variety of editorial issues in FedAuthz||FedAuthz (various)||Editorial||Commit||Variety of editorial comments, typo corrections, and the like made; implemented without WG intervention required. Note that the original form of the text in Sec 3.2, since corrected, could have led implementers astray, implying that a field was required when it was clear in a different context (Sec 3.2.4) that the field would not appear.|
|#352||The PAT is not needed for the permission and token introspection endpoints, so use client credentials instead||FedAuthz Sec 1.4.1, Sec 1.5||Editorial||Commit||Change requested; WG made some clarifications instead.|
|#354-1||Explain what error code to return if the resource registration endpoint gets a request message with a bad/broken request body||FedAuthz Sec 3.2||Technical||Commit||Change requested; editor, in collaboration with some WG participants, specified the HTTP 400 (Bad Request) status code and an optional new protection-API-level error code |
|#354-2||The PAT should definitively be a bearer token||FedAuthz Sec 1.3||Technical||Commit||Change requested; editor, in collaboration with some WG participants, reintroduced an UMA1 requirement to support bearer PATs (see UMA V1.0.1 Core Sec 1.4, 'The authorization server is REQUIRED to support "|
|#355||Idea for the resource server to return an RPT directly rather than a permission ticket that enables a full UMA flow||Grant Sec 3.2||Technical||No change||This issue was submitted by a group participant intending for it to be an idea for a future extension, to be discussed at a later date, and the group accepted it on this basis.|
|#356||Typo: Add missing code example portion(s)||Grant Sec 3.3.6||Editorial||Commit||Simple editorial correction requested; fix applied without WG intervention required.|
|#357||Clarify set math language by removing parenthetical "clarification"||Grant Sec 3.3.4||Editorial||Commit||Clarification requested; WG confirmed the correct interpretation and action.|
|#358a||Concern re the authorization server being a separate service, vs. the resource server, learning requesting party PII||Grant Sec 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.4, and 6.2||-||No change||Yes||Comment requested no specific change; WG interpreted it as questioning an underlying premise of UMA and declined to take action.|
|#358b||Concern re claims being pushed by a client seeking access to a protected resource without authorization by the requesting party||Grant Sec 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 5.7, 6.2||Editorial||Commit, commit||Yes||Issue arose as a result of discussing alternative interpretations of #358. WG decided to add security and privacy considerations to address the concern.|
Summary of Technical Changes
The following technical changes were made after the first Public Comment period. The decisions to make technical changes turned out to fall into one of two categories: reintroduce an UMA1 feature or introduce a feature that closely tracks the design of a feature already existing in OAuth or among its ecosystem of specifications. The first is important for cross-version feature parity and the second is important for the group's roadmap design priority of "simplify the protocol and make it work more like OAuth".
|#340||Reintroduced UMA1 ||UMA|
|#354-1||Added optional ||OAuth|
|354-2||Reintroduced UMA1 requirement for PAT as bearer token to be supported||UMA|
It was determined that making these technical changes necessitated returning to a second Public Comment period.