Child pages
  • UMA telecon 2020-04-02

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


After the three flow options, saying (say) that they're looking for a patient record, now the RS still has to be told which patient's resource to give out. So in introspection, the AS provides subject information explicitly in its response, along with the granted resource IDs and scopes. Or George notes that an encrypted access token could contain that information. The RPT is still used. (Last week Alec noted that it was in this step, providing the subject, that there is some potential overlap with the other extension they have defined. See his email to the list and the description of "step 8" for more detail.)

Thank you to Alec and IDENTOS for contributing this for the WG's consideration! The "narrow ecosystem" this use case serves does seem pretty common (shared AS between the RO and RqP, oftentimes the RO == the RqP, the design patterns of the resource need interop due to open APIs or other reasons).


  • George: Could you use Dynamic Client Registration of the mobile app to help with this? That would make the client_id specific to each mobile app instance
  • Sal: trusted platform environment might also come into play [TPM]play

We seem to have interest in continuing considering work on this as a WG. More to come.