Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Filled in some links to specific scenarios in examples of dimensions.





Nature of protected resource

A description of the sorts of protected resources at hosts in this scenario, and the scope values that might be applicable, ideally with real-life supporting evidence. Protected resources appear to fall on a continuum from API endpoint (such as status updates) to content-oriented (such as photos), and further, typical actions on them may usefully be classified in terms of how RESTful they are.

In the location services scenario @@link, protection of a location service (a set of one or more API endpoints) might involve scope values such as "write location data", "read precise location data", and "read location data at a city level".

Sharing models

A description of what sorts of access or sharing the scenario facilitates. Person-to-self sharing occurs when an authorizing user shares access with a service that is acting directly on the same user's behalf (a la "three-legged" OAuth). Person-to-service sharing occurs when an authorizing user shares access with a legal person operating a service that is acting on its own behalf (a la "two-legged" OAuth, where the client is autonomous). Person-to-person sharing (also known as "Alice-to-Bob sharing") occurs when an authorizing user shares access with a different natural person. (@@Fourth category of "person-to-rep sharing" where the autonomous company's service is operated by a human company rep?)

The location services scenario @@link is an example of person-to-self sharing. The calendar scenario @@link is written to explore person-to-self and person-to-service (@@and person-to-rep?) sharing options, but could also apply to person-to-person sharing.

Nature of policies and claims

A description of the types of policies, and any resulting claims requested, that might be suitable for this scenario and its use cases. @@more re claims


The terms negotiation scenarios discuss likely claims needed in the course of assessing a requesting party's right to get access.


An accounting of whether the scenario or any of its use cases necessarily involve multiple instances of any of the UMA entities.

The financial loan scenario @@link by its nature involves a requester having to access multiple protected resources, likely from different hosts. The scenario related to moving resources @@link by its nature involves two different AMs: the user's previously chosen AM and their newly chosen one. This information is often usefully conveyed with an architectural diagram along with descriptive text.


A description of likely cases where real-world applications might want or need to support multiple UMA endpoints.

The health data scenario @@link tends to involve actors that serve as both hosts and requesters. The trusted claims scenario @@link proposes that an application offering AM services might also need to be a requester in order to access the UMA-protected claims of some other ("primary") requester.

Host-AM relationship

An accounting of how hosts and AM come to meet and trust each other in this scenario or its use cases. Dynamic discovery might be required or forbidden. AMs and hosts respectively might need to be well-known, or at least dynamically qualified before the connection is made.

The health data scenario @@link might have a short list of approved AMs to which many hosts around the world may need to dynamically connect as soon as a new patient needs medical care.

Protected resource discovery

A description of the anticipated method(s) by which a requester learns about a resource of interest to them. The methods may have a dynamic element to them or may require reconfiguration. The methods may or may not involve direct human assistance.

The calendar scenario @@link could mention that most calendar feeds are shared today through URL copying and pasting.