Child pages
  • Proposal for UMA WG Charter
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Next »

 (1) WG NAME: (and any acronym or abbreviation of the name): The WG name, acronym and abbreviation must not include trademarks not owned by the Organization, or content that is infringing, harmful, or inappropriate.

User-Managed Access (UMA) Work Group

(2) PURPOSE: Please provide a clear statement of purpose and justification why the proposed WG is necessary.

The purpose of this Work Group is to develop a set of draft specifications that enable an individual to control the authorization of data sharing and service access made between online services on the individual's behalf, and to facilitate the development of interoperable implementations of these specifications by others.

The Work Group is necessary to expedite the process of gathering representatives of many different communities - working in areas such as identity management (including user-centric identity), vendor relationship management, and distributed authorization - to collaborate on a draft solution that meets their shared goals in this area.

Specifically, this Work Group is responsible for:

  • Developing a set of use cases and requirements that are specific enough to guide the specification design work
  • Developing a set of modular draft specifications meeting these use cases and requirements, influenced by contributions as appropriate
  • Developing and maintaining liaisons as appropriate with external bodies and other Kantara groups
  • Fostering the creation of multiple interoperable implementations, particularly in open source
  • Promoting progressive harmonization with existing specifications and protocols as appropriate
  • Developing educational materials in support of the overall Work Group effort
  • Overseeing the contribution of each resulting draft specification to a standards-setting organization

It is anticipated that the work done to date on ProtectServe/Relationship Manager concepts and flows will be leveraged to meet these goals.

(3) SCOPE: Explain the scope and definition of the planned work.

The specifications must meet the following basic functional requirements, in addition to specific use cases and requirements later identified by this Work Group:

  • Support the notion of a distinct online service for managing data-sharing and service-access relationships ("access relationships" for short) between an individual and his or her online services that request such access
  • Allow an individual to select policies and enforceable contract terms that govern access, as well as data storage, further usage, and further sharing on the part of requesting services
  • Allow an individual to conduct short-term and long-term management of access relationships, including modifying the conditions of access or terminating the relationship entirely
  • Allow an individual to audit and monitor various aspects of access relationships
  • Allow requesting services to interact directly with responding services in a fashion guided by policy while an individual is offline, reserving real-time user approval for extraordinary circumstances
  • Allow requesting services to interact with multiple responding services associated with the same individual

The specifications must meet the following basic design principles, in addition to any emergent design principles later identified by this Work Group:

  • Simple to understand, implement in an interoperable fashion, and deploy on an Internet-wide scale
  • OAuth-based to the extent possible (while contributing bug reports and RFEs around extensibility, security, and privacy to the IETF OAuth group)
  • Agnostic as to the identifier systems used in an individual's various services on the web, in order to allow for deployment in "today's Web"
  • Resource-oriented (for example, as suggested by the REST architectural style) and operating natively on the Web to the extent possible
  • Modular (e.g., incorporating other existing specifications by reference where appropriate, and breaking down this Work Group's draft specifications into multiple pieces where reuse by different communities is likely)
  • Generative (able to be combined and extended to support a variety of use cases and emerging application functionality)
  • Developed rapidly, in an "agile specification" process that can refactor for emerging needs

The following are examples of design solutions that are initially out of scope for the first version of the group's output, though the group should avoid precluding such solutions, if possible:

  • Other types of networked applications besides Web-based ones
  • Parties other than natural persons wishing to control and audit access

The following is an example of a set of design solutions that we anticipate can be incorporated by reference to external specifications:

  • Encoding of contract terms and policies

(4) DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: List Working Titles of draft Technical Specifications to be produced (if any), projected completion dates, and the Standards Setting Organization(s) to which they will be submitted upon approval by the Membership.

It is anticipated that the following technical specifications will be produced, with modular spec boundaries subject to change; both are anticipated to be submitted to the IETF for further work and completion:

  • User-Managed Access ("ProtectServe") Protocol
  • Authorization Manager Discovery Metadata

(5) OTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: Other Draft Recommendations and projected completion dates for submission for All Member Ballot.

It is anticipated that the following auxiliary materials will be produced, at a minimum:

  • User-Managed Access Use Cases and Requirements
  • User-Managed Access Overview
  • User-Managed Access Implementation Guide

At the group's option, some of this material may be considered non-normative (equivalent to white papers), and some may be split up into multiple pieces (for example, an Overview document and companion slide deck).

(6) LEADERSHIP: Proposed WG Chair and Editor(s) (if any) subject to confirmation by a vote of the WG Participants.

  • Chair: Eve Maler, Sun Microsystems
  • Technical specification editor: Paul Bryan, Sun Microsystems
  • Use case document editor: Hasan Akram, Fraunhofer SIT

(7) AUDIENCE: Anticipated audience or users of the work.

The anticipated audience for the documents produced by this Work Group includes developers, deployers, and designers of online services that act on behalf of individual users. The group also anticipates gathering input from individual users of online services in order to respond to their needs and preferences.

(8) DURATION: Objective criteria for determining when the work of the WG has been completed (or a statement that the WG is intended to be a standing WG to address work that is expected to be ongoing).

This Work Group will target producing use cases and requirements within 6 months of inception in order to guide its design effort, and will target 18-24 months overall to develop a V1.0 set of technical specifications and other auxiliary materials, facilitating the development of multiple independent draft implementations as appropriate during this time. This targeted duration and other aspects of this charter (except the IPR policy stated below) are subject to review, amendment, and extension as approved by the Kantara Leadership Council.

(9) IPR POLICY: The Organization approved Intellectual Property Rights Policy under which the WG will operate.

Kantara IPR Policy - Option Liberty

10) RELATED WORK AND LIAISONS: Related work being done in other WGs or other organizations and any proposed liaison with those other WGs or organizations.

This Work Group has a number of dependencies on, and shared goals with, the output of other efforts. The Kantara groups and external efforts with which this Work Group intends to liaise informally include (but are not limited to):

  • Kantara User Driven Volunteered Personal Information Work Groups
  • Kantara Consumer Identity Work Group
  • Kantara Privacy and Public Policy Work Group
  • Kantara ID-WSF Evolution Work Group
  • Project VRM
  • Information Card Foundation
  • CARML and Privacy Constraints standards efforts
  • OASIS XACML Technical Committee
  • OASIS XRI TC and related standards efforts
  • OpenID Foundation Contract Exchange Working Group
  • IETF OAuth Working Group
  • NHIN and any related Kantara healthcare groups

(11) CONTRIBUTIONS (optional): A list of contributions that the proposers anticipate will be made to the WG.

It is anticipated that the draft ProtectServe protocol flow diagrams will be contributed.

(12) PROPOSERS: Names, email addresses, and any constituent affiliations of at least the minimum set of proposers required to support forming the WG.

  • J. Trent Adams, ISOC
  • Hasan Akram, Fraunhofer Institute of Secured Information Technology
  • Joe Andrieu (individual participant affiliated with SwitchBook)
  • Gerald Beuchelt (individual participant affiliated with MITRE)
  • Paul Bryan, Sun Microsystems
  • Andy Dale (individual participant affiliated with OCLC)
  • Iain Henderson (individual affiliated with Mydex CIC)
  • Hubert Le Van Gong, Sun Microsystems
  • Mark Lizar (individual affiliated with Identity Trust CIC)
  • Eve Maler, Sun Microsystems
  • Andrew Nash, PayPal
  • Drummond Reed, Information Card Foundation
  • Christian Scholz,
  • Paul Trevithick (individual participant affiliated with Azigo)
  • Robin Wilton (individual participant affiliated with Future Identity)




July 15, 2009 

The Leadership Council ratifies this charter for operation. 

  • No labels