[WG-P3] [WG-IDAssurance] What to call a Relying Party in terms of aTrust Framework

Rainer Hörbe rainer at hoerbe.at
Thu Mar 10 03:55:48 EST 2011


Hmm. It is not clear to me what "roles drive terms" would be. Could you provide examples?

I would like to challenge the assumption that we can map all identity-related terminologies into a single concept domain. As my example of mapping controller to either RP, IdP, RA or subject shows, there is no 1:1 relationship between data protection (DP) roles and IDM actors. It puzzles me that fundamentally similar goals (protecting data that is related to identities) led to quite different role models in DP and IDM. 

- Rainer


Am 09.03.2011 um 23:50 schrieb Richard G. WILSHER (Zygma):

> I would say emphatically that the roles must drive the terms, otherwise the
> terms are too nebulous and one cannot be specific about the consequences or
> obligations of the entity when in that role.
> 
> RGW
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wg-idassurance-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
> [mailto:wg-idassurance-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Lizar
> Sent: 09 March 2011 18:46
> To: Rainer Hörbe
> Cc: IA WG
> Subject: Re: [WG-IDAssurance] What to call a Relying Party in terms of a Trust Framework
> 
> Thanks Rainer,
> 
> I think I now have a better sense of the complexity the IAWG is  
> working with. Would the roles then drive the terms ?
> 
> 
> On 9 Mar 2011, at 17:43, Rainer Hörbe wrote:
> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> The roles in the sense of DPD depend on the use case and legal  
>> positions of the parties. Also, it is important to have the role  
>> "recipient", the person who is granted access to the subject's data.
>> 
>> In the typical SP-centric use case the RP is the controller for the  
>> data provided by its service. The IdP is controller or processor for  
>> the PII related to the identity management, depending on the role of  
>> the registration authority. The subject (= user) is the recipient.  
>> The data subject does not have a role in the basic use case.
>> 
>> In a UMA-use case this might be different. The user is both data  
>> subject and controller, the RP is processor, IdP either controller  
>> or processor, as above.
>> 
>> - Rainer
>> 
>> 
>> Am 09.03.2011 um 18:04 schrieb Mark Lizar:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hello All,
>>> 
>>> In the data protection world a relying party would be called a
>>> 'Processor' an Identity Provider would be called a 'Controller' and a
>>> service user would be called the 'Data Subject or Principle'.
>>> 
>>> I think these terms map quite well.  As well.  I think there should  
>>> be
>>> a level of Processing Assurance = eg RP assurance that certifies the
>>> highest standard of data protection regulation in the jurisdictions  
>>> it
>>> will federate.  From this point a federation contract and policy
>>> mapping should then be entertained for higher level assessment  
>>> criteria.
>>> 
>>> For all levels a privacy framework should entail auditing and the
>>> passing of privacy preferences/profile to the relying party
>>> (processor) from the Identity Provider (controller).
>>> 
>>> My 2 cents.
>>> 
>>> Mark



More information about the WG-P3 mailing list