[WG-UMA] graph person-to-organization constellation
eve at xmlgrrl.com
Tue Mar 15 09:03:26 EDT 2011
Hi Rainer-- Great questions. Domenico is normative for answers here. My guess is that this diagram is about generic "business trust" since it maps to one of our motivating scenarios vs. hard protocol details. My hope would be that it could be overlaid on our trust model to gain both meaningful "legal trust" (requesting party/AM operator/liability/etc.) and meaningful "technical trust" (requester endpoiny/AM endpoint/interop/etc.) if someone were to deploy UMA for this scenario.
On 15 Mar 2011, at 3:59 AM, Rainer Hörbe wrote:
> Hi Domenico
> Sorry if my comment is late and inadequate as I missed the discussion on the last call. I have difficulties to interpret the diagram:
> - What is the difference between trust and trustworthiness? Subjective vs. objective? If objective, by what authority?
> - Are we talking about technical or legal trust? The terms imply a mix of both, which is problematic.
> - What are the driving factors to put the actors at certain positions in the matrix?
> - How should the numbers be used? For some automated policy negotiation? If yes, how should it be computed?
> - What are the assumptions in the model on the technical and policy levels?
> In my view a trust model should make the trust computation as explicit as possible without displaying excessive details.
> - Rainer
> Am 10.03.2011 um 18:32 schrieb Domenico Catalano:
>> An Authorizing user (AU) make a loan request to a Financial Broker (Legal person) which became Requester Party in the act to access Authorizing User's resource (i.e. credit score).
>> The Financial Broker uses a Bank online loan service (third-party Requester) to process the AU request.
>> WG-UMA mailing list
>> WG-UMA at kantarainitiative.org
> WG-UMA mailing list
> WG-UMA at kantarainitiative.org
Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
+1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
More information about the WG-UMA