[Openid-specs-heart] Principles for selecting "Vanilla" OAuth vs. UMA

Adrian Gropper agropper at healthurl.com
Tue Jun 30 02:01:34 UTC 2015


Also, as we debate what KISS actually means in terms of HEART, please allow
me to propose a second Principle.

*Principle T - (T is for Transparency) - Any HEART transaction between
Client and Resource Server that includes individual patient-level
information MUST post a contemporaneous accounting for disclosures message
to any endpoint specified by the patient.*

Please note that Accounting for Disclosures is required by HIPAA but has
been widely ignored as "too hard" with legacy protocols. I hope that HEART
use-cases related to HIPAA take this requirement to heart. There are
various interpretations of Accounting for Disclosures. Some would require
the patient to visit each resource server patient portal the way we check
bank statements. Another interpretation would send the patient a simple
notice the way many banks email you when a pre-authorized monthly payment
is made. Most of us that are now signing into three or more banks a month
to look at the register would agree that being able to set a notice address
and a policy for when to be notified is a preferable and more scalable
approach.

I suggest that we have to make "contemporaneous accounting for disclosures
to any patient specified endpoint" a HEART principle and take that into
account when we consider the complexity of profiling OAuth or profiling UMA
for every use-case.

Adrian

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper at healthurl.com>
wrote:

> +1 Aaron.
>
> Here's a principle I would suggest:
>
> *Principle A - If the Resource Owner takes responsibility for a HEART
> transaction between Client and Resource Server, then the transaction MUST
> go through and the RS gets a safe harbor.*
>
> Adrian
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Aaron Seib <aaron.seib at nate-trust.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Josh – I almost didn’t pick up on your bias but the parenthetical gave it
>> away.
>>
>>
>>
>> I almost always agree that starting with the simplest set of tools first
>> and incrementally expanding is the best approach but the fact of the matter
>> is that we did this with Direct and said that Direct is just Transport and
>> the policy enforcement and representation of Patient Privacy Preferences
>> would emerge as needed.  I think Direct has been around as a concept for
>> three or four years now and despite widely broadcast claims to the contrary
>> the only use cases that it is frequently used for are the simplest – like
>> those you can solve with OAuth alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am sure that there is more to consider but as a counter point to your
>> somewhat hidden bias I would offer another veiled bias to not repeat the
>> mistakes of the past and actually accept that someone has to solve the hard
>> problems cause there are not that many easy ones in healthcare.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to suggest that we rise to the challenge and pursue a path
>> that will have a broader impact with this effort.  If we are just talking
>> about transport between two trusted end points where the users already
>> trust one another I think there is a methodology on hand to handle that.
>> What we need is something that can handle a little more complexity.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will take my beatings from the community for speaking out on this issue
>> if everyone thinks I am nuts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aaron Seib, CEO
>>
>> (o) 301-540-2311
>>
>> (m) 301-326-6843
>>
>> <http://nate-trust.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Openid-specs-heart [mailto:
>> openid-specs-heart-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Josh Mandel
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 29, 2015 5:13 PM
>> *To:* openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
>> *Subject:* [Openid-specs-heart] Principles for selecting "Vanilla" OAuth
>> vs. UMA
>>
>>
>>
>> On today's call we discussed a use case where a patient can help connect
>> her patient portal (a.k.a. her EHR account) account to an external PHR.
>> This is a great, common use case that we know we could handle with either
>> "vanilla" OAuth, or UMA, or both. Of course, software systems need to know,
>> up front, whether they'll be talking vanilla OAuth or UMA -- because the
>> wire protocols are different.
>>
>>
>>
>> The question: When HEART encounters a use case like this, by which
>> principle(s) we should select vanilla OAuth vs. UMA? Some examples of
>> principles (to stimulate discussion) might be:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Example principle #1: "Do all the things"*
>>
>> We should produce two profiles each time this kind of situation comes up:
>> one describing how to do it with vanilla OAuth, and one describing how to
>> do it with UMA. This provides maximum flexibility for implementers with
>> different needs/contexts.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Example principle #2: "KISS"*
>>
>> Any time vanilla OAuth can handle a use case, we should use vanilla
>> OAuth. Save UMA for when it's required. This provides a simpler environment
>> with fewer moving parts and stronger out-of-the-box software library
>> support.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Example principle #3: "UMA everywhere"*
>>
>> Use UMA across the board, and avoid vanilla OAuth. Since UMA handles a
>> more general set of use cases, and there's value in consolidation, UMA
>> should be the preferred option in all cases. This way, implementers only
>> ever need to do one (very general) thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> (I've tried to state these examples neutrally, but I must admit bias in
>> favor of #2. Does that come through?)
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to discussion,
>>
>>
>>
>>   -Josh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
>> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Gropper MD
> Ensure Health Information Privacy. Support Patient Privacy Rights.
> *http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/*
> <http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/>
>
>


-- 
Adrian Gropper MD
Ensure Health Information Privacy. Support Patient Privacy Rights.
*http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/*
<http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150629/35466148/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3142 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150629/35466148/attachment.jpg>


More information about the Openid-specs-heart mailing list