[Openid-specs-heart] Flip the question of “Vanilla" OAuth vs. UMA

Wed Jul 8 15:08:45 UTC 2015

I need Eva to verify that what I am saying is correct, I am still coming up to speed on UMA … HL7 has/is developing FHIR consent(contract) standards and I believe the oAuth and UMA profiles are in scope to support these and possibly others.

To easily support interoperability, is it possible (or in scope) to develop profile standards or profile taxonomy that would be flexible and adaptable so that the RS would be able to process FHIR consents even if they are modified by a specific implementation without  special coding. This could be too idealistic, out of scope or just not supportable with oAuth and/or UMA profiles.

For example: A client could connect to any FHIR resource and process any Heart Profile that is provided, even if the client is another RS running in a “Client” role to another RS .

Bill

From: Eve Maler [mailto:eve.maler at forgerock.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:00 PM
To: Aaron Seib
Cc: Kinsley, William; openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-heart] Flip the question of “Vanilla" OAuth vs. UMA

Commenting on one of Aaron's bulleted items:

Profiling "a standard way to label assets managed by the RS" is one of the tasks I was contemplating to be potentially in scope for our semantic UMA profile. This is because it is possible for resource set descriptions (these are things that an UMA RS registers at an AS, to put resources under protection) to include resource types. As I understand it, the FHIR API conveys data structures that reflect quite a lot of HL7 standardization work already done, which amounts to "resource typing".

While a lot of companies with proprietary APIs might not want to standardize their resource assets, there's a lot of power in standardized resource labeling in open ecosystems like the one we're working on. For starters, there's a security consideration<https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/rec-oauth-resource-reg-v1_0.html#rfc.section.4> that is mitigated by the use of "well-known and standardized" description elements. (See this UMA issue<https://github.com/xmlgrrl/UMA-Specifications/issues/151> for some background.) For another example, standard types could drive automated policy workflows in interesting ways.

Eve Maler
ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology
Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
Join our ForgeRock.org OpenUMA<http://forgerock.org/openuma/> community!

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Aaron Seib <aaron.seib at nate-trust.org<mailto:aaron.seib at nate-trust.org>> wrote:
Thanks for starting this new thread.

I am not expert in this space (yet) but let me see if I can repeat back what I think you are proposing.

Are you suggesting that for Resource Server (RS) be able to accept a standard profile authorization assertion (based on the UMA profile) from a standard (UMA-based) Authorization Server (AS)?

I maybe out of date but I seem to remember reading that the UMA profile states that the Authorization Policy service capabilities (as required to implement an AS) are out of scope for the UMA profile - as are the specific policies for how you label assets (network, applications, data) managed by the RS with access tokens that are registered with and managed by the AS.

To echo back your language is your suggestion that it ^would^ be simpler to have consistent patterns (libraries) implemented that would address what the UMA profile has intentionally said is out of scope?  I.e.,

•        addressing the need for a standard way to label assets managed by the RS; and (?)

•        a standard way to represent the inputs to an Authorization Policy Service

In my mind this would allow us to not only solve the simple cases but also enable us to develop libraries that represent the applicable policy of a given Federal Reg or libraries of applicable state law that could be re-used by everyone.  It might also enable the different associations to provide recommended policies to be adopted by their members and plugged into the solution following a period of local policy tweaking by a given institution or Agency.

Am I getting this right?

Aaron Seib, CEO
@CaptBlueButton
 (o) 301-540-2311<tel:301-540-2311>
(m) 301-326-6843<tel:301-326-6843>
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D0B96A.2D63C6D0]<http://nate-trust.org>

From: Openid-specs-heart [mailto:openid-specs-heart-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-heart-bounces at lists.openid.net>] On Behalf Of Kinsley, William
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 8:45 PM
To: openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net>
Subject: [Openid-specs-heart] Flip the question of “Vanilla" OAuth vs. UMA

I am starting a new thread …  I think we need to flip the question of “Vanilla" OAuth vs. UMA”. I feel confident that we are going to discover use cases that cannot be supported by “Vanilla” OAuth or would be greatly simplified by using UMA.

Maybe the real question to ask is:  Are there any augments (use case, technology restriction, cost, etc.) that justifies NOT using (requiring) UMA?

From a interoperability, quality, security and development perspective, would it be simpler to have consistent patterns (libraries) implemented that are more likely to be “drop-in compatible” without source changes. While the standard itself would be considered rigid, it would be flexible by the use and implementation of the UMA profiles.

The caveat here is the resource server (RS) would need to be able to accept/process a UMA profile without developing custom code to interpret it.  Would this require resource servers to adhere to a standard set of UMA profiles or a defined UMA profile taxonomy that could describe the healthcare consent models (if one exists)?

Bill

William Kinsley
Enterprise Architect, Ambulatory
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE
Solutions for: Ambulatory, Inpatient and Community Connectivity
795 Horsham Road, Horsham, PA 19044
(215) 657-7010 x21128<tel:%28215%29%20657-7010%20x21128> [o]
BKinsley at nextgen.com<mailto:BKinsley at nextgen.com>

<http://www.oneugm.com>

 <http://www.oneugm.com>
Be ready for MU and ICD-10 in 2015. Start your EHR version 5.8 and KBM version 8.3 upgrade today. Get the resources you need at www.nextgen.com/upgradecentral<http://www.oneugm.com>

 <http://www.oneugm.com>
This message, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. Thank you for your cooperation.<http://www.oneugm.com>

 <http://www.oneugm.com>
 <http://www.oneugm.com>

_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-heart mailing list
Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart<http://www.oneugm.com>
 <http://www.oneugm.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150708/24213f13/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3142 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150708/24213f13/attachment-0001.jpg>