<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Of the set, I prefer option #2. That is to say, if we can solve it simply with OAuth, then let’s just do an OAuth version of it. If you’ve got a way to apply UMA to it, or it requires UMA, then sure, do so. But I think that we should simplify the alice-to-alice case to vanilla OAuth wherever we can.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Remember, this is for understanding specific use cases, and not for the work that HEART is doing overall. We’ll still produce profiles for OAuth and UMA (and the various bits and bobs that go with that). The question is when to apply which one to our use cases to understand what’s happening.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> — Justin</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 29, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Josh Mandel <<a href="mailto:Joshua.Mandel@childrens.harvard.edu" class="">Joshua.Mandel@childrens.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class="">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.</span><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class="">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:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><b class="">Example principle #1: "Do all the things"</b><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><b class="">Example principle #2: "KISS"</b><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><b class="">Example principle #3: "UMA everywhere"</b><b class=""><br class=""></b></div></div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class="">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.</div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class="">(I've tried to state these examples neutrally, but I must admit bias in favor of #2. Does that come through?)</div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class="">Looking forward to discussion,</div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" class=""> -Josh</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Openid-specs-heart mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Openid-specs-heart@lists.openid.net" class="">Openid-specs-heart@lists.openid.net</a><br class="">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>