<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi Eve,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is clear that there is a communications problem between those that are comfortable in the language of speaking about OAuth/UMA, and those that are comfortable in the language of speaking about Healthcare Access Control needs. I can read every word you have said, but I have no idea what you said.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think one of our problems is that we keep skipping from use-cases where the “user” is the “patient” trying to access their own data; and use-cases where the “user” is a clinician trying to help the “patient”. There are many MORE use-cases including parents, children, guardians. There are many MORE use-cases around researchers, public-health, billing, payers. And there are a huge variety of all of these. There are authorization mechanisms that stem from direct authorization by the patient, to indirect because of context, and the ultimate for healthcare ‘because their life is in jeopardy and I am a licensed clinician that can save their life’. Followed by many medical-ethical traps like having a personal discussion about a particularly tragic test result before the lab fact is directly exposed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>We need to solve all of these, however to solve any one would be helpful.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>John<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Eve Maler [mailto:eve.maler@forgerock.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 11, 2015 11:43 AM<br><b>To:</b> Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare)<br><b>Cc:</b> openid-specs-heart@lists.openid.net<br><b>Subject:</b> "Scope" of sharing and purpose of use<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi John-- (I changed the subject line and deleted older parts of the thread.)<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>When you say "scope" here, I suspect you mean "scope" of the sharing use case, rather than something like an OAuth or UMA scope, so I'm just checking. So a "single-patient scope" means that the only human we're paying attention to in the use case is the patient, and "any application with users that are authorized to multiple patients" seems to mean a use case that involves party-to-party sharing, with multiple humans involved. However, you follow the latter with "would need to get multiple scopes", so I'm not sure. Note that "getting multiple scopes" as a technical construct doesn't have anything to do with sharing with an autonomous third party.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>FWIW, here is how I think, at a high level, about <b>configuring the delegation of rights to access resources</b>. It's all about <b>parts of speech</b>.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>OAuth lets a user (patient) do this configuration at run time while using a client app, by opting in to the authorization server's issuance of an access token to that app. By contrast, UMA lets a user (patient) do this configuration anytime, generally by instructing the authorization server to check whether some combination of the client app and the requesting party using the app meet various requirements (policy). So OAuth is kind of an attenuated version of UMA wrt the constraints on delegation of access rights.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>system subject verb object adjective</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>OAuth client ID OAuth scopes (implicitly some endpoints) n/a</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> (and always Alice)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>UMA claims-based eg Bob, UMA scopes over... UMA resource sets claims-based e.g. TPO,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> client ID/type, etc. time limitations, etc.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It's possible to conflate purpose-of-use into the UMA scopes system, but it's as awkward as conflating (ordinarily implicit) resource sets into the OAuth scopes system (resource1.read, resource1.write, etc.), which is why OAuth has invented the audience parameter to try and solve the problem of a single authorization server protecting several APIs. This is why I suggest using a claims-based system above.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p><b>Eve Maler<br></b>ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology<br>Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl<br>Join our <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__forgerock.org_openuma_&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=B4hg7NQHul-cxfpT_e9Lh49ujUftqzJ6q17C2t3eI64&m=PHeMeoVZ7WGQVkHh4j1pjEo3WjxiOtW0zWBvptezqXM&s=BWKe_zUfK7VyJCEdTSN-5cG7TelP0b1X-x3kyeaODmk&e=" target="_blank">ForgeRock.org OpenUMA</a> community!<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare) <<a href="mailto:John.Moehrke@med.ge.com" target="_blank">John.Moehrke@med.ge.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The discussion on the call today was too hard to break into. Even for a big mouth like me.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I am okay with limiting our next couple of profiles to single patient scopes. As much of the email discussion has pointed out patient controlled access is our primary scope, and logically (if not technically) this is easy to understand with scopes that are single patient. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Yes this means that any application with users that are authorized to multiple patients would need to get multiple scopes; so be it. For now… For Enterprise use, this is troubling; but for most uses that happen from outside of an enterprise or between enterprises this limitation is not unreasonable. The most common APIs in healthcare for this are already patient centric. So it is not a big problem.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The user experience does not need to be impacted by this profiled limitation</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The future does not need to be impacted by this profiled limitation.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Which means that one viewpoint for scope can be the identity of the patient that one is asking for access to. This is not the only scope we will ever support; but is one method that would satisfy some use-cases today.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Another view on scope, that I have been involved with in other groups, is to use a high-level vocabulary that is used often in the Access Control policy – PurposeOfUse. This vocabulary is items like: Treatment, Payment, Research, Emergency, etc…</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>To go deeper than these two vectors through scopes in a general purpose healthcare access control infrastructure is futile.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Next level deeper in scopes would come from workflow centric implementation guides. That is a specification that is defining a workflow, could define a scope(s) for that workflow.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>John</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>_______________________________________________<br>Openid-specs-heart mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Openid-specs-heart@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-heart@lists.openid.net</a><br><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openid.net_mailman_listinfo_openid-2Dspecs-2Dheart&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=B4hg7NQHul-cxfpT_e9Lh49ujUftqzJ6q17C2t3eI64&m=PHeMeoVZ7WGQVkHh4j1pjEo3WjxiOtW0zWBvptezqXM&s=b-IeKH8ALrT6jaP_pgYHavTt27UVQVYtlz9y5w5CRak&e=" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>