Re: [Txauth] Reviewing draft-hardt-xauth-protocol-11 - Dictionary

Francis Pouatcha <fpo@adorsys.de> Tue, 21 July 2020 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <fpo@adorsys.de>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D710E3A0D6F for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=adorsys.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WEeP1LvGBnjt for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B20D43A0D45 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id a6so2717368wmm.0 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adorsys.de; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AuyygC1Q/tQrXBT1Fmm9En+vtgSBQe9AFqmh1F3JgY4=; b=IxSxP4mAmXoeP/rzcSyF+Iyll6PLkcAi1Hxim05mQwmjO4Ln4kRk8VOgGEyD5chNDM BeZ6IRUfmD+yhrpaHBCo0vKG9VqOag+LVQL0pXrcnMRkNRDhomfRGekVUZs8VwtupRwl FGodJJlR6SRzpWt0BALwCtDCTLwUHAu+rJnyg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AuyygC1Q/tQrXBT1Fmm9En+vtgSBQe9AFqmh1F3JgY4=; b=KeboOukmosWL3SoZyxZ4aFo8pJLwH0uAX/qkfKQNGjAbTeYK8lILI9QWPMgdOyZW/T L24IvQyJGM50mIu9WlPHIhUqHRwCjOt5tliuZLTCuj+CGdxXpWSUm0Ghp6DqcqvI5JA4 EaxOpaJ1hDKdQzuEHeO4oBKo6fIQozgdqOUUFYV0gwgWzvkL2TjVBHHW8xJyCl6rg7Nk EU+/frSKMyeUpl5r5P1O1BjXUENb9bcWnT63gCLNzLTVB1+zzuoQxPMRHRP3ZPAbUk2e kkI8RcavuA5Kh3oa/qA1Vz5mRawt68JiJkxUl+5wZkH84A6/54DovR7hPzhNchI/WkYt SWhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xWu8KITsK9/O98QQCFVzkh9IyhzN5wBeA8WNR74mzdh77j+Rq 5qJrtFbpTJuNqlpJC6Zvw480JqABbvgo5B+8JjRvQg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyRDebdt/AsVE84cLbsTfrMJLuhRZ+SJ2E1LbgDRkOQ+0R43dEo3i9EZV2fZ4xIpyfBGscyQM2UdK54kH+63E=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f407:: with SMTP id z7mr5071728wma.8.1595354964979; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOW4vyO2C1E3Sg58CrSVT81t0T3iCTY87tdAx+a8d2A+cNa3nA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-vMzepgmaP-jUunKSo-chWrGpB230TWgJq7u8Yt-afDxA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW4vyObyZC7USUqsW_qdDV9Hcpvg9OHKmM1yMEjSUvmjx0UZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-sWn41XDiwyFMcTgV3a8MMESXqf36fNJcTaSYDKwU+LPg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD9ie-sWn41XDiwyFMcTgV3a8MMESXqf36fNJcTaSYDKwU+LPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francis Pouatcha <fpo@adorsys.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:09:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOW4vyNzGG95eNf6RRLf_jgHoQDMJHz8kPF10EENeaAq9vkrVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Cc: txauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fa8fb205aaf7855b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/t_bXUO8OXWOhjbsptgHcLfzfUoE>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Reviewing draft-hardt-xauth-protocol-11 - Dictionary
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:09:29 -0000

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:59 PM Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI: I consider the release of claims to be an "authorization" as well.
>
Great. Then it is included.

>
> IE, the user authorizes the GS to release a DOB claim to a Client.
>
I guess you mean the "RO" authorizes the GS to release a DOB!

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:42 AM Francis Pouatcha <fpo@adorsys.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:00 PM Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for putting this together Francis. I like how you have put
>>> different aspects of a definition into separate points. It reinforces the
>>> multiple aspects.
>>>
>>> I don't see identity claims in your definitions. Was that intentional,
>>> or an oversight.
>>>
>> The extensive dictionary will surely include more terms.
>>
>> I limited the list to terms relevant to the abstract sequence for now.
>> Making an effort to keep the discussion focused on the abstract sequence.
>>
>> As we are talking authorization, identities are second class citizens,
>> focus shall be on Negotiating and Obtaining the AuthZ to access a Resource.
>>
>>>
>>> wrt. Registered Client / Dynamic Client - in my experience putting the
>>> definitions together helps a reader grasp all the various terms used.
>>>
>> Yes, this clarification belongs in the dictionary. Intentionally left it
>> out here to avoid diverging the discussion.
>>
>>>
>>> Curious why you include "party" in the definition. I would not have
>>> thought that had a definition unique to GNAP.
>>>
>> I derived this from your subsection "Parties". As all participants in the
>> abstract sequence are "parties", the word seems too heavy to be left
>> undefined. Also essential to know which words in the dictionary do not
>> refer to parties like Resource, Grant, AuthZ, ...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:01 PM Francis Pouatcha <fpo@adorsys.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Dick,
>>>>
>>>> Here is (in a new thread) the promised attempt to define terms of
>>>> interest in the GNAP protocol.
>>>>
>>>> Party - represents a role in the GNAP protocol flow. A party can take
>>>> the form of a web service, an application installed on the user device and
>>>> acting autonomously or the form of a natural person (resp. of an autonomous
>>>> device) using an application to interact with other parties.
>>>>
>>>> Resource - a piece of data or web service
>>>>       - controlled by a Resource Owner (RO),
>>>>       - held and guarded by a Resource Server (RS) and
>>>>       - serviced by the RS to a Client, if the Client provides a valid
>>>> Authorization.
>>>>
>>>> Resource Owner (RO) - the party that
>>>>       - owns a Resource,
>>>>       - relies on the services the GS to manage access to that Resource
>>>> and
>>>>       - relies on the services of a RS to hold the Resource and guard
>>>> access to that Resource.
>>>>
>>>> Resource Server (RS) - the party that
>>>>       - holds a resource and guards access to that resource on behalf
>>>> of the RO,
>>>>       - services the Resource to the requesting Client, provided the
>>>> Client presents a valid Authorization.
>>>>       The RS is generally deployed as a web service.
>>>>
>>>> Grant Server (GS) - the party that manages access to a Resource on
>>>> behalf of the RO. For each Resource access request, the GS might request
>>>> the consent of the RO and produce a corresponding Authorization that is
>>>> given to the requesting Client.
>>>>
>>>> Consent - act of an RO approving the release of a Resource he owns to a
>>>> Client.
>>>>
>>>> Grant - material form of an RO Consent. In order not to interact with
>>>> the RO on each Resource access request, the GS might store the RO Consent
>>>> in the form of a Grant for reuse.
>>>>
>>>> Authorization - externalized form of a Grant as known to the GS and the
>>>> RS.
>>>>       - The GS converts a Grant into an Authorization for use in a
>>>> Resource access request.
>>>>       - The RS evaluates an Authorization to decide on whether or not
>>>> to release the Resource to the Client.
>>>>
>>>> Client - the party that provides the infrastructure used by a User to
>>>> access a Resource. The client infrastructure is designed to:
>>>>       - Receive the resource access request from the User,
>>>>       - Interact with the RS to discover authorization requirements,
>>>>       - Interact with the GS to obtain an Authorization to access the
>>>> Resource,
>>>>       - Interact with the RS to access the Resource on behalf of the
>>>> User.
>>>>
>>>> User - the party using the infrastructure of the Client to gain access
>>>> to a Resource.
>>>>
>>>> This dictionary is supposed to be the base for further discussions that
>>>> will allow us to provide each term with just enough description to reduce
>>>> ambiguities and misunderstandings in further exchanges. I intentionally
>>>> omitted the specification of the type and nature of each party (For example
>>>> Client / Registered Client / Dynamic Client). Such elaborations belong IMO
>>>> in proper subsections.
>>>>
>>>> Comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>>> --
>>>> Francis Pouatcha
>>>> Co-Founder and Technical Lead
>>>> adorsys GmbH & Co. KG
>>>> https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Francis Pouatcha
>> Co-Founder and Technical Lead
>> adorsys GmbH & Co. KG
>> https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/
>>
>

-- 
Francis Pouatcha
Co-Founder and Technical Lead
adorsys GmbH & Co. KG
https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/