Internet DRAFT - draft-catalano-oauth-umaclaim
draft-catalano-oauth-umaclaim
Network Working Group D. Catalano, Ed.
Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track M. Machulak
Expires: January 21, 2015 Cloud Identity
July 20, 2014
User-Managed Access (UMA) Claim Profiles Framework
draft-catalano-oauth-umaclaim-00
Abstract
User-Managed Access (UMA) is a profile of OAuth 2.0. UMA defines how
resource owners can control protected-resource access by clients
operated by arbitrary requesting parties, where the resources reside
on any number of resource servers, and where a centralized
authorization server governs access based on resource owner policy.
This specification defines a generic framework for building UMA claim
profiles that can be used by client applications to obtain the
necessary authorization to access protected resources. This revision
of the specification is part of V0.9.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 21, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Generic Framework for Claim Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Client Provides Custom User Attributes . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Client Acts as SAML Assertion Conveyor . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Client Acts as OpenID Connect Claims Conveyor . . . . . . 9
2.4. Hybrid Approach: Client Acts as Custom Claims Conveyor
and OpenID Connect Claims Conveyor . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5. Client Redirects Requesting Party to AS . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5.1. Requesting Party Claims Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.2. Message Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.3.1. Authorization Server Acts as OpenID Connect
Relying Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.3.2. Authorization Server Acts as SAML Relying Party . 13
2.5.3.3. Authorization Server pulls Claim from local user
store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.8. Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
User-Managed Access [UMA] is a profile of OAuth 2.0. UMA defines how
resource owners can control protected-resource access by clients
operated by arbitrary requesting parties, where the resources reside
on any number of resource servers, and where a centralized
authorization server governs access based on resource owner policy.
This specification defines a generic framework for building UMA claim
profiles that can be used by client applications to obtain the
necessary authorization to access protected resources.
Using the framework defined in this specification, UMA deployers can
add new claim profiles to meet requirements of particular deployments
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
of UMA. Profiles built on this framework will give both
authorization servers and clients certain interoperability and ease
of development properties. This specification also provides some
sample profiles that build on the framework. Deployers can build on
the framework directly or on these sample profiles, as they wish, in
order to promote interoperability in their specific environments.
The framework introduces different interaction patterns that the
client and authorization server can use, and different roles they can
play, in order to gather claims about the requesting party:
o The ?delivery? interaction pattern leverages a ?claims-aware
client? that is able to deliver claims about the requesting party
(or information about how to get claims) directly to the
authorization server. The information delivered can be an
identity or claims token, data that aids in discovery of a claims
endpoint, etc., depending on the client's role outside of UMA as a
federated identity provider, a federated relying party, an
application integrated with a native identity repository, etc.
The authorization server then plays the role of a ?claims
receiver? (and/or activates a ?claims connector? based on the
information, for gathering claims itself without requesting party
involvement).
o The ?redirect? pattern assumes a ?claims-unaware client? whose
only option (other than failing entirely) is to redirect an end-
user requesting party to the authorization server. On receiving
the end user, the authorization server activates a ?claims
connector? for gathering the necessary claims with the user's
involvement, using any method or combination of methods. In this
role, the authorization server may be a relying party in a
federated identity interaction, or it may connect to a directory
or other user repository. After the claims-gathering process, the
authorization server redirects the user back to the client.
The profiles defined based on both interaction patterns are as
follows:
o Delivery:
* Client delivers a SAML assertion to the authorization server
* Client delivers OpenID Connect user claims to the authorization
server
* Client delivers custom user claims to the authorization server
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
* Client delivers custom and OpenID Connect user claims to the
authorization server
o Redirect:
* Client redirects end-user requesting party to the authorization
server
In all cases, it is assumed that the authorization server evaluates
the resource owner's policy for a particular resource set based, at
least in part, on the supplied claims. An authorization server MAY
support any claim profiles defined in this specification, and SHOULD
advertise its conformance to tbe profiles it supports in its
configuration data.
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT',
'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol properties and values are
case sensitive.
2. Generic Framework for Claim Profiles
When a client asks an authorization server to associate authorization
data with a requesting party token (RPT) so that the client can
successfully access a resource on behalf of the requesting party
operating it, the authorization can respond in three main ways:
either it can deny the client's request outright, or it can accede to
the request outright, or it can respond that it needs claims in order
to assess whether suitability of adding the needed authorization
data. The authorization server has an opportunity, when it returns a
"need_claims" response, to provide further instructions and hints to
the client in this response. This section defines extensions to
[UMA] that support these instructions and hints.
The authorization request endpoint in the authorization API presented
by the authorization server is extended to accept JSON-encoded
claims-related data in the body of the request. Along with the "rpt"
and "ticket" properties that already need to be provided, a "claims"
property appears in addition.
Common message flow:
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
1. The client sends the claims type and its claims directly to the
AS
POST /rpt_authorization HTTP/1.1
Host: www.nuveam.com
Authorization: Bearer jwfLG53^sad$#f
...
{
"rpt": "sbjsbhs(/SSJHBSUSSJHVhjsgvhsgvshgsv",
"ticket": "016f84e8-f9b9-11e0-bd6f-0021cc6004de",
"claims": [
{
"type": "CLAIM_TYPE_AS_STRING",
"value": {SPECIFIC_SET_OF_CLAIMS_AS_JSON_OBJECT}
}
]
}
Importantly, the claims MUST be an array of JSON objects. The type
field MUST have a String value indicating the type of claims-related
data, while the value field MUST be a JSON object specific to that
type of claims-related data.
2. The authorization server informs the client that authorization
data has been added
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
{
"rpt":"e6b09a4f434a6a47a65a198652df381a"
}
3. The authorization server informs the client that further claims
should be provided to the authorization request endpoint:
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Content-Type: application/json
{
"need_claims":[
{
"type":"CLAIM_TYPE_AS_STRING",
"name":"",
"value":""
}]
}
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
4. The authorization server informs the client that further claims
should be provided (the example below is for SAML assertion)
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Content-Type: application/json
{
"need_claims":[
{
"type":"claim-client-assertion-saml-1.0",
"name":"",
"value":""
}
]
}
5. The authorization server informs the client that the
authorization data cannot be added.
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
{
"error":"not_authorized_permission",
"error_description":"Authorization data cannot be added."
}
2.1. Client Provides Custom User Attributes
TYPE = "custom"
VALUE = {custom defined}
In the most trivial setting where the AS and the Client are
collocated and have an established trust relationship (in particular,
the AS trusts information that it receives from the client), then the
client can be preconfigured to provide the required information to
the AS based on a custom schema. We provide the most trivial example
below, where the client application provides a user's identifier (in
this case email) to the AS and such identifier is used for policy
evaluation.
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
Example:
POST /rpt_authorization HTTP/1.1
Host: www.nuveam.com
Authorization: Bearer jwfLG53^sad$#f
...
{
"rpt": "sbjsbhs(/SSJHBSUSSJHVhjsgvhsgvshgsv",
"ticket": "016f84e8-f9b9-11e0-bd6f-0021cc6004de",
"claims": [
{
"type": "ci-nuveam-claims",
"value": { "email": "bob@company.example.com" }
}
]
}
Another example is where the client provides a richer set of
attributes directly to the AS and these attributes are used for
policy evaluation. Importantly, it is the AS that decides which
attributes are used for policy evaluation and which are not.
Example:
POST /rpt_authorization HTTP/1.1
Host: www.nuveam.com
Authorization: Bearer jwfLG53^sad$#f
...
{
"rpt": "sbjsbhs(/SSJHBSUSSJHVhjsgvhsgvshgsv",
"ticket": "016f84e8-f9b9-11e0-bd6f-0021cc6004de",
"claims": [
{
"type": "ci-nuveam-claims",
"value": { "email": "bob@gmail.com", "roles": [ "manager", "admin" ] }
}
]
}
We provide an example of a reply below (standard UMA reply):
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
Example:
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/json
{
"rpt": "sbjsbhs(/SSJHBSUSSJHVhjsgvhsgvshgsv2"
}
In case of custom attributes, the client does not necessarily use any
specific protocol for obtaining user attributes. It can use a pre-
established relationship with the AS to provide the required set of
attributes.
2.2. Client Acts as SAML Assertion Conveyor
TYPE = "claim-client-assertion-saml-1.0"
VALUE = {base64-encoded SAML assertion}
In this setting the AS and the Client have a pre-established trust
relationship. The client may provide the AS with a SAML assertion
that can be used for policy evaluation. We provide an example of the
request below.
Example:
POST /rpt_authorization HTTP/1.1
Host: www.nuveam.com
Authorization: Bearer jwfLG53^sad$#f
...
{
"rpt": "sbjsbhs(/SSJHBSUSSJHVhjsgvhsgvshgsv",
"ticket": "016f84e8-f9b9-11e0-bd6f-0021cc6004de",
"claims": [
{
"type": "claim-client-assertion-saml-1.0",
"value": {
"saml_assertion": "PHNhbWxwOl...[omitted for brevity]...ZT"
}
}
]
}
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
2.3. Client Acts as OpenID Connect Claims Conveyor
TYPE = "claim-client-claims-oidc-1.0"
VALUE = {set of oidc reserved claims}
In this setting the AS and the Client have a pre-established trust
relationship. The client may provide the AS with a OpenID Connect
user claims that can be used for policy evaluation. We provide an
example of the request made by the client to the Authorization Server
below.
Example:
POST /rpt_authorization HTTP/1.1
Host: www.nuveam.com
Authorization: Bearer jwfLG53^sad$#f
...
{
"rpt": "sbjsbhs(/SSJHBSUSSJHVhjsgvhsgvshgsv",
"ticket": "016f84e8-f9b9-11e0-bd6f-0021cc6004de",
"claims": [
{
"type": "claim-client-claims-oidc-1.0",
"value": {
"sub": "248289761001"
"name": "Jane Doe",
"given_name": "Jane",
"family_name": "Doe",
"email": "joedoe@example.com"
"email_verified": true,
}
}
]
}
2.4. Hybrid Approach: Client Acts as Custom Claims Conveyor and OpenID
Connect Claims Conveyor
TYPE = "custom"
VALUE = {custom defined}
TYPE = "claim-client-claims-oidc-1.0"
VALUE = {set of oidc reserved claims}
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
In this setting the AS and the Client have a pre-established trust
relationship. The client may provide the AS with custom claims as
well as with OpenID Connect user claims that can be used for policy
evaluation. We provide an example of the request below.
Example:
POST /rpt_authorization HTTP/1.1
Host: www.nuveam.com
Authorization: Bearer jwfLG53^sad$#f
...
{
"rpt": "sbjsbhs(/SSJHBSUSSJHVhjsgvhsgvshgsv",
"ticket": "016f84e8-f9b9-11e0-bd6f-0021cc6004de",
"claims": [
{
"type": "ci-nuveam-claims",
"value": { "roles": ["manager", "admin" }
},
{
"type": "claim-client-claims-oidc-1.0",
"value": { "email": "bob@gmail.com" }
}
]
}
2.5. Client Redirects Requesting Party to AS
TYPE = "claim-client-redirect-1.0"
VALUE = {value of the scope at AS}
The redirect UMA profile defines a Requesting Party Claims Endpoint
that the Authorization Server has to support. This endpoint is
advertised in the Authorisation Server Configuration Data as defined
by the UMA specification [UMA]. The requesting party claims endpoint
is used by the Authorization Server to interact with the requesting
party and not with the client application. The authorization server
can first verify the identity of the requesting party or it may
engage the requesting party in claims gathering flow. For example,
the AS may decide based on the authentication process that it has
enough information to evaluate a policy or it may require the
requesting party to provide further claims, e.g. using an existing
identity federation protocol. For example, after landing at this
endpoint the requesting party may be further redirected to the source
of claims (e.g. SAML IDP or the OpenID Connect Identity Provider).
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
2.5.1. Requesting Party Claims Endpoint
In redirect UMA profile, the configuration data has to be extended
with the following property.
requesting_party_claims_endpoint
REQUIRED. The endpoint URI at which the authorization server
interacts with the end-user requesting party to obtain the
necessary user-claims that will be used during policy
evaluation process.
Example of authorization server configuration extended with
requesting party claims endpoint:
{
"version":"1.0",
"issuer":"https://example.com",
"pat_profiles_supported":["bearer"],
"aat_profiles_supported":["bearer"],
"rpt_profiles_supported":["bearer"],
"pat_grant_types_supported":["authorization_code"],
"aat_grant_types_supported":["authorization_code"],
"claim_profiles_supported":["openid"],
"dynamic_client_endpoint":"https://as.example.com/dyn_client_reg_uri",
"token_endpoint":"https://as.example.com/token_uri",
"user_endpoint":"https://as.example.com/user_uri",
"resource_set_registration_endpoint":"https://as.example.com/rs/rsrc_uri",
"introspection_endpoint":"https://as.example.com/rs/status_uri",
"permission_registration_endpoint":"https://as.example.com/rs/perm_uri",
"rpt_endpoint":"https://as.example.com/client/rpt_uri",
"authorization_request_endpoint":"https://as.example.com/client/authz_uri",
"requesting_party_claims_endpoint":"https://as.example.com/rp/claims_uri"
}
2.5.2. Message Flow
Message flow:
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
1. Client asks for new authorization data to be added to an existing
RPT
POST /rpt_authorization HTTP/1.1
Host: www.nuveam.com
Authorization: Bearer jwfLG53^sad$#f
...
{
"rpt": "sbjsbhs(/SSJHBSUSSJHVhjsgvhsgvshgsv",
"ticket": "016f84e8-f9b9-11e0-bd6f-0021cc6004de"
}
2. AS tells the client to redirect the user to the Requesting Party
Claims Endpoint and includes the scope parameter in the value of the
response
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Content-Type: application/json
{
"need_claims":[
{
"type":"redirect_required",
"name":"Redirect Required",
"value":"699faf5bf2869838e992d57756bc6f"
}
]
}
3. Client redirects the user to the Requesting Party Claims Endpoint
and includes the scope parameter in the request
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: https://www.nuveam.com/uma/rp_claims?scope=699faf5bf2869838e992
d57756bc6f&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.umaapp.com%%2Fredirect&client_id=
ca4453936fa5fda2110b9e589d61ab37&state=32455ddsafas
After the user is redirected to the AS, the claims for the user are
gathered according to one of the defined protocols, such as SAML,
OpenID Connect or any other protocol implemented by an UMA-compliant
Authorisation Server. Furthermore, the AS is free to obtain the
information from a local or remote LDAP, Active Directory or any
other user datastore (e.g. SQL or NoSQL-based datastore).
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
4. AS informs the client that new authorization can be added and the
client is free to request a new RPT
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: https://www.umaapp.com/redirect?access=granted&state=32455ddsafas
5. AS informs the client that authorization data cannot be added
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: https://www.umaapp.com/redirect?access=denied&state=32455ddsafas
2.5.3. Examples
In this section, we discuss three examples:
1. User is redirected to an OIDC Provider;
2. User is redirected to a SAML IDP;
3. User's authentication is sufficient for policy evalutation.
2.5.3.1. Authorization Server Acts as OpenID Connect Relying Party
In this claim profile example, the Authorisation Server acts as an
OIDC compliant RP. This flow is used in case the policies for a
particular resource set use any of the existing reserved OIDC claims.
Importantly, it is the AS that determines if OIDC claims should be
used for policy evaluation. This information is not shared with the
client application.
During this flow the AS acts according to the OpenID Connect protocol
and this is outside of the UMA specification.
2.5.3.2. Authorization Server Acts as SAML Relying Party
In this claim profile example, the Authorisation Server acts as an
SAML compliant Service Provider. This flow is used in case the
policies for a particular resource set require the use of the SAML
protocol. Importantly, it is the AS that determines if the SAML
protocol should be used for policy evaluation. This information is
not shared with the client application.
During this flow the AS acts according to the SAML protocol and this
is outside of the UMA specification.
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
2.5.3.3. Authorization Server pulls Claim from local user store
In this claim profile example and after successful authentication of
the RP, the AS can pull the required user attributes from a local
user datastore (e.g. LDAP, Active Directory, and other SQL and
NoSQL-datastores). This information can be used for policy
evaluation.
2.6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
2.7. Acknowledgments
The current editor of this specification is Domenico Catalano of
Oracle. The following people are co-authors:
o Maciej Machulak, Cloud Identity Ltd
o Thomas Hardjono, MIT
o Eve Maler, ForgeRock
Additional contributors to this specification include the Kantara UMA
Work Group participants, a list of whom can be found at
[UMAnitarians].
2.8. Issues
Issues are captured at the project's GitHub site ([1]).
3. References
3.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[UMA] Hardjono, T., Ed., "User-Managed Access (UMA) Profile of
OAuth 2.0", December 2013,
<http://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/
draft-uma-core.html>.
3.2. Informative References
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft UMA Core July 2014
[UMAnitarians]
Maler, E., "UMA Participant Roster", July 2014,
<http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/
Participant+Roster>.
3.3. URIs
[1] https://github.com/xmlgrrl/UMA-Specifications/issues
[2] http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/
UMA+1.0+Core+Protocol
Appendix A. Document History
NOTE: To be removed by RFC editor before publication as an RFC.
See [2] for a list of code-breaking and other major changes made to
this specification at various revision points.
Authors' Addresses
Domenico Catalano (editor)
Oracle
Email: domenico.catalano@oracle.com
Maciej Machulak
Cloud Identity
Email: maciej.machulak@cloudidentity.co.uk
Catalano & Machulak Expires January 21, 2015 [Page 15]
