[WG-UMA] Draft minutes of UMA telecon 2022-09-29

Skip to first unread message

Alec Laws

Oct 1, 2022, 6:07:59 PM10/1/22
to wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org WG

UMA telecon 2022-09-29

Date and Time


  • Approve minutes since UMA telecon 2022-06-30

  • Core UMA content/report (no use-case)

  • FAPI Part 1 Review and Discussion

  • Policy Descriptions

  • AOB


  • NOTE: As of October 26, 2020, quorum is 5 of 8. (Michael, Domenico, Peter, Sal, Thomas, Alec, Eve, Steve)

  • Voting:

    • Alec

    • Steve

    • Sal

  • Non-voting participants:

    • Scott

    • Chris

    • Hanfei

  • Regrets:

Quorum: No

Meeting Minutes

Approve previous meeting minutes


Core UMA content (no use-case)

Continue discussion ‘UMA by example’ content


audience: NOT technical, business people - what value does uma provide a data custodian, users(?) - what value does uma provide the resource owner

  • problem that UMA addresses, user-mediate fine-grained authorization. person not present during access

  • physical access example(s), car or documents or airbnb(access to a physical space, RS) vs the specific thing (resource)

  • shift to access to digital resources/documents,

    • distributed nature of information: some at home, some with bank (safe deposit box), some with HCP,

    • controlling organization, who enforces access

  • GAP today: broadness of access, synchronous RO-only access, controlled by single org at a time

  • UMA applied to example


physical access vs digital access vs uma against use-case: car, documents, building access


General intro to Authorization: through example, lending

base example, lending car or documents? → broad authZ open garage everything is there. In uma, only the car is there


home example, loaning car in the garage

condo example, valet key

digital example: car manufacturer managed sharing,

uma example: user managed sharing


car, access to the garage, key to the car → broad since can access anything in the garage, key to glovebox. “Allowed to drive between 12-3, not more than 20mi”

condo concierge: RO not present, with someone enforcing my wishes


→ shift to digital


FAPI Part 1 Review and Discussion


Part 1: Baseline https://openid.net/specs/openid-financial-api-part-1-1_0.html


5.2.2. Authorization server

15. shall return the list of granted scopes with the issued access token if the request was passed in the front channel and was not integrity protected;

  • which request, token request? scopes in token response? when would there not be 'integrity protected'? there would always be TLS/client authn? is this for public clients?

17. should clearly identify the details of the grant to the user during authorization as in 16.18 of OIDC;

  • for pushed claims, would the Client have this responsibility? or would pushed claims need to be ‘off’ in FAPI

NOTE: The requirement to return the list of granted scopes allows clients to detect when the authorization request was modified to include different scopes. Servers must still return the granted scopes if they are different from those requested.

  • always return scopes or only under conditions of #15?


Could an UMA Auth Server support OIDC and the openid scope? tentative yes

  • there are naming differences eg redirect_uri vs claims_redirect_uri, code vs ticket


Overall, and UMA AS should be able to support FAPI basiline profile (part 1)

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages