Decentralized Service Architecture for OAuth2.0
draft-hardjono-oauth-decentralized-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-09-28
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
OAuth Working Group                                          T. Hardjono
Internet-Draft                                                       MIT
Intended status: Informational                        September 28, 2017
Expires: April 1, 2018

            Decentralized Service Architecture for OAuth2.0
                 draft-hardjono-oauth-decentralized-01

Abstract

   This document proposes an alternative service architecture for user-
   centric control of the sharing of resources, such as personal data,
   using the decentralized peer-to-peer computing paradigm.  The term
   'control' is used here to denote the full capacity of the user to
   freely select (i) the entities with whom to share resources (e.g.
   data), and (ii) the entities which provide services implementing
   user-controlled resource sharing.  The peer-to-peer service
   architecture uses a set of computing nodes called OAuth2.0 Nodes (ON)
   that are part of a peer-to-peer network as the basis for the
   decentralized service architecture.  Each OAuth2.0 Nodes is assumed
   to have the capability to provide AS-services, RS-services and
   Client-services.

Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 https://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 April 1, 2018.

Hardjono                  Expires April 1, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             Decentralized OAuth            September 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  The OAuth2.0 Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Node Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  OAuth2.0 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  ON Local Functions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.4.  Other OAuth2.0 Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.5.  Transaction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.6.  Exclusivity of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   3.  Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.1.  Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Types of Contracts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  Service acquisition contracts: fields and parameters  . .  10
     3.4.  Data sharing contracts: fields and parameters . . . . . .  11
   4.  Contracts and Blockchain Systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Design Issues and Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.1.  Support for subset of services  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.2.  Contracts expression language . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.3.  Contracts server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.4.  Contracts Access Token (CAT)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.5.  Blockchain Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.6.  Contracts Access Token (CAT)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.7.  Public keys and binding to contracts  . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.8.  End of Contract Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
Show full document text