Decentralized Service Architecture for OAuth2.0
draft-hardjono-oauth-decentralized-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-03-25
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                            March 25, 2018
Expires: September 26, 2018

            Decentralized Service Architecture for OAuth2.0
                 draft-hardjono-oauth-decentralized-02

Abstract

   This document proposes an alternative service architecture for user-
   centric control of the sharing of resources following the UMA model,
   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.

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 September 26, 2018.

Hardjono               Expires September 26, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             Decentralized OAuth                March 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Node Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  OAuth2.0 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  ON Local Functions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  Other OAuth2.0 Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.5.  ON Public Keys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.6.  Transaction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.7.  Exclusivity of UMA-Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.8.  Identifying UMA-Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.  Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.1.  Contracts definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.2.  Smart Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.3.  Types of Contracts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.4.  ON node acquisition contracts: parameters . . . . . . . .  13
     3.5.  Resource sharing contracts: parameters  . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Contracts Server in the UMA Context . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  The Contracts server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.2.  Contracts Sub-Flow in the UMA Flow  . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.3.  Revoking a resource sharing license . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.4.  Cascading revocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   5.  Design Issues and Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.1.  Instrumentation of nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.2.  Protection of private keys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.3.  Throughput of smart contracts agreement . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.4.  Moving ON nodes across providers  . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   8.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
Show full document text