draft-vattaparambil-positioning-of-poa-00
draft-vattaparambil-positioning-of-poa-00
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Sreelakshmi Vattaparambil Sudarsan , Olov Schelen , Ulf Bodin | ||
| Last updated | 2023-09-08 (Latest revision 2023-03-07) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Power of Attorney (PoA) based authorization is a generic and decentralized subgranting based authorization technique. In this, a principal can grant limited credibilities for an agent to act on its behalf for some limited time and context. This can be used for example with semi-autonomous devices to have them act on behalf. PoA is a self-contained document that a principal sign and directs to an agent, thereby providing it the power to execute user actions on behalf of the principal for a predefined time. In this document, we compare PoA based authorization with different existing internet protocols for authorization and the relation with existing identity solutions.
Authors
Sreelakshmi Vattaparambil Sudarsan
Olov Schelen
Ulf Bodin
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)