Network Working Group T. Hardjono, Ed.
Internet-Draft MIT
Intended status: Standards Track December 27, 2012
Expires: June 30, 2013
OAuth 2.0 Resource Set Registration
draft-hardjono-oauth-resource-reg-00
Abstract
This specification defines a resource set registration mechanism
between an OAuth 2.0 authorization server and resource server. The
resource server registers information about the semantics and
discovery properties of its resources with the authorization server.
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 June 30, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
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.
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Authorization Server Configuration Data . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Resource Set Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Scope Type Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Resource Set Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Resource Set Registration API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1. Create Resource Set Description . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. Read Resource Set Description . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3. Update Resource Set Description . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.4. Delete Resource Set Description . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.5. List Resource Set Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Error Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Example of Registering Resource Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
1. Introduction
There are various circumstances under which an OAuth 2.0 [OAuth2]
resource server needs to communicate to its authorization server
information about its protected resources. A resource server and
authorization server may need to communicate with each other about
resources in one of several circumstances:
o In some OAuth 2.0 deployments, the resource server and
authorization server are operated by the same organization and
deployed in the same domain, but many resource servers share a
single authorization server (a security token service (STS)
component). Thus, even though the trust between these two is
typically tightly bound, there is value in defining a singular
standardized resource protection communications interface between
the authorization server and each of the resource servers.
o In some deployments of OpenID Connect, which has a dependency on
OAuth 2.0, the OpenID Provider (OP) component is a specialized
version of an OAuth authorization server that brokers availability
of user attributes by dealing with with an ecosystem of attribute
providers (APs). These APs effectively function as third-party
resource servers. Thus, there is value in defining a mechanism by
which all of the third-party APs can communicate with a central
OP, as well as ensuring that trust between the authorization
server and resource servers is able to be established in a
dynamic, loosely coupled fashion.
o In some deployments of User-Managed Access (UMA), which has a
dependency on OAuth 2.0, an end-user resource owner (the "user" in
UMA) may choose their own authorization server as an independent
"CloudOS" authorization service, along with using any number of
resource servers that make up their "personal cloud". Thus, there
is value in defining a mechanism by which all of the third-party
resource servers can outsource resource protection (and
potentially discovery) to a central authorization server, as well
as ensuring that trust between the authorization server and
resource servers is able to be established by the resource owner
in a dynamic, loosely coupled fashion.
This specification defines an API through which the resource server
can register information about resource sets with the authorization
server.
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT',
'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol properties and values are
case sensitive.
1.2. Terminology
This specification introduces the following new terms and
enhancements of OAuth term definitions.
resource set One or more resources that the resource server manages
as a set.
scope type A bounded extent of access that is possible to perform on
a resource set. In authorization policy terminology, a scope
type is one of the potentially many "verbs" that can logically
apply to a resource set ("object"). This specification extends
the OAuth concept of a "scope" by defining scope types as
applying to particular labeled resource sets, rather than
leaving the relevant resources (such as API endpoints or URIs)
implicit. A resource set can have any number of scope types,
which together describe the universe of actions that _can be_
taken on this protected resource set. For example, a resource
set representing a status update API might have scope types
that include adding an update or reading updates. A resource
set representing a photo album might have scope types that
include viewing a slideshow or printing the album. The
resource server registers resource sets and their scope types
when there is not yet any particular client in the picture.
resource set registration endpoint The endpoint at which the
resource server registers resource sets it wants the
authorization server to know about. The operations available
at this endpoint constitute a resource set registration API
(see Section 2.3).
1.3. Authorization Server Configuration Data
If the authorization server declares its endpoints and any other
configuration data in a machine-readable form, for example
[OAuth-linktypes], it SHOULD convey its resource set registration
endpoint in this fashion as well.
2. Resource Set Registration
This specification defines a resource set registration API. If this
API is not open, it MUST be OAuth-protected. For any of the resource
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
owner's sets of resources this authorization server needs to be aware
of, the resource server MUST register these resource sets at the
authorization server's registration endpoint.
2.1. Scope Type Descriptions
A scope type is a bounded extent of access that is possible to
perform on a resource set. A scope type description is a JSON
document with the following properties:
name REQUIRED. A human-readable string describing some scope
(extent) of access. This name is intended for ultimate use in the
authorization server's user interface to assist the user in
setting policies for protected resource sets that have this
available scope.
icon_uri OPTIONAL. A URI for a graphic icon representing the scope.
The referenced icon is intended for ultimate use in the
authorization server's user interface to assist the user in
setting policies for protected resource sets that have this
available scope.
For example, this description characterizes a scope type that
involves reading or viewing resources (vs. creating them or editing
them in some fashion):
{
"name": "View",
"icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/reading-glasses"
}
Scope type descriptions MAY contain extension properties that are not
defined in this specification. Extension names that are unprotected
from collisions are outside the scope of the current specification.
A resource server MUST list a resource set's available scopes using
URI references (as defined in Section 2.2). The scope types
available for use at any one resource server MUST have unique URI
references so that the resource server's scope descriptions are
uniquely distinguishable. A scope type URI reference MAY include a
fragment identifier. Scope type descriptions MAY reside anywhere.
The resource server is not required to self-host scope type
descriptions and may wish to point to standardized scope type
descriptions residing elsewhere. Scope type description documents
MUST be accessible to authorization servers through GET calls made to
these URI references.
See Section 8 for a long-form example of scope types used in resource
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
set registration.
2.2. Resource Set Descriptions
The resource server defines a resource set that the authorization
server needs to be aware of by registering a resource set description
at the authorization server.
A resource set description is a JSON document with the following
properties:
name REQUIRED. A human-readable string describing a set of one or
more resources. The authorization server SHOULD use the name in
its user interface to assist the user in setting policies for
protecting this resource set.
icon_uri OPTIONAL. A URI for a graphic icon representing the
resource set.
scopes REQUIRED. An array providing the URI references of scope
type descriptions that are available for this resource set.
type OPTIONAL. A string uniquely identifying the semantics of the
resource set. For example, if the resource set consists of a
single resource that is an identity claim that leverages
standardized claim semantics, the value of this property could be
an identifying URI for this claim.
For example, this description characterizes a resource set (a photo
album) that can potentially be only viewed, or alternatively to which
full access can be granted; the URIs point to scope descriptions as
defined in Section 2.1:
{
"name": "Photo Album",
"icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/flower.png",
"scopes": [
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/view",
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/all"
],
"resource_set_type": "http://www.example.com/rsets/photoalbum"
}
Resource set descriptions MAY contain extension properties that are
not defined in this specification. Extension names that are
unprotected from collisions are outside the scope of the current
specification.
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
When a resource server creates or updates a resource set description
(see Section 2.3), the authorization server MUST attempt to retrieve
the referenced scope descriptions so that it can present fresh data
in resource owner interactions.
2.3. Resource Set Registration API
The resource server uses the RESTful API at the authorization
server's resource set registration endpoint to create, read, update,
and delete resource set descriptions, along with listing groups of
such descriptions. The resource server is free to use its own
methods of identifying and describing resource sets.
(Note carefully the similar but distinct senses in which the word
"resource" is used in this section. The resource set descriptions
are themselves managed as web resources at the authorization server
through this API.)
The authorization server MUST present an API for registering resource
set descriptions at a set of URIs with the structure "{rsreguri}/
resource_set/{rsid}", where the PAT provides sufficient context to
distinguish between identical resource set identifiers assigned by
different hosts.
The components of these URIs are defined as follows:
{rsreguri} The authorization server's resource set registration
endpoint as advertised in its configuration data (see
Section 1.3).
{rsid} An identifier for a resource set description.
Without a specific resource set identifier path component, the URI
applies to the set of resource set descriptions already registered.
Following is a summary of the five registration operations the
authorization server is REQUIRED to support. Each is defined in its
own section below. All other methods are unsupported. This API uses
ETag and If-Match to ensure the desired resource at the authorization
server is targeted.
o Create resource set description: PUT /resource_set/{rsid}
o Read resource set description: GET /resource_set/{rsid}
o Update resource set description: PUT /resource_set/{rsid} with If-
Match
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
o Delete resource set description: DELETE /resource_set/{rsid}
o List resource set descriptions: GET /resource_set/ with If-Match
If the request to the resource set registration endpoint is
incorrect, then the authorization server responds with an error
message by including one of the following error codes with the
response:
unsupported_method_type The resource server request used an
unsupported HTTP method. The authorization server MUST respond
with the HTTP 405 (Method Not Allowed) status code and MUST fail
to act on the request.
not_found The resource set requested from the authorization server
cannot be found. The authorization server MUST respond with HTTP
404 (Not Found) status code.
precondition_failed The resource set that was requested to be
deleted or updated at the authorization server did not match the
If-Match value present in the request. The authorization server
MUST respond with HTTP 412 (Precondition Failed) status code and
MUST fail to act on the request.
2.3.1. Create Resource Set Description
Adds a new resource set description using the PUT method, thereby
putting it under the authorization server's protection. If the
request is successful, the authorization server MUST respond with a
status message that includes an ETag header and _id and _rev
properties for managing resource set description versioning.
Form of a "create resource set description" HTTP request:
PUT /resource_set/{rsid} HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/intro-resource-set+json
...
(body contains JSON resource set description to be created)
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
Form of a successful HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/intro-status+json
ETag: (matches "_rev" property in returned object)
...
{
"status": "created",
"_id": (id of created resource set),
"_rev": (ETag of created resource set)
}
On successful registration, the authorization server MAY return a
redirect policy URI to the resource server in a property with the
name "policy_uri". This URI allows the resource server to redirect
the user to a specific user interface within the authorization server
where the user can immediately set or modify access policies for the
resource set that was just registered.
Form of a successful HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/intro-status+json
ETag: (matches "_rev" property in returned object)
...
{
"status": "created",
"_id": (id of created resource set),
"_rev": (ETag of created resource set)
"policy_uri":"http://as.example.com/rs/222/resource/333/policy"
}
2.3.2. Read Resource Set Description
Reads a previously registered resource set description using the GET
method. If the request is successful, the authorization server MUST
respond with a status message that includes an ETag header and _id
and _rev properties for managing resource set description versioning.
Form of a "read resource set description" HTTP request:
GET /resource_set/{rsid} HTTP/1.1
...
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
Form of a successful HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/intro-resource-set+json
...
(body contains JSON resource set description, including _id and _rev)
If the referenced resource does not exist, the authorization server
MUST produce an error response with an error property value of
"not_found", as defined in Section 2.3.
On successful read, the authorization server MAY return a redirect
policy URI to the resource server in a property with the name
"policy_uri". This URI allows the resource server to redirect the
user to a specific user interface within the authorization server
where the user can immediately set or modify access policies for the
resource set that was read.
2.3.3. Update Resource Set Description
Updates a previously registered resource set description using the
PUT method, thereby changing the resource set's protection
characteristics. If the request is successful, the authorization
server MUST respond with a status message that includes an ETag
header and _id and _rev properties for managing resource set
description versioning.
Form of an "update resource set description" HTTfP request:
PUT /resource_set/{rsid} HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/resource-set+json
If-Match: (entity tag of resource)
...
(body contains JSON resource set description to be updated)
Form of a successful HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
ETag: "2"
...
If the entity tag does not match, the authorization server MUST
produce an error response with an error property value of
"precondition_failed", as defined in Section 2.3.
On successful update, the authorization server MAY return a redirect
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
policy URI to the resource server in a property with the name
"policy_uri". This URI allows the resource server to redirect the
user to a specific user interface within the authorization server
where the user can immediately set or modify access policies for the
resource set that was just updated.
2.3.4. Delete Resource Set Description
Deletes a previously registered resource set description using the
DELETE method, thereby removing it from the authorization server's
protection regime.
Form of a "delete resource set description" HTTP request:
DELETE /resource_set/{rsid}
If-Match: (entity tag of resource)
...
Form of a successful HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 204 No content
...
As defined in Section 2.3, if the referenced resource does not exist
the authorization server MUST produce an error response with an error
property value of "not_found", and if the entity tag does not match
the authorization server MUST produce an error response with an error
property value of "precondition_failed".
2.3.5. List Resource Set Descriptions
Lists all previously registered resource set identifiers for this
user using the GET method. The authorization server MUST return the
list in the form of a JSON array of {rsid} values.
The resource server uses this method as a first step in checking
whether its understanding of protected resources is in full
synchronization with the authorization server's understanding.
Form of a "list resource set descriptions" HTTP request:
GET /resource_set HTTP/1.1
...
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
(body contains JSON array of {rsid} values)
3. Error Messages
When a resource server attempts to access the resource set
registration endpoint at the authorization server, if the request is
successfully authenticated by OAuth means, but is invalid for another
reason, the authorization server produces an error response by adding
the following properties to the entity body of the HTTP response:
error REQUIRED. A single error code, as noted in the API
definition. Value for this property is defined in the specific
authorization server endpoint description.
error_description OPTIONAL. A human-readable text providing
additional information, used to assist in the understanding and
resolution of the error occurred.
error_uri OPTIONAL. A URI identifying a human-readable web page
with information about the error, used to provide the end-user
with additional information about the error.
4. Security Considerations
This specification relies on OAuth for API security and shares its
security and vulnerability considerations.
5. Privacy Considerations
The communication between the authorization server and resource
server may expose personally identifiable information. The context
in which this API is used SHOULD deal with its own unique privacy
considerations.
6. Conformance
This specification makes optional normative reference to [OAuth2] for
API protection. This specification is anticipated to be used as a
module in higher-order specifications, where additional constraints
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
and profiling may appear.
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
8. Example of Registering Resource Sets
The following example illustrates the intent and usage of resource
set descriptions and scope type descriptions as part of resource set
registration for the purposes of User-Managed Access (UMA).
This example contains some steps that are exclusively in the realm of
user experience rather than web protocol, to achieve realistic
illustration. These steps are labeled "User experience only". Some
other steps are exclusively internal to the operation of the entity
being discussed. These are labeled "Internal only".
A resource owner, Alice Adams, has just uploaded a photo of her new
puppy to a resource server, Photoz.example.com, and wants to ensure
that this specific photo is not publicly accessible.
Alice has already introduced this resource server to her
authorization server, CopMonkey.example.com, and thus Photoz has
already obtained a PAT from CopMonkey. However, Alice has not
previously instructed Photoz to use CopMonkey to protect any other
photos of hers.
Alice has previously visited CopMonkey to map a default "do not share
with anyone" policy to any resource sets registered by Photoz, until
such time as she maps some other more permissive policies to those
resources. (User experience only. This may have been done at the
time Alice introduced the resource server to the authorization
server, and/or it could have been a global or resource server-
specific preference setting. A different constraint or no constraint
at all might be associated with newly protected resources.) Other
kinds of policies she may eventually map to particular photos or
albums might be "Share only with husband@email.example.net" or "Share
only with people in my 'family' group".
Photoz itself has a publicly documented application-specific API that
offers two dozen different methods that apply to single photos, such
as "addTags" and "getSizes", but rolls them up into two photo-related
scope types of access: "view" (consisting of various read-only
operations) and "all" (consisting of various reading, editing, and
printing operations). It defines two scope type descriptions that
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
represent these scope types, which it is able to reuse for all of its
users (not just Alice), and ensures that these scope type description
documents are available through HTTP GET requests that may be made by
authorization servers.
The "name" property values are intended to be seen by Alice when she
maps authorization constraints to specific resource sets and actions
while visiting CopMonkey, such that Alice would see the strings "View
Photo and Related Info" and "All Actions", likely accompanied by the
referenced icons, in the CopMonkey interface. (Other users of Photoz
might similarly see the same labels at CopMonkey or whatever other
authorization server they use. Photoz could distinguish natural-
language labels per user if it wishes, by pointing to scopes with
differently translated names.)
Example of the viewing-related scope type description document
available at http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/view with a
Content-Type of application/intro-scope+json:
{
"name": "View Photo and Related Info",
"icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/reading-glasses.png"
}
Example of the broader scope type description document available at
http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/all, likewise with a Content-
Type of application/intro-scope+json:
{
"name": "All Actions",
"icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/galaxy.png"
}
While visiting Photoz, Alice selects a link or button that instructs
the site to "Protect" or "Share" this single photo (user experience
only; Photoz could have made this a default or preference setting).
As a result, Photoz defines for itself a resource set that represents
this photo (internal only; Photoz is the only application that knows
how to map a particular photo to a particular resource set). Photoz
also prepares the following resource set description, which is
specific to Alice and her photo. The "name" property value is
intended to be seen by Alice in mapping authorization policies to
specific resource sets and actions when she visits CopMonkey. Alice
would see the string "Steve the puppy!", likely accompanied by the
referenced icon, in the CopMonkey interface. The possible scopes of
access on this resource set are indicated with URI references to the
scope descriptions, as shown just above.
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
{
"name": "Steve the puppy!",
"icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/flower",
"scopes": [
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/view",
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/all"
]
}
Photoz uses the "create resource set description" method of
CopMonkey's standard UMA resource set registration API, presenting
its Alice-specific PAT there, to register and assign an identifier to
the resource set description.
PUT /resource_set/112210f47de98100 HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/intro-resource-set+json
...
{
"name": "Steve the puppy!",
"icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/flower.png",
"scopes": [
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/view",
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/all"
]
}
If the registration attempt succeeds, CopMonkey responds in the
following fashion.
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/intro-status+json
ETag: "1"
...
{
"status": "created",
"_id": "112210f47de98100",
"_rev": "1"
}
At the time Alice indicates she would like this photo protected,
Photoz can choose to redirect Alice to CopMonkey for further policy
setting, access auditing, and other authorization server-related
tasks (user experience only).
Once it has successfully registered this description, Photoz is
responsible for outsourcing to CopMonkey all questions of
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
authorization for access attempts made to this photo.
Over time, as Alice uploads other photos and creates and organizes
photo albums, and as Photoz makes new action functionality available,
Photoz can use additional methods of the resource set registration
API to ensure that CopMonkey's understanding of Alice's protected
resources matches its own.
For example, if Photoz suspects that somehow its understanding of the
resource set has gotten out of sync with CopMonkey's, it can ask to
read the resource set description as follows.
GET /resource_set/112210f47de98100 HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
...
CopMonkey responds with the full content of the resource set
description, including its _id and its current _rev, as follows:
Example of an HTTP response to a "read resource set description"
request, containing a resource set description from the authorization
server:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/intro-resource-set+json
ETag: "1"
...
{
"_id": "112210f47de98100",
"_rev": "1",
"name": "Photo album",
"icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/flower.png",
"scopes": [
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/view",
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/all"
]
}
If for some reason Photoz and CopMonkey have gotten dramatically out
of sync, Photoz can ask for the list of resource set identifiers
CopMonkey currently knows about:
GET /resource_set HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
...
CopMonkey's response might look as follows:
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
[ "112210f47de98100", "34234df47eL95300" ]
If Alice later changes the photo's title (user experience only) on
Photoz from "Steve the puppy!" to "Steve on October 14, 2011", Photoz
would use the "update resource set description" method to ensure that
Alice's experience of policy-setting at CopMonkey remains consistent
with what she sees at Photoz. Following is an example of this
request.
PUT /resource_set/112210f47de98100 HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/intro-resource-set+json
Host: as.example.com
If-Match: "1"
...
{
"name": "Steve on October 14, 2011",
"icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/flower.png",
"scopes": [
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/view",
"http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/all"
]
}
CopMonkey would respond as follows.
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/intro-status+json
ETag: "2"
...
{
"status": "updated",
"_id": "112210f47de98100",
"_rev": "2"
}
There are other reasons Photoz might want to update resource set
descriptions, having nothing to do with Alice's actions or wishes.
For example, it might extend its API to include new features, and
want to add new scopes to all of Alice's and other users' resource
set descriptions.
if Alice later decides to entirely remove sharing protection (user
experience only) on this photo while visiting Photoz, ensuring that
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
the public can get access without any UMA-based protection, Photoz is
responsible for deleting the relevant resource set registration, as
follows:
DELETE /resource_set/112210f47de98100 HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
If-Match: "2"
...
9. Acknowledgments
The current editor of this specification is Thomas Hardjono of MIT.
The following people are co-authors:
o Paul C. Bryan, ForgeRock US, Inc.
o Domenico Catalano, Oracle Corp.
o George Fletcher, AOL
o Maciej Machulak, Newcastle University
o Eve Maler, XMLgrrl.com
o Lukasz Moren, Newcastle University
o Christian Scholz, COMlounge GmbH
o Nat Sakimura, NRI
o Jacek Szpot, Newcastle University
10. Issues
All issues are now captured at the project's GitHub site
(<https://github.com/xmlgrrl/UMA-Specifications/issues>).
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[OAuth2] Hammer-Lahav, E., "The OAuth 2.0 Protocol",
September 2011,
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2>.
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OAuth RReg December 2012
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
11.2. Informative References
[OAuth-linktypes]
Richer, J., "Link Type Registrations for OAuth 2",
October 2012,
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd>.
Appendix A. Document History
NOTE: To be removed by RFC editor before publication as an RFC.
From I-D rev 00:
o Broken out of draft-oauth-umacore (post-rev 05) I-D and made
generic to apply to a variety of OAuth-based use cases.
Author's Address
Thomas Hardjono (editor)
MIT
Email: hardjono@mit.edu
Hardjono Expires June 30, 2013 [Page 19]