Network Working Group                                       L. Johansson
Internet-Draft                                                  NORDUNet
Intended status: Informational                             June 25, 2011
Expires: December 27, 2011


    An IANA registry for SAML 2.0 Level of Assurance Context Classes
                    draft-johansson-loa-registry-02

Abstract

   This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance
   Context Classes for SAML 2.0.  The registry is intended to be used as
   an aid to discovering such LoA definitions.

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 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 December 27, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Johansson               Expires December 27, 2011               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            SAML 2.0 LoA Registry                June 2011


   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.  Name of Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Registration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     4.1.  Reviewer Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     4.2.  Designated Experts Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Registry Semantics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   9.  Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     9.1.  since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     9.2.  since -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6




























Johansson               Expires December 27, 2011               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            SAML 2.0 LoA Registry                June 2011


1.  Introduction

   This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance
   Context Profiles for SAML 2.0.  Such objects are XML schema
   definitions that fulfil the requirements of sstc-saml-loa-
   authncontext-profile-draft-01
   [OASIS.sstc.saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01].  Quoting from
   this specification we find the following definition of the concept of
   level of assurance:

   _Many existing (and potential) SAML federation deployments have
   adopted a "levels of assurance" (or LOA) model for categorizing the
   wide variety of authentication methods into a small number of levels,
   typically based on some notion of the strength of the authentication.
   Federation members (service providers or "relying parties") then
   decide which level of assurance is required to access specific
   protected resources, based on some assessment of "value" or "risk"._

   Several so called trust frameworks and identity federations now
   exist, some of which define one or more LoAs.  The purpose of this
   specification is to create an IANA registry where such LoA
   definitions can be discovered.

   Although the registry will contain URIs that reference SAML
   Authentication Context Profiles other protocols MAY use such URIs to
   represent levels of assurance definitions without relying on their
   SAML XML definitions.  Use of the registry by protocols other than
   SAML is encouraged.


2.  Name of Registry

   The name of the registry shall be "SAML 2.0 LoA Context Class", in
   plural "SAML LoA Context Classes".  The term LoA is an abbreviation
   of Level of Assurance.


3.  Registration Template

   The following information MUST be provided with each registration:

   URI:  A URI referencing a SAML 2.0 LoA Context Class.  This is the
      registry key.

   Context Class:  A valid XML schema definition for the SAML 2.0 LoA
      Context Class fulfilling the requirements of sstc-saml-loa-
      authncontext-profile-draft-01
      [OASIS.sstc.saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01].



Johansson               Expires December 27, 2011               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            SAML 2.0 LoA Registry                June 2011


   Name:  A string uniquely identifying the LoA for use in protocols
      where URIs are not appropriate.

   Informational URL:  A URL containing auxilliary information.  This
      URL MUST minimally reference contact information for the
      administrative authority of the level of assurance definition.

   Note that it is not uncommon for a single XML Schema to contain
   definitions of multiple URIs.  In that case the registration MUST be
   repeated for each URI.  Both the name and the URI must uniquely
   identify the LoA.  The name is meant to be used in protocols where
   URIs are not appropriate.

   The name must fulfill the following ABNF:
   label = ( ALPHA / DIGIT )
   name = label 1*( label / '-' / '.' / '_' )

   The following ABNF productions represent reserved values and names
   matching any of these productions MUST NOT be present in any
   registration:
   reserved = loa / al
   loa = ( 'l' / 'L' ) ( 'o' / 'O' ) ( 'a' / 'A') *DIGIT
   al = ( 'a' / 'A') ( 'l' / 'L') *DIGIT


4.  Registration Policy

   The registry is to be operated under the "Designated Expert Review"
   policy from RFC5226 [RFC5226] employing a pool of experts.  IANA is
   kindly asked to do rough randomized load-balancing among the experts
   and also do an initial review of each submission to ensure that the
   name is unique within the registry.The initial pool of expert and the
   review criteria are outlined below.

4.1.  Reviewer Expectations

   The of the IANA LoA Registry is that it contain bona fide SAML 2.0
   LoA Context Class definitions while not presenting a very high bar
   for entry.  Expert reviewers SHOULD NOT place undue value in any
   percieved or actual quality of the associated trust framework or
   federation and SHOULD only exclude such registrations that in the
   view of the experts do not represent bona fide attempts at defining
   an LoA.

   The designated experts are also expected to verify that the
   registration is consistent and that the provided XML fulfills the
   requirements of sstc-saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01
   [OASIS.sstc.saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01].



Johansson               Expires December 27, 2011               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            SAML 2.0 LoA Registry                June 2011


4.2.  Designated Experts Pool

   TBD


5.  Registry Semantics

   The intended use for this registry is to serve as a basis for
   discovery of LoA definitions that might for instance be used by SAML
   management tools.  Consumers of the registry MUST NOT treat it as a
   complete list of all existing LoA definitions and MUST provide a way
   for the user to provide additional LoA Context Class definitions by
   other means.  It is not expected that all LoA definitions will be
   contained in this registry.

   The presense of an entry in the registy MUST NOT be taken to imply
   any semantics beyond the review done by the expert reviewers as part
   of the registration process.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document sets up a registry with IANA making the whole document
   a set of considerations for IANA.


7.  Security Considerations

   An implementor of MUST NOT treat the registry as a trust framework or
   federation and MUST NOT make any assumptions about the properties of
   any of the listed level of assurance URIs or their associated trust
   frameworks or federations based on their presense in the IANA
   registry.


8.  Acknowledgements

   Bob 'RL' Morgan, Scott Cantor, Lucy Lynch and John Bradley were
   involved in the initial discussions around this idea and contributed
   to the semantics of the registry.


9.  Changes

   Note to the RFC editor: This section should be removed before
   publication.





Johansson               Expires December 27, 2011               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            SAML 2.0 LoA Registry                June 2011


9.1.  since -00

   o  Clarified the security considerations wrt the status of the IANA
      registry.

   o  Text in the introduction that explains that the registry can be
      used by other protocols than SAML and that this is encouraged.

9.2.  since -01

   o  Allow for registration of short identifiers.


10.  Normative References

   [OASIS.sstc.saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01]
              Tiffany, E., Madsen, P., and S. Cantor, "Level of
              Assurance Authentication Context Profiles for SAML 2.0",
              July 2008.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.


Author's Address

   Leif Johansson
   NORDUNet
   Tulegatan 11
   Stockholm
   Sweden

   Email: leifj@nordu.net














Johansson               Expires December 27, 2011               [Page 6]