[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Network Working Group                                   T. Hardjono, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                       MIT
Intended status: Standards Track                           July 20, 2014
Expires: January 21, 2015


                  OAuth 2.0 Resource Set Registration
                  draft-hardjono-oauth-resource-reg-03

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.
   This revision of the specification is part of UMA V0.9.

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 January 21, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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 January 21, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Authorization Server Configuration Data . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Resource Set Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Scope Descriptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Resource Set Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Resource Set Registration API . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       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 . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.5.  List Resource Set Descriptions  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.  Error Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Example of Registering Resource Sets  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix A.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   There are various circumstances under which an OAuth 2.0 [OAuth2]
   resource server may need to communicate to its authorization server
   information about its protected resources:

   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 [OpenIDConnect], 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 an ecosystem of
      attribute providers (APs).  These APs effectively function as



Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


      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
   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 A bounded extent of access that is possible to perform on a
         resource set.  In authorization policy terminology, a scope is
         one of the potentially many "verbs" that can logically apply to
         a resource set ("object").  This specification enhances the
         OAuth concept of a "scope" by defining scopes 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 scopes, which together
         describe the universe of actions that _can be_ taken on this



Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


         protected resource set.  For example, a resource set
         representing a status update API might have scopes that include
         adding an update or reading updates.  A resource set
         representing a photo album might have scopes that include
         viewing a slideshow or printing the album.  The resource server
         registers resource sets and their scopes 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] or [OAuth-meta], 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.  The
   endpoint for this API SHOULD also require some form of authentication
   to access this endpoint, such as Client Authentication as described
   in [OAuth2] or a separate OAuth access token.  The methods of
   managing and validating these authentication credentials are out of
   scope of this specification.

   For any of the resource 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 Descriptions

   A scope is a bounded extent of access that is possible to perform on
   a resource set.  A scope description is a JSON document with the
   following properties:

   name  REQUIRED.  A human-readable string describing some scope
      (extent) of access.  This name MAY be used by the authorization
      server in its resource owner user interface for the resource
      owner.

   icon_uri  OPTIONAL.  A URI for a graphic icon representing the scope.
      The referenced icon MAY be used by the authorization server in its
      resource owner user interface for the resource owner.



Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   For example, this description characterizes a scope 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 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 scopes 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 URI reference MAY include a fragment
   identifier.  Scope descriptions MAY reside anywhere.  The resource
   server is not required to self-host scope descriptions and may wish
   to point to standardized scope descriptions residing elsewhere.
   Scope 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 scopes used in resource 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.  This registration process results in a
   unique identifier for the resource set that the resource server can
   later use for managing its description.

   The resource server is free to use its own methods of describing
   resource sets.  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.  This name MAY be used by the authorization server
      in its resource owner user interface for the resource owner.

   icon_uri  OPTIONAL.  A URI for a graphic icon representing the
      resource set.  The referenced icon MAY be used by the
      authorization server in its resource owner user interface for the
      resource owner.




Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   scopes  REQUIRED.  An array providing the URI references of scope
      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 for "verified email address", 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"
     ],
     "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.

   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 any 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 retrieving lists of
   such descriptions.

   (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 following structure:



Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   {rsreguri}/resource_set/{rsid}

   The method of authentication that the resource server uses SHOULD
   sufficient context to distinguish between identical resource set
   identifiers assigned by different resource servers.

   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.  It is
      RECOMMENDED to obscure resource set identifiers in order to avoid
      leaking personally identifiable information to clients that are
      exposed to scope information.

   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

   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 (see Section 3):

   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.




Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   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.  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/json
   ...

   (body contains JSON resource set description to be created)

   Form of a successful HTTP response:

   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Content-Type: application/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 resource owner to a specific user interface within the
   authorization server where the resource owner can immediately set or
   modify access policies for the resource set that was just registered.











Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   Form of a successful HTTP response:

   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Content-Type: application/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
   ...

   Form of a successful HTTP response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/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
   resource owner to a specific user interface within the authorization
   server where the resource owner can immediately set or modify access
   policies for the resource set that was read.







Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


2.3.3.  Update Resource Set Description

   Updates a previously registered resource set description using the
   PUT 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 an "update resource set description" HTTP request:

   PUT /resource_set/{rsid} HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/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
   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)
   ...






Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   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
   ...

   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.



Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   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
   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 descriptions as part of resource set
   registration for the purposes of [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.  However, Alice has not
   previously instructed Photoz to use CopMonkey to protect any photos
   of hers.




Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   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
   scopes of access: "view" (consisting of various read-only operations)
   and "all" (consisting of various reading, editing, and printing
   operations).  It defines two scope descriptions that represent these
   scopes, which it is able to reuse for all of its users (not just
   Alice), and ensures that these scope 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 description document available
   at http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/view:

   {
     "name": "View Photo and Related Info",
     "icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/reading-glasses.png"
   }

   Example of the broader scope description document available at
   http://photoz.example.com/dev/scopes/all:

   {
     "name": "All Actions",
     "icon_uri": "http://www.example.com/icons/galaxy.png"
   }



Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   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.

   {
     "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 OAuth resource set registration API, presenting
   its Alice-specific access token to use the API to register and assign
   an identifier to the resource set description.

   PUT /resource_set/112210f47de98100 HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/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.






Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Content-Type: application/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 protection to CopMonkey for access
   attempts made to this photo.

   Over time, as Alice uploads other photos and creates and organizes
   photo albums, 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:
















Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   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/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:

   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.










Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   PUT /resource_set/112210f47de98100 HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/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/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
   the public can get access without any 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"
   ...







Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


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, Cloud Identity Ltd

   o  Eve Maler, ForgeRock

   o  Lukasz Moren, Cloud Identity Ltd

   o  Christian Scholz, COMlounge GmbH

   o  Nat Sakimura, NRI

   o  Jacek Szpot, Newcastle University

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [OAuth2]   Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              October 2012, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749>.

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

10.2.  Informative References

   [OAuth-linktypes]
              Richer, J., "Link Type Registrations for OAuth 2", October
              2012,
              <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd>.

   [OAuth-meta]
              Sakimura, N., "JSON Metadata for OAuth Responses",
              December 2012,
              <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sakimura-oauth-meta>.







Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                 OAuth RReg                      July 2014


   [OpenIDConnect]
              Sakimura, N., "OpenID Connect Standard 1.0 - draft 07",
              December 2011,
              <http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.

   [UMA]      Hardjono, T., "User-Managed Access (UMA) Profile of OAuth
              2.0 (V0.9)", July 2014,
              <http://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/
              draft-uma-core.html>.

Appendix A.  Document History

   NOTE: To be removed by RFC editor before publication as an RFC.

   At 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.

   From rev 00 to 01:

   o  Made editorial changes based on comments from Amanda Anganes.

   o  Removed previously overlooked references to UMA-specific
      constructs in the normative section.

Author's Address

   Thomas Hardjono (editor)
   MIT

   Email: hardjono@mit.edu



















Hardjono                Expires January 21, 2015               [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/