idnits 2.17.1 draft-johansson-loa-registry-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 29, 2011) is 4500 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Johansson 3 Internet-Draft NORDUNet 4 Intended status: Informational December 29, 2011 5 Expires: July 1, 2012 7 An IANA registry for Level of Assurance Profiles 8 draft-johansson-loa-registry-03 10 Abstract 12 This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance 13 Profiles. The registry is intended to be used as an aid to 14 discovering such LoA definitions in protocols that use an LoA 15 concept, including SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect. 17 Requirements Language 19 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 21 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 1, 2012. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Name of Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 4. Registration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 4.1. Reviewer Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 4.2. Designated Experts Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 5. Registry Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 9. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 9.1. since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 9.2. since -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 9.3. since -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 1. Introduction 76 This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance 77 Profiles. Such profiles are used in various protocols, including 78 SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect. For SAML 2.0 the registry entries 79 reference XML schema definitions that fulfil the requirements of 80 sstc.saml-assurance-profile [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile]. For 81 OpenID Connect the registry consists a controlled vocabulary for the 82 iso29115level claim type. Quoting from sstc.saml-assurance-profile 83 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile] we find the following definition 84 of the concept of level of assurance: 86 _Many existing (and potential) SAML federation deployments have 87 adopted a "levels of assurance" (or LOA) model for categorizing the 88 wide variety of authentication methods into a small number of levels, 89 typically based on some notion of the strength of the authentication. 90 Federation members (service providers or "relying parties") then 91 decide which level of assurance is required to access specific 92 protected resources, based on some assessment of "value" or "risk"._ 94 Several so called trust frameworks and identity federations now 95 exist, some of which define one or more Level of Assurance (LoA). 96 The purpose of this specification is to create an IANA registry where 97 such LoA definitions can be discovered. While the quote above 98 references SAML explicitly the notion of a "level of assurance" has 99 gained wide-spread acceptance and should be treated as a protocol- 100 independent concept. The proposed IANA registry attempts to reflects 101 this. 103 Although the registry will contain URIs that reference SAML 104 Authentication Context Profiles other protocols MAY use such URIs to 105 represent levels of assurance definitions without relying on their 106 SAML XML definitions. Use of the registry by protocols other than 107 SAML or OpenID Connect is encouraged. 109 2. Name of Registry 111 The name of the registry shall be "SAML 2.0 LoA Context Class", in 112 plural "SAML LoA Context Classes". The term LoA is an abbreviation 113 of Level of Assurance. 115 3. Registration Template 117 The following information MUST be provided with each registration: 119 URI: A URI referencing a Level of Assurance Profile This is the 120 registry key. 122 Context Class: A valid XML schema definition for the SAML 2.0 LoA 123 Context Class fulfilling the requirements of sstc.saml-assurance- 124 profile [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile]. The registry key 125 (the URI) is the unique identifier for the Context Class. 127 Name: A string uniquely identifying the LoA for use in protocols 128 where URIs are not appropriate. 130 Informational URL: A URL containing auxilliary information. This 131 URL MUST minimally reference contact information for the 132 administrative authority of the level of assurance definition. 134 Note that it is not uncommon for a single XML Schema to contain 135 definitions of multiple URIs. In that case the registration MUST be 136 repeated for each URI. Both the name and the URI must uniquely 137 identify the LoA. The name is meant to be used in protocols where 138 URIs are not appropriate. 140 The name must fulfill the following ABNF: 141 label = ( ALPHA / DIGIT ) 142 name = label 1*( label / '-' / '.' / '_' ) 144 The following ABNF productions represent reserved values and names 145 matching any of these productions MUST NOT be present in any 146 registration: 147 reserved = loa / al / num 148 loa = ( 'l' / 'L' ) ( 'o' / 'O' ) ( 'a' / 'A') *DIGIT 149 al = ( 'a' / 'A') ( 'l' / 'L') *DIGIT 150 num = *DIGIT 152 4. Registration Policy 154 The registry is to be operated under the "Designated Expert Review" 155 policy from RFC5226 [RFC5226] employing a pool of experts. IANA is 156 kindly asked to do rough randomized load-balancing among the experts 157 and also do an initial review of each submission to ensure that the 158 name is unique within the registry.The initial pool of expert and the 159 review criteria are outlined below. 161 4.1. Reviewer Expectations 163 The expectation of the IANA LoA Registry is that it contain bona fide 164 Level of Assurance Profiles while not presenting a very high bar for 165 entry. Expert reviewers SHOULD NOT place undue value in any 166 percieved or actual quality of the associated trust framework or 167 federation and SHOULD only exclude such registrations that in the 168 view of the experts do not represent bona fide attempts at defining 169 an LoA. 171 The designated experts are also expected to verify that the 172 registration is consistent and that the provided XML fulfills the 173 requirements of sstc.saml-assurance-profile 174 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile]. 176 4.2. Designated Experts Pool 178 The initial pool of experts is (in no particular order): 180 o TBD 182 5. Registry Semantics 184 The intended use for this registry is to serve as a basis for 185 discovery of LoA definitions that might for instance be used by 186 protocol-specific (eg SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect) management tools. 187 Consumers of the registry MUST NOT treat it as a complete list of all 188 existing LoA definitions and MUST provide a way for the user to 189 provide additional Level of Assurance Profile references by other 190 means. It is not expected that all LoA definitions will be contained 191 in this registry. 193 The presense of an entry in the registy MUST NOT be taken to imply 194 any semantics beyond the review done by the expert reviewers as part 195 of the registration process. 197 6. IANA Considerations 199 This document sets up a registry with IANA making the whole document 200 a set of considerations for IANA. 202 7. Security Considerations 204 An implementor of MUST NOT treat the registry as a trust framework or 205 federation and MUST NOT make any assumptions about the properties of 206 any of the listed level of assurance URIs or their associated trust 207 frameworks or federations based on their presense in the IANA 208 registry. 210 8. Acknowledgements 212 Bob 'RL' Morgan, Scott Cantor, Lucy Lynch and John Bradley were 213 involved in the initial discussions around this idea and contributed 214 to the semantics of the registry. The various versions of the draft 215 was socialized in the Kantara Federation Interoperability WG and in 216 other parts of the identity community. 218 9. Changes 220 Note to the RFC editor: This section should be removed before 221 publication. 223 9.1. since -00 225 o Clarified the security considerations wrt the status of the IANA 226 registry. 228 o Text in the introduction that explains that the registry can be 229 used by other protocols than SAML and that this is encouraged. 231 9.2. since -01 233 o Allow for registration of short identifiers. 235 9.3. since -02 237 o Make the text less explicitly dependent on SAML. 239 o Include OpenID Connect reference. 241 o Corrected the SSTC reference 243 o Reserve numeric-only LoA names (eg '1') 245 10. Normative References 247 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile] 248 Morgan, RL., Madsen, PM., and S. Cantor, "SAML V2.0 249 Identity Assurance Profiles Version 1.0", November 2010. 251 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 252 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 254 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 255 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 256 May 2008. 258 Author's Address 260 Leif Johansson 261 NORDUNet 262 Tulegatan 11 263 Stockholm 264 Sweden 266 Email: leifj@nordu.net