idnits 2.17.1 draft-johansson-loa-registry-04.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 == Line 177 has weird spacing: '... Name foo-l...' -- The document date (February 18, 2012) is 4451 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). 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 February 18, 2012 5 Expires: August 21, 2012 7 An IANA registry for Level of Assurance (LoA) Profiles 8 draft-johansson-loa-registry-04 10 Abstract 12 This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance 13 (LoA) 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 Status of this Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2012. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. Name of Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 3.1. Example Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 3.2. Note on the Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 4. Registration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 4.1. Reviewer Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 5. Registry Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 9. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 9.1. since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 9.2. since -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 9.3. since -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 9.4. since -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 1. Introduction 75 This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance 76 Profiles. One definition of a 'level of assurance' is given in 77 RFC4949 [RFC4949] which also identifies the roots of such profiles in 78 the NIST special publication series, in particular SP 800-63 [SP63]. 79 Such profiles are used in various protocols, including SAML 2.0 and 80 OpenID Connect. For SAML 2.0 the registry entries reference XML 81 schema definitions that fulfil the requirements of sstc.saml- 82 assurance-profile [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile]. For OpenID 83 Connect the registry consists a controlled vocabulary for the 84 iso29115level claim type. Quoting from sstc.saml-assurance-profile 85 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile] we find the following definition 86 of the concept of level of assurance: 88 _Many existing (and potential) SAML federation deployments have 89 adopted a "levels of assurance" (or LOA) model for categorizing the 90 wide variety of authentication methods into a small number of levels, 91 typically based on some notion of the strength of the authentication. 92 Federation members (service providers or "relying parties") then 93 decide which level of assurance is required to access specific 94 protected resources, based on some assessment of "value" or "risk"._ 96 Several so called trust frameworks and identity federations now 97 exist, some of which define one or more Level of Assurance (LoA). 98 The purpose of this specification is to create an IANA registry where 99 such LoA definitions can be discovered. While the quote above 100 references SAML explicitly the notion of a "level of assurance" has 101 gained wide-spread acceptance and should be treated as a protocol- 102 independent concept. The proposed IANA registry attempts to reflects 103 this. 105 Although the registry will contain URIs that reference SAML 106 Authentication Context Profiles other protocols MAY use such URIs to 107 represent levels of assurance definitions without relying on their 108 SAML XML definitions. Use of the registry by protocols other than 109 SAML or OpenID Connect is encouraged. 111 1.1. Requirements Language 113 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 114 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 115 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 117 2. Name of Registry 119 The name of the registry shall be "SAML 2.0 LoA Context Class", in 120 plural "SAML LoA Context Classes". The term LoA is an abbreviation 121 of Level of Assurance. 123 3. Registration Template 125 The following information MUST be provided with each registration: 127 URI: A URI referencing a Level of Assurance Profile This is the 128 registry key. 130 Context Class: A valid XML schema definition for the SAML 2.0 LoA 131 Context Class fulfilling the requirements of sstc.saml-assurance- 132 profile [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile]. The registry key 133 (the URI) is the unique identifier for the Context Class. 135 Name: A string uniquely identifying the LoA for use in protocols 136 where URIs are not appropriate. 138 Informational URL: A URL containing auxilliary information. This 139 URL MUST minimally reference contact information for the 140 administrative authority of the level of assurance definition. 142 Note that it is not uncommon for a single XML Schema to contain 143 definitions of multiple URIs. In that case the registration MUST be 144 repeated for each URI. Both the name and the URI MUST uniquely 145 identify the LoA. The name is meant to be used in protocols where 146 URIs are not appropriate. In addition the requester is expected to 147 provide basic contact information and the name of the organization on 148 behalf of which the LoA definition is registered. 150 The name MUST fulfill the following ABNF: 151 label = ( ALPHA / DIGIT ) 152 name = label 1*( label / "-" / "." / "_" ) 154 The following ABNF productions represent reserved values and names 155 matching any of these productions MUST NOT be present in any 156 registration: 157 reserved = loa / al / num 158 loa = ( "l" / "L" ) ( "o" / "O" ) ( "a" / "A") *DIGIT 159 al = ( "a" / "A") ( "l" / "L") *DIGIT 160 num = *DIGIT 161 The reason for excluding these productions is a desire to avoid a 162 race to register overly generic LoA profiles under names like "AL1" 163 or "LOA2". 165 3.1. Example Registration 167 1. Name of requester: J. Random User 169 2. E-mail address of requester: jrandom@example.com 171 3. Organization of requester: Random Trust Frameworks LLP 173 4. Requested registration: 175 URI http://foo.example.com/assurance/loa1 177 Name foo-loa-1 179 SAML 2.0 Context Class Definition 180 181 188 190 191 192 Class identifier: 193 http://foo.example.com/assurance/loa1 194 Defines Level 1 of FAF 195 196 197 198 199 200 204 205 206 207 208 210 3.2. Note on the Example 212 The example is borrowed from sstc.saml-assurance-profile 213 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile] 215 4. Registration Policy 217 The registry is to be operated under the "Designated Expert Review" 218 policy from RFC5226 [RFC5226] employing a pool of experts. IANA is 219 kindly asked to do rough randomized load-balancing among the experts 220 and also do an initial review of each submission to ensure that the 221 name is unique within the registry.The initial pool of expert and the 222 review criteria are outlined below. 224 Registrations that reference multiple LoAs in a consistent set of 225 policies - for instance when a trust framework defines multiple 226 levels of assurance - the registered LoA Name and URIs SHOULD be 227 consistently named so as to be easily identified as belonging to the 228 same set of registrations. For instance fruitLoA1,fruitLoA2 and 229 fruitLoA3 is preferred over apple,pear and banana when these Names 230 refer to a single set of policies defining 3 LoAs. 232 4.1. Reviewer Expectations 234 The expectation of the IANA LoA Registry is that it contain bona fide 235 Level of Assurance Profiles while not presenting a very high bar for 236 entry. Expert reviewers SHOULD NOT place undue value in any 237 percieved or actual quality of the associated trust framework or 238 federation and SHOULD only exclude such registrations that in the 239 view of the experts do not represent bona fide attempts at defining 240 an LoA. 242 The designated experts are also expected to verify that the 243 registration is consistent and that the provided XML fulfills the 244 requirements of sstc.saml-assurance-profile 245 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile]. 247 5. Registry Semantics 249 The intended use for this registry is to serve as a basis for 250 discovery of LoA definitions that might for instance be used by 251 protocol-specific (eg SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect) management tools. 252 Consumers of the registry MUST NOT treat it as a complete list of all 253 existing LoA definitions and MUST provide a way for the user to 254 provide additional Level of Assurance Profile references by other 255 means. It is not expected that all LoA definitions will be contained 256 in this registry. 258 The presense of an entry in the registy MUST NOT be taken to imply 259 any semantics beyond the review done by the expert reviewers as part 260 of the registration process. 262 6. IANA Considerations 264 This document sets up a registry with IANA making the whole document 265 a set of considerations for IANA. 267 7. Security Considerations 269 An implementor of MUST NOT treat the registry as a trust framework or 270 federation and MUST NOT make any assumptions about the properties of 271 any of the listed level of assurance URIs or their associated trust 272 frameworks or federations based on their presense in the IANA 273 registry. 275 8. Acknowledgements 277 RL 'Bob' Morgan, Scott Cantor, Lucy Lynch and John Bradley were 278 involved in the initial discussions around this idea and contributed 279 to the semantics of the registry. The various versions of the draft 280 was socialized in the Kantara Federation Interoperability WG and in 281 other parts of the identity community. 283 9. Changes 285 Note to the RFC editor: This section should be removed before 286 publication. 288 9.1. since -00 290 o Clarified the security considerations wrt the status of the IANA 291 registry. 293 o Text in the introduction that explains that the registry can be 294 used by other protocols than SAML and that this is encouraged. 296 9.2. since -01 298 o Allow for registration of short identifiers. 300 9.3. since -02 302 o Make the text less explicitly dependent on SAML. 304 o Include OpenID Connect reference. 306 o Corrected the SSTC reference 308 o Reserve numeric-only LoA names (eg '1') 310 9.4. since -03 312 o comments from PROTO writeup, AD and document shepherd 314 o remove initial list of reviewers - it will be decided by IESG 316 o example registration 318 10. References 320 10.1. Normative References 322 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile] 323 Morgan, RL., Madsen, PM., and S. Cantor, "SAML V2.0 324 Identity Assurance Profiles Version 1.0", November 2010. 326 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 327 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 329 10.2. Informative References 331 [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", 332 RFC 4949, August 2007. 334 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 335 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 336 May 2008. 338 [SP63] NIST, "Electronic Authentication Guideline, NIST Special 339 Publication 800-63", June 2004. 341 Author's Address 343 Leif Johansson 344 NORDUNet 345 Tulegatan 11 346 Stockholm 347 Sweden 349 Email: leifj@nordu.net