idnits 2.17.1 draft-johansson-loa-registry-06.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 189 has weird spacing: '... Name foo-l...' == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (May 4, 2012) is 4375 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 (~~), 3 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 May 4, 2012 5 Expires: November 5, 2012 7 An IANA registry for Level of Assurance (LoA) Profiles 8 draft-johansson-loa-registry-06 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 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 [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 November 5, 2012. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2012 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3.1. Example Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.2. Note on the Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 4. Registration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 4.1. Reviewer Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 5. Registry Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 9. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 9.1. since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 9.2. since -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 9.3. since -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 9.4. since -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 9.5. since -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 9.6. since -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 75 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 80 1. Introduction 82 This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance 83 Profiles. 85 Quoting from sstc.saml-assurance-profile 86 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile] we find the following definition 87 of the concept of 'level of assurance': 89 _Many existing (and potential) SAML federation deployments have 90 adopted a "levels of assurance" (or LOA) model for categorizing the 91 wide variety of authentication methods into a small number of levels, 92 typically based on some notion of the strength of the authentication. 93 Federation members (service providers or "relying parties") then 94 decide which level of assurance is required to access specific 95 protected resources, based on some assessment of "value" or "risk"._ 97 Another definition of a 'level of assurance' is given in RFC4949 98 [RFC4949] which also identifies the roots of such profiles in the 99 NIST special publication series, in particular SP 800-63 [SP63]. 100 Level of Assurance profiles are used in various protocols, including 101 the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) version 2.0 and OpenID 102 Connect. 104 Several so called trust frameworks and identity federations now 105 exist, some of which define one or more Level of Assurance (LoA). 106 The purpose of this specification is to create an IANA registry where 107 such LoA definitions can be discovered. While the quote above 108 references SAML the notion of a "level of assurance" has gained wide- 109 spread acceptance and should be treated as a protocol-independent 110 concept. The proposed IANA registry attempts to reflects this. 112 Although the registry will contain URIs that reference SAML 113 Authentication Context Profiles other protocols may use such URIs to 114 identify levels of assurance definitions without relying on or 115 transmitting their SAML XML definitions. Use of the registry by 116 protocols other than SAML is encouraged. 118 For instance OpenID Connect defines the standard claim 'acr' as a 119 identifier that may reference a SAML Authentication Context Class 120 even though OpenID Connect is not itself based on XML or SAML. 122 Protocol designers who want to reference the registry should be aware 123 that registered LoAs may depend on assumptions that do not carry over 124 to all protocols and that such assumptions may vary among the 125 protocols for which the LoAs were originally registered. 127 2. Name of Registry 129 The name of the registry shall be "Level of Assurance Profile", in 130 plural "Level of Assurance Profiles". The term LoA is an 131 abbreviation of Level of Assurance. 133 3. Registration Template 135 The following information must be provided with each registration: 137 URI: A URI referencing a Level of Assurance Profile. This is the 138 registry key. 140 Context Class: A valid XML schema definition for the SAML 2.0 LoA 141 Context Class fulfilling the requirements of sstc.saml-assurance- 142 profile [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile]. The registry key 143 (the URI) is the unique identifier for the Context Class. 145 Name: A string uniquely and unambiguously identifying the LoA for 146 use in protocols where URIs are not appropriate. 148 Informational URL: A URL containing auxilliary information. This 149 URL must minimally reference contact information for the 150 administrative authority of the level of assurance definition and 151 must use either the http or https schemes. 153 Note that it is possible for a single SAML Authentication Context 154 Class to contain definitions of multiple URIs. In that case a 155 separate registration is to be used for each URI. Both the name and 156 the URI are to uniquely and unambigously identify the LoA. The name 157 is meant to be used in protocols where URIs are not appropriate. In 158 addition the requester is expected to provide basic contact 159 information and the name of the organization on behalf of which the 160 LoA definition is registered. 162 The Name is defined by the following ABNF (as defined in RFC5234 163 [RFC5234]): 164 label = ( ALPHA / DIGIT ) 165 name = label 1*( label / "-" / "." / "_" ) 166 The elements defined by the following ABNF productions represent a 167 set of reserved values for the Name element and are not to be 168 registered: 169 reserved = loa / al / num 170 loa = ( "l" / "L" ) ( "o" / "O" ) ( "a" / "A") *DIGIT 171 al = ( "a" / "A") ( "l" / "L") *DIGIT 172 num = *DIGIT 173 The reason for excluding these productions is a desire to avoid a 174 race to register overly generic LoA profiles under names like "AL1" 175 or "LOA2". 177 3.1. Example Registration 179 1. Name of requester: J. Random User 181 2. E-mail address of requester: jrandom@example.com 183 3. Organization of requester: Example Trust Frameworks LLP 185 4. Requested registration: 187 URI http://foo.example.com/assurance/loa-1 189 Name foo-loa-1 191 Information URL https://foo.example.com/assurance/ 192 SAML 2.0 Authentication Context Class Definition 193 194 201 203 204 205 Class identifier: 206 http://foo.example.com/assurance/loa-1 207 Defines Level 1 of the Foo Assurance Framework 208 209 210 211 212 213 217 218 219 220 221 223 3.2. Note on the Example 225 The example is borrowed (slightly modified) from sstc.saml-assurance- 226 profile [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile]. The example should not 227 be registered. 229 4. Registration Policy 231 The registry is to be operated under the "Expert Review" policy from 232 RFC5226 [RFC5226] employing a pool of experts. IANA is kindly asked 233 to do rough randomized load-balancing among the experts and also do 234 an initial review of each submission to ensure that the name is and 235 URI are unique within the registry. The review criteria are outlined 236 below. 238 Registrations that reference multiple LoAs in a consistent set of 239 policies - for instance when a trust framework defines multiple 240 levels of assurance - the registered LoA Name and URIs should be 241 consistently named so that they identified as belonging to the same 242 set of registrations. For instance fruitLoA1,fruitLoA2 and fruitLoA3 243 is preferred over apple,pear and banana when these Names refer to a 244 single set of policies defining 3 LoAs. 246 4.1. Reviewer Expectations 248 The expectation of the IANA LoA Registry is that it contain 249 registrations of bona fide Level of Assurance Profiles while not 250 presenting a very high bar for entry. 252 Expert reviewers are expected to verify that: 254 o the registration is consistent and that the provided XML fulfills 255 the requirements of sstc.saml-assurance-profile 256 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile]. 258 o the Name element is clearly associated with the registered LoA 259 Profile and is not a reserved value. 261 o the URI and Name elements are not already registered. 263 o the Information URL can be expected to be stable and permanent. 265 Note that multiple registrations may share a common Informational 266 URL. 268 The reviewers should exclude registrations where the Name does not 269 unambiguously identify the LoA definition or where the Name is a 270 simple variation on one of the reserved names. 272 Expert reviewers are expected to allow registrations made in good 273 faith that fulfil these requirements. 275 5. Registry Semantics 277 The intended use for this registry is to serve as a basis for 278 discovery of LoA definitions that might for instance be used by 279 protocol-specific (eg SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect) management tools. 281 Note that consumers of the registry, being implementations of 282 [OASIS.sstc.saml-ass], are expected to allow configuration of LoA 283 URIs at system deploy-time. If multiple sources of LOA URIs are 284 permitted in addition to the registry (eg manual input) then it is 285 important to avoid collisions with URIs found in the registry. 287 The presence of an entry in the registry does not imply any semantic 288 or quality beyond that which results from the review done by the 289 expert reviewer as part of the registration process. 291 6. IANA Considerations 293 This document sets up a registry with IANA making the whole document 294 a set of considerations for IANA. 296 7. Security Considerations 298 The registry is not a federation or trust framework. Consumers of 299 the registry are strongly advised to review the information about an 300 LoA before relying on it. 302 8. Acknowledgements 304 RL 'Bob' Morgan, Scott Cantor, Lucy Lynch and John Bradley were 305 involved in the initial discussions around this idea and contributed 306 to the semantics of the registry. The various versions of the draft 307 were socialized in the Kantara Federation Interoperability WG and in 308 other parts of the identity community. 310 9. Changes 312 Note to the RFC editor: This section should be removed before 313 publication. 315 9.1. since -00 317 o Clarified the security considerations wrt the status of the IANA 318 registry. 320 o Text in the introduction that explains that the registry can be 321 used by other protocols than SAML and that this is encouraged. 323 9.2. since -01 325 o Allow for registration of short identifiers. 327 9.3. since -02 329 o Make the text less explicitly dependent on SAML. 331 o Include OpenID Connect reference. 333 o Corrected the SSTC reference 335 o Reserve numeric-only LoA names (eg '1') 337 9.4. since -03 339 o comments from PROTO writeup, AD and document shepherd 341 o remove initial list of reviewers - it will be decided by IESG 343 o example registration 345 9.5. since -04 347 o ABNF fixes 349 o example registration 351 o policy for consistent naming across multiple related registrations 353 o minor nits 355 9.6. since -05 357 o clarified introduction by re-arranging paragraphs 359 o removed RFC2119-language 361 o clarified security considerations section 363 o clarified reviewer expectations 365 o corrected the example 367 o corrected reference to IANA Expert Review policy 369 o included ABNF reference 371 o expectations on Information URI stability 373 o limit the allowed Information URI scheme 374 o various nits 376 10. References 378 10.1. Normative References 380 [OASIS.sstc.saml-assurance-profile] 381 Morgan, RL., Madsen, PM., and S. Cantor, "SAML V2.0 382 Identity Assurance Profiles Version 1.0", November 2010. 384 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 385 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 387 [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 388 Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. 390 10.2. Informative References 392 [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", 393 RFC 4949, August 2007. 395 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 396 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 397 May 2008. 399 [SP63] NIST, "Electronic Authentication Guideline, NIST Special 400 Publication 800-63", June 2004. 402 Author's Address 404 Leif Johansson 405 NORDUNet 406 Tulegatan 11 407 Stockholm 408 Sweden 410 Email: leifj@nordu.net