-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
/
draft-uma-core.html
700 lines (648 loc) · 50.9 KB
/
draft-uma-core.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html lang="en"><head><title>User-Managed Access (UMA) Core Protocol</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="description" content="User-Managed Access (UMA) Core Protocol">
<meta name="generator" content="xml2rfc v1.35 (http://xml.resource.org/)">
<style type='text/css'><!--
body {
font-family: verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
font-size: small; color: #000; background-color: #FFF;
margin: 2em;
}
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
font-family: helvetica, monaco, "MS Sans Serif", arial, sans-serif;
font-weight: bold; font-style: normal;
}
h1 { color: #900; background-color: transparent; text-align: right; }
h3 { color: #333; background-color: transparent; }
td.RFCbug {
font-size: x-small; text-decoration: none;
width: 30px; height: 30px; padding-top: 2px;
text-align: justify; vertical-align: middle;
background-color: #000;
}
td.RFCbug span.RFC {
font-family: monaco, charcoal, geneva, "MS Sans Serif", helvetica, verdana, sans-serif;
font-weight: bold; color: #666;
}
td.RFCbug span.hotText {
font-family: charcoal, monaco, geneva, "MS Sans Serif", helvetica, verdana, sans-serif;
font-weight: normal; text-align: center; color: #FFF;
}
table.TOCbug { width: 30px; height: 15px; }
td.TOCbug {
text-align: center; width: 30px; height: 15px;
color: #FFF; background-color: #900;
}
td.TOCbug a {
font-family: monaco, charcoal, geneva, "MS Sans Serif", helvetica, sans-serif;
font-weight: bold; font-size: x-small; text-decoration: none;
color: #FFF; background-color: transparent;
}
td.header {
font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;
vertical-align: top; width: 33%;
color: #FFF; background-color: #666;
}
td.author { font-weight: bold; font-size: x-small; margin-left: 4em; }
td.author-text { font-size: x-small; }
/* info code from SantaKlauss at http://www.madaboutstyle.com/tooltip2.html */
a.info {
/* This is the key. */
position: relative;
z-index: 24;
text-decoration: none;
}
a.info:hover {
z-index: 25;
color: #FFF; background-color: #900;
}
a.info span { display: none; }
a.info:hover span.info {
/* The span will display just on :hover state. */
display: block;
position: absolute;
font-size: smaller;
top: 2em; left: -5em; width: 15em;
padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #333;
color: #900; background-color: #EEE;
text-align: left;
}
a { font-weight: bold; }
a:link { color: #900; background-color: transparent; }
a:visited { color: #633; background-color: transparent; }
a:active { color: #633; background-color: transparent; }
p { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; }
p.copyright { font-size: x-small; }
p.toc { font-size: small; font-weight: bold; margin-left: 3em; }
table.toc { margin: 0 0 0 3em; padding: 0; border: 0; vertical-align: text-top; }
td.toc { font-size: small; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: text-top; }
ol.text { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; }
ul.text { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; }
li { margin-left: 3em; }
/* RFC-2629 <spanx>s and <artwork>s. */
em { font-style: italic; }
strong { font-weight: bold; }
dfn { font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; }
cite { font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; }
tt { color: #036; }
tt, pre, pre dfn, pre em, pre cite, pre span {
font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace; font-size: small;
}
pre {
text-align: left; padding: 4px;
color: #000; background-color: #CCC;
}
pre dfn { color: #900; }
pre em { color: #66F; background-color: #FFC; font-weight: normal; }
pre .key { color: #33C; font-weight: bold; }
pre .id { color: #900; }
pre .str { color: #000; background-color: #CFF; }
pre .val { color: #066; }
pre .rep { color: #909; }
pre .oth { color: #000; background-color: #FCF; }
pre .err { background-color: #FCC; }
/* RFC-2629 <texttable>s. */
table.all, table.full, table.headers, table.none {
font-size: small; text-align: center; border-width: 2px;
vertical-align: top; border-collapse: collapse;
}
table.all, table.full { border-style: solid; border-color: black; }
table.headers, table.none { border-style: none; }
th {
font-weight: bold; border-color: black;
border-width: 2px 2px 3px 2px;
}
table.all th, table.full th { border-style: solid; }
table.headers th { border-style: none none solid none; }
table.none th { border-style: none; }
table.all td {
border-style: solid; border-color: #333;
border-width: 1px 2px;
}
table.full td, table.headers td, table.none td { border-style: none; }
hr { height: 1px; }
hr.insert {
width: 80%; border-style: none; border-width: 0;
color: #CCC; background-color: #CCC;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body>
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<table summary="layout" width="66%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td><table summary="layout" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1">
<tr><td class="header">Network Working Group</td><td class="header">C. Scholz, Ed.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header">Internet-Draft</td><td class="header">COM.lounge GmbH</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header">Intended status: Standards Track</td><td class="header">P. Bryan</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header">Expires: June 19, 2011</td><td class="header">?</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header"> </td><td class="header">M. Machulak</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header"> </td><td class="header">Newcastle University</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header"> </td><td class="header">E. Maler</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header"> </td><td class="header">PayPal</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header"> </td><td class="header">December 16, 2010</td></tr>
</table></td></tr></table>
<h1><br />User-Managed Access (UMA) Core Protocol<br />draft-uma-core-v1-00.txt</h1>
<h3>Abstract</h3>
<p>This specification defines the User-Managed Access (UMA) core protocol. This protocol provides a method for users to control access to their protected resources, residing on any number of host sites, through an authorization manager that makes access decisions based on user policy.
</p>
<p>This document is a product of the User-Managed Access Work Group of the Kantara Initiative. It is currently under active development. It has not yet been submitted to the IETF. The User-Managed Access Work Group operates under Kantara IPR Policy - Option Patent and Copyright: Reciprocal Royalty Free with Opt-Out to Reasonable And Non discriminatory (RAND) and the publication of this document is governed by the policies outlined in this option.
</p>
<h3>Status of this Memo</h3>
<p>
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full
conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.</p>
<p>
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/.</p>
<p>
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.”</p>
<p>
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 19, 2011.</p>
<h3>Copyright Notice</h3>
<p>
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
<p>
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.</p>
<a name="toc"></a><br /><hr />
<h3>Table of Contents</h3>
<p class="toc">
<a href="#anchor1">1.</a>
Introduction<br />
<a href="#anchor2">1.1.</a>
Notational Conventions<br />
<a href="#anchor3">1.2.</a>
Terminology<br />
<a href="#anchor4">2.</a>
Step 1: Authorizing user introduces host to AM<br />
<a href="#anchor5">2.1.</a>
Host looks up AM metadata<br />
<a href="#anchor6">2.2.</a>
Host dynamically registers with AM<br />
<a href="#anchor7">2.3.</a>
Host obtains host access token<br />
<a href="#anchor8">2.4.</a>
Host registers resources to be protected<br />
<a href="#anchor9">3.</a>
Step 2: Requester gets access token from AM<br />
<a href="#anchor10">3.1.</a>
Sharing profiles<br />
<a href="#anchor11">4.</a>
Step 3: Requester wields access token at host to gain access<br />
<a href="#anchor12">4.1.</a>
Requester attempts access<br />
<a href="#anchor13">4.2.</a>
Host asks AM to validate requester access token<br />
<a href="#anchor14">4.3.</a>
Valid response<br />
<a href="#anchor15">4.4.</a>
Error responses<br />
<a href="#anchor16">5.</a>
Security Considerations<br />
<a href="#anchor17">6.</a>
Conformance<br />
<a href="#anchor18">Appendix A.</a>
Acknowledgements<br />
<a href="#anchor19">Appendix B.</a>
Document History<br />
<a href="#rfc.references1">7.</a>
Normative References<br />
<a href="#rfc.authors">§</a>
Authors' Addresses<br />
</p>
<br clear="all" />
<a name="anchor1"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.1"></a><h3>1.
Introduction</h3>
<p>The User-Managed Access (UMA) core protocol provides a method, based on <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>[OAuth2]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> (currently draft 10), for users to control access to their protected resources, residing on any number of host sites, through an authorization manager that makes access decisions based on user policy.
</p>
<p>For example, a web user (authorizing user) can authorize a web app (requester) to gain one-time or ongoing access to a resource containing his home address stored at a "personal data store" service (host), by telling the host to act on access decisions made by his authorization decision-making service (authorization manager or AM). The requesting party might be an e-commerce company whose site is acting on behalf of the user himself to assist him in arranging for shipping a purchased item, or it might be his friend who is using an online address book service to collect addresses, or it might be a survey company that uses an online service to compile population demographics.
</p>
<p>In enterprise settings, application access management often involves letting back-office applications serve only as policy enforcement points (PEPs), depending entirely on access decisions coming from a central policy decision point (PDP) to govern the access they give to requesters. This separation eases auditing and allows policy administration to scale in several dimensions. UMA makes use of this separation, letting the authorizing user serve as a policy administrator crafting authorization strategies on his or her own behalf.
</p>
<p>The UMA protocol profiles and extends <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>[OAuth2]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a>, applying two instances of OAuth flow patterns among the entities.
</p>
<p>First, UMA allows a host to trust an AM to which it has been introduced dynamically. To accomplish this, the host acquires a host access token that it can subsequently use in interacting with a set of host-specific protected resources at the AM. These resources can be considered an OAuth-protected API. Thus, when the host accesses these resources, it acts in the role of an OAuth client while the AM acts in the dual roles of an OAuth resource server and authorization server.
</p>
<p>Subsequently, when a requester interacts with the AM and the host in the course of getting access to some protected resource on the host, the requester acts in the role of an OAuth client to get and use a requester access token; the host acts in the role of an OAuth resource server; and the AM acts in the role of an OAuth authorization server.
</p>
<p>UMA has the following major steps: </p>
<ol class="text">
<li>The authorizing user introduces a host to an AM.
</li>
<li>The requester gets an access token from the AM.
</li>
<li>The requester wields the access token at the host to gain access.
</li>
</ol>
<a name="anchor2"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.1.1"></a><h3>1.1.
Notational Conventions</h3>
<p>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 <a class='info' href='#RFC2119'>[RFC2119]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.</span><span>)</span></a>.
</p>
<p>This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of <a class='info' href='#I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging'>[I‑D.ietf‑httpbis‑p1‑messaging]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., and J. Reschke, “HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing,” March 2010.</span><span>)</span></a>. Additionally, the realm and auth-param rules are included from <a class='info' href='#RFC2617'>[RFC2617]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, “HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication,” June 1999.</span><span>)</span></a>.
</p>
<p>Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values are case sensitive.
</p>
<a name="anchor3"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.1.2"></a><h3>1.2.
Terminology</h3>
<p></p>
<blockquote class="text"><dl>
<dt>authorizing user</dt>
<dd>An UMA-defined variant of an OAuth resource owner; a web user who configures an authorization manager with policies that control how it makes access decisions when a requester attempts to access a protected resource at a host.
</dd>
<dt>authorization manager</dt>
<dd>An UMA-defined variant of an OAuth authorization server that carries out an authorizing user's policies governing access to a protected resource.
</dd>
<dt>protected resource</dt>
<dd>An access-restricted resource at a host.
</dd>
<dt>host</dt>
<dd>An UMA-defined variant of an OAuth resource server that enforces access to the protected resources it hosts, as decided by an authorization manager.
</dd>
<dt>host access token</dt>
<dd>An access token representing the authorizing user's consent for a host to trust a particular authorization manager for access decisions about resources hosted there.
</dd>
<dt>claim</dt>
<dd>A statement of the value or values of one or more identity attributes of a requesting party. Claims are conveyed by a requester on behalf of a requesting party to an authorization manager in an attempt to satisfy an authorizing user's policy.
</dd>
<dt>requester</dt>
<dd>An UMA-defined variant of an OAuth client that seeks access to a protected resource.
</dd>
<dt>requester access token</dt>
<dd>An access token representing the authorizing user's consent for a requester's access to particular resources at a host.
</dd>
<dt>requesting party</dt>
<dd>A web user, or a corporation (or other legal person), that uses a requester to seek access to a protected resource.
</dd>
</dl></blockquote>
<a name="anchor4"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.2"></a><h3>2.
Step 1: Authorizing user introduces host to AM</h3>
<p>In order for a host to be able to delegate authorization to an AM, the authorizing user must introduce the host to the AM. The result is as follows: </p>
<ul class="text">
<li>The host has received metadata about the AM, such as OAuth endpoints.
</li>
<li>The host has received an OAuth access token (known as the host access token) that represents the authorizing user's approval for the host to work with this AM in protecting resources. This token is used when the host makes requests at host-specific AM endpoints.
</li>
<li>The AM has optionally acquired information about scopes on the host it is supposed to protect on behalf of the user.
</li>
</ul>
<p>The following substeps are performed in order to achieve these results: </p>
<ol class="text">
<li>The host looks up the AM's metadata and learns about its API endpoints and supported formats.
</li>
<li>If the host has not yet obtained an OAuth client identifier and optional secret from the AM, it registers with and binds to the AM dynamically, for example via <a class='info' href='#Dyn-Reg'>Dyn-Reg<span> (</span><span class='info'>Scholz, C., “OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> [Dyn‑Reg].
</li>
<li>The host obtains an access token from the AM with the authorizing user's consent, by following the OAuth 2.0 web server profile.
</li>
<li>The host optionally registers scopes with the AM that are intended to be protected, via [[draft-uma-resource-reg]].
</li>
</ol>
<a name="anchor5"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.2.1"></a><h3>2.1.
Host looks up AM metadata</h3>
<p>The host needs to learn the OAuth- and UMA-related endpoints of the AM before they can begin interacting. The authorizing user might provide the AM's location to get the host started in this process, for example typing a URL into a web form field or clicking a button, or the host might have been configured to work with a single AM without requiring any user input. The exact process is beyond the scope of this specification, and it is up to the host to choose a method.
</p>
<p>From the data provided, discovered, or configured, the host MUST retrieve the hostmeta document as described in section 2 of <a class='info' href='#hostmeta'>hostmeta<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “Web Host Metadata,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> [hostmeta]. For example, if the user supplied "am.example.com" as the authorization manager's domain, the host creates the URL "https://am.example.com/.well-known/host-meta" and performs a GET request on it.
</p>
<p>The AM MUST provide a XRD 1.0 formatted document at the hostmeta location, documenting the following: </p>
<ul class="text">
<li>One set of OAuth 2.0 end-user authorization and token endpoints for the host to use
</li>
<li>One set of OAuth 2.0 end-user authorization and token endpoints for requesters to use, which the host will need to provide to unauthorized requesters
</li>
<li>Optionally, the location of an UMA token validation endpoint for the host to use in validating access tokens received from a requester in step 3
</li>
<li>At least one access token format the AM produces
</li>
<li>Any claims formats the AM supports
</li>
</ul>
<p>(Note that the method of endpoint discovery defined here is intended to be compatible with the ultimate dynamic discovery, registration, and binding solution proposed by the OAuth group. The UMA group has proposed a generic solution at <a class='info' href='#Dyn-Reg'>Dyn-Reg<span> (</span><span class='info'>Scholz, C., “OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> [Dyn‑Reg], with which this discovery step is compatible.)
</p>
<p>Property type values for access token and claim format information: </p>
<blockquote class="text"><dl>
<dt>http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/token_formats</dt>
<dd> REQUIRED (one or more). Access token format produced by this AM. Options are (@@TBS).
</dd>
<dt>http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/claim_formats</dt>
<dd> OPTIONAL (zero or more). Claim format supported by this AM. Options are (@@TBS).
</dd>
</dl></blockquote>
<p>Link relationship rel values for the endpoint URLs for the host: </p>
<blockquote class="text"><dl>
<dt>http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/host_user_uri</dt>
<dd>REQUIRED. Available HTTP methods are as defined by [[OAuth20]] for an end-user authorization endpoint. Supplies the endpoint hosts should use to gather the consent of the authorizing user for a host-AM relationship.
</dd>
<dt>http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/host_token_uri</dt>
<dd>REQUIRED. Available HTTP methods are as defined by [[OAuth20]] for a token issuance endpoint. Supplies the endpoint hosts should use to ask for a host access token.
</dd>
<dt>http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/host_registration_uri</dt>
<dd>REQUIRED. Supports the POST HTTP method, accompanied by a host access token. Supplies the endpoint hosts should use for registering information with the AM, such as descriptions of resources that are to be protected by this AM (as defined in [[draft-uma-resource-reg]]). The AM SHOULD require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism such as TLS when the host sends requests to the host registration endpoint.
</dd>
<dt>http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/host_token_validation_uri</dt>
<dd>OPTIONAL. Supports the POST HTTP method, accompanied by a host access token. Supplies the endpoint hosts should use to request validation of access tokens presented to them by requesters in Step 3. This endpoint SHOULD require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism such as TLS.
</dd>
</dl></blockquote>
<p>Link relationship rel values for the endpoint URLs for the requester: </p>
<blockquote class="text"><dl>
<dt>http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/req_user_uri</dt>
<dd> REQUIRED. Available HTTP methods are as defined by <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>[OAuth2]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> for a user authorization URL. Supplies the user authorization URL requesters should use to gather the consent of the authorizing user for user delegation flows in synchronous person-to-service sharing scenarios. (See Section @@TODO for the definition of this UMA-specific client profile.) This endpoint SHOULD require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism such as TLS.
</dd>
<dt>http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/req_token_uri</dt>
<dd> REQUIRED. Available HTTP methods are as defined by <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>[OAuth2]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> for a token issuance URL. Supplies the token URL requesters should use to ask for an access token in step 2. This endpoint SHOULD require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism such as TLS.
</dd>
</dl></blockquote>
<p>For example:
</p><div style='display: table; width: 0; margin-left: 3em; margin-right: auto'><pre>
<!-- Applies to both hosts and requesters -->
<Property
type="http://wguma.org/confluence/display/uma/token_formats">
saml
</Property>
<Property
type="http://wguma.org/confluence/display/uma/claim_formats">
json
</Property>
<!-- Host "authorization API" -->
<Link
rel="http://wguma.org/confluence/display/uma/host_token_uri"
href="https://am.example.com/host/token_uri"></Link>
<Link
rel="http://wguma.org/confluence/display/uma/host_user_uri"
href="https://am.example.com/host/user_uri"></Link>
<Link rel="http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/host_registration_uri"
href="https://am.example.com/host/resource_details_uri"></Link>
<Link
rel="http://wguma.org/confluence/display/uma/host_token_validation_uri"
href="https://am.example.com/host/token_validation_uri"></Link>
<!-- Requester token-getting endpoints -->
<Link rel="http://wguma.org/confluence/display/uma/req_token_uri"
href="https://am.example.com/requester/token_uri"></Link>
<Link rel="http://wguma.org/confluence/display/uma/req_user_uri"
href="https://am.example.com/requester/user_uri"></Link>
</pre></div>
<a name="anchor6"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.2.2"></a><h3>2.2.
Host dynamically registers with AM</h3>
<p>If the host has not already obtained a client identifier and optional secret from this AM previously, in this substep it MUST do so, if the AM supports dynamic registration, in order to engage in OAuth-based interactions with it. It is anticipated that the OAuth group will define a solution for dynamic registration and client-authorization server binding; the UMA proposal for this is at <a class='info' href='#Dyn-Reg'>Dyn-Reg<span> (</span><span class='info'>Scholz, C., “OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> [Dyn‑Reg].
</p>
<a name="anchor7"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.2.3"></a><h3>2.3.
Host obtains host access token</h3>
<p>In this substep, the host acquires a host access token from the AM that represents the approval of the authorizing user for the host to trust this AM for protecting resources for this user.
</p>
<p>The host MUST use the <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>OAuth2<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> [OAuth2] web server profile (@@TODO: subsequently profile it to use UMA recursively for claims-getting purposes?), utilizing the end-user authorization and token endpoints discovered earlier. The host acts in the role of an OAuth client; the authorizing user acts in the role of an OAuth end-user resource owner; and the AM, though the provided endpoint URLs, acts in the role of an OAuth authorization server.
</p>
<a name="anchor8"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.2.4"></a><h3>2.4.
Host registers resources to be protected</h3>
<p>Once the host has received an access token, in this substep it MAY, immediately or at any time until user authorization is revoked, present the token at the AM's host_registration_uri endpoint in the manner defined in [[draft-uma-resource-reg]] in order to register resources that this AM needs to protect.
</p>
<p>Note that the host is free to offer the option to protect any subset of the user's resources using different AMs or other means entirely, or to protect some resources and not others; any such partitioning by the host or user is outside the scope of this specification.
</p>
<a name="anchor9"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.3"></a><h3>3.
Step 2: Requester gets access token from AM</h3>
<p>In this step, the requester in the role of an OAuth client seeks a requester access token from the AM in the role of OAuth authorization server.
</p>
<p>This step extends OAuth to add a third possible response from the AM in addition to successful vs. unsuccessful access token responses. The third option is to ask for more information from the requesting party, in the form of claims. It also profiles all OAuth profiles to specify how the requester must supply scope values in asking for authorization.
</p>
<p>This step has the following substeps: </p>
<ol class="text">
<li>Requester attempts to access resource at host and is given AM's req_token_uri endpoint (and also AM's req_user_uri endpoint, depending on the sharing profile).
</li>
<li>Requester visits req_token_uri endpoint, indicating its desired scope of access.
</li>
<li>AM either provides access token, rejects authorization, or asks requester for claims.
</li>
<li>Requester provides claims as requested, until access token request either succeeds or fails definitively.
</li>
</ol>
<p>The substep detail is as follows.
</p>
<p>If the requester knows, by whatever means, the access token URL for the AM that is protecting the desired resource and how to express its desired scope of access without first approaching the host, it MAY proceed directly to that URL. Alternatively, it MAY attempt to access the resource directly at the host; if it does not present an access token, the host MUST respond with a challenge, using the "HTTP 401 Unauthorized" code and providing the req_token_uri endpoint (and the req_user_uri endpoint, depending on the sharing profile) in the HTTP header "WWW-Authenticate".
</p>
<p>The requester submits a GET request to the access token URL, providing the desired scope of access in the "scope" parameter. [@@TBS: Rework this to describe how the desired scope information is provided (e.g. whether it is in plain text or is passed through in protected form from the host) and whether there are extension points to allow other information to be provided. Provide code examples.]
</p>
<p>The requester performs a GET on the access token URL, using the standard HTTP "Accept" header to express the acceptable media type(s) of any claims-required list. The AM responds in one of three ways: </p>
<ul class="text">
<li>If the AM requires no claims from the requester in order to grant authorization based on user policy, it responds with a successful OAuth access token response. The response MAY include a refresh token URL for the requester to attempt to use subsequently in reusing this authorization to generate future access tokens.
</li>
<li>If the requester is definitively not authorized according to user policy, the AM responds with an unsuccessful OAuth access token response and the authorization negotiation phase ends.
</li>
<li>If user policy demands more information from the requester, the AM responds with a claims-required response containing a claims-required list. The list SHOULD use the media type that was indicated by the requester as acceptable.
</li>
</ul>
<p>On receiving a claims-required list, the requester performs a POST to the authorization negotiation URL supplying a claims document, specifying its type in the "Content-Type" header. The AM rejects the document if it does not recognize its type. If the AM accepts the document, it responds with a successful or unsuccessful access token response as detailed above, or with another claims-required response. [Eventually need a special claims response that allows for the trusted-claims model to unfold.]
</p>
<p>If the access token request is successful, the access token supplied MUST be in one of the formats contemporaneously advertised in the AM's host-meta metadata.
</p>
<p>This specification does not define the formats of required-claims lists and claims documents. It may ultimately put minimum conformance requirements on requesters and AMs to handle particular claim formats defined in other specifications, as well as specifying requirements that claim formats seeking consideration for use in UMA must meet. One candidate specification for lightweight claims requests and responses is <a class='info' href='#Claims2.0'>Claims2.0<span> (</span><span class='info'>Maler, E., “Claims 2.0,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> [Claims2.0].
</p>
<a name="anchor10"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.3.1"></a><h3>3.1.
Sharing profiles</h3>
<p>Access to the protected resource may be sought by one of a variety of parties. In OAuth, typically the same end-user resource owner (who authenticates to the authorization server to grant access) also operates the client application; UMA refers to this as "person-to-self sharing" (in technical terms, an authorizing user who is the same natural person as a requesting party operating a requester). UMA also allows for "person-to-person sharing", in which the requesting party is a natural person different from the authorizing user, and "person-to-organization sharing", in which the requesting party is a corporation or other legal person.
</p>
<p>A requester mediating person-to-person or person-to-organization sharing MUST use an OAuth profile (UMA-extended to include claims support, as specified above) that does not involve use of the req_user_uri endpoint, to allow for issuing an access token that does not require the authorizing user's presence at the time of issuance. A requester mediating person-to-self sharing MUST use OAuth profile (UMA-extended to include claims support, as specified above) that involves use of the req_user_uri endpoint, such that this person synchronously authorizes access through first presenting user credentials to the AM.
</p>
<a name="anchor11"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.4"></a><h3>4.
Step 3: Requester wields access token at host to gain access</h3>
<p>In this step, the requester in the role of an OAuth client interacts with the host in the role of an OAuth resource server in order to gain access to the protected resource. This step extends OAuth to require the host to validate the token at the authorization manager instead of locally.
</p>
<p>(This step is currently defined to provide a baseline of functionality and security that relies on non-cryptographic methods such as a short-lived requester access token; it is anticipated that OAuth-compatible digital signature-based methods for authenticating the requester more strongly will be added.) This step has the following substeps: </p>
<ol class="text">
<li>Requester presents the requester access token to the host in attempting to access desired resource.
</li>
<li>Host asks AM to validate the requester access token.
</li>
<li>AM validates the token and responds with either a valid response or an error response; host passes through the result.
</li>
</ol>
<a name="anchor12"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.4.1"></a><h3>4.1.
Requester attempts access</h3>
<p>The requester attempts to access the protected resource at the host by presenting the request access token it was issued by the AM in step 2, using the process described in section 5 of <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>OAuth2<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> [OAuth2].
</p>
<p>If the the request is invalid, for example because it is missing an access token, the host issues an invalid_request error response as described in section 5.2.1 of <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>OAuth2<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> [OAuth2] and does not proceed.
</p>
<a name="anchor13"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.4.2"></a><h3>4.2.
Host asks AM to validate requester access token</h3>
<p>The host verifies the requester access token by sending it to the AM's token verification endpoint. The AM validates the requester access token and returns the result to the host. The AM MUST validate the access token and ensure it has not expired and that the host it is used for is the one it was requested for.
</p>
<p>The request made by the host to the AM MUST be an OAuth-protected request itself, using the host access token obtained in step 1.
</p>
<p>The host's request to the AM is made with a POST containing the requester access token and the IP address of the requester's request. (The host MAY, at its discretion, instead supply the originating IP address indicated in the requester's X-Forwarded-For: header value.) The POST uses the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format as defined by [W3C.REC-html401-19991224]. The IP address or originating IP address is advisory only; the AM MAY ignore it for token validation purposes.
</p>
<p>Example of a request to the token verification endpoint that provides the host access token in the header:
</p><div style='display: table; width: 0; margin-left: 3em; margin-right: auto'><pre>
POST /token_verification HTTP/1.1
Host: am.example.com
Authorization: OAuth vF9dft4qmT
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
token=sbjsbhs(/SSJHBSUSSJHVhjsgvhsgvshgsv&ipaddr=192.168.1.1
</pre></div>
<a name="anchor14"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.4.3"></a><h3>4.3.
Valid response</h3>
<p>After determining that the token is valid, the AM sends the host a response containing a list of scopes applying to this particular requester access token. The response usesa JSON document inside the body of an HTTP response using the 200 OK status code. The scopes come from a list of strings previously registered with the AM by the host (as specified in Step 1).
</p>
<p>Example:
</p><div style='display: table; width: 0; margin-left: 3em; margin-right: auto'><pre>
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
{
"scopes": ['read_private_photos', 'write_private_photos']
}</pre></div>
<p>The host MUST validate if one of the scopes is sufficient for requester to access the requested resource in the manner originally attempted. If it is, the host gives access in that manner.
</p>
<a name="anchor15"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.4.4"></a><h3>4.4.
Error responses</h3>
<p>Ultimately the host is responsible for either granting the access the requester attempted, or returning an error response to the requester with a reason for the failure. <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>[OAuth2]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a> defines several error responses for a resource server to return. UMA makes use of these error responses, but requires the host to "outsource" the determination of some error conditions to the AM.
</p>
<p>The host is responsible for determining "insufficient_scope". If the requester's attempted access does not match any of the scopes returned by the AM in its valid-token response to the host, the host returns an "insufficient_scope" error to the requester.
</p>
<p>The host is responsible for determining "invalid_request". If the requester's request was badly formed, the host returns an "invalid_request" error to the requester.
</p>
<p>If the AM determined that the requester access token is invalid, it returns an "invalid_requester_token" error response to the host. [@@TBS: Need to flesh out more and provide an example.] The host then returns an "invalid_token" response to the requester as described in section 5.2.1 of <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>[OAuth2]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a>.
</p>
<p>If the AM determined that the requester access token has expired, it returns an "expired_requester_token" error response to the host. [@@TBS: Need to flesh out more and provide an example.] The host then returns an "invalid_token" response to the requester as described in section 5.2.1 of <a class='info' href='#OAuth2'>[OAuth2]<span> (</span><span class='info'>Hammer-Lahav, E., “The OAuth 2.0 Protocol,” 2010.</span><span>)</span></a>.
</p>
<p>If the host's token validation request message itself was badly formed, the AM returns an "invalid_request" error to the host. [@@Need to say what happens to the requester after that?]
</p>
<a name="anchor16"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.5"></a><h3>5.
Security Considerations</h3>
<p>@@TODO: Provide commentary on any requirements layered on the forthcoming OAuth security considerations section; discuss UMA-layer implications for more meaningful authentication of requesters/requesting parties; discuss implications of user-mediated AM/host trust model; discuss short-lived token technique for lightweight requester correlation...
</p>
<a name="anchor17"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.6"></a><h3>6.
Conformance</h3>
<p>This section outlines conformance requirements for various entities implementing UMA endpoints. Currently two levels of conformance are defined: minimal and full. (Other types or levels may ultimately be defined in this specification or in other specifications that profile or extend this one.)
</p>
<p>This specification has dependencies on other specifications, as follows:</p>
<ul class="text">
<li>OAuth 2.0: AMs, hosts, and requesters MUST support OAuth 2.0 features named in this specification for minimal conformance. For example, features related to refresh tokens, client secrets, and the web server profile are mentioned and support for them is REQUIRED.
</li>
<li>Dynamic registration: For full conformance, AMs MUST support dynamic registration. For minimal conformance, AMs are not required to support dynamic registration. Hosts need not support the requesting of dynamic registration at either conformance level.
</li>
<li>Resource registration: For minimal conformance, AMs and hosts MUST support resource registration.
</li>
</ul>
<a name="anchor18"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.A"></a><h3>Appendix A.
Acknowledgements</h3>
<p></p>
<ul class="text">
<li>TBS
</li>
</ul><p> [[ Add further WG contributors ]]
</p>
<a name="anchor19"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<a name="rfc.section.B"></a><h3>Appendix B.
Document History</h3>
<p>[[ to be removed by RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]
</p>
<a name="rfc.references1"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<h3>7. Normative References</h3>
<table width="99%" border="0">
<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><a name="Claims2.0">[Claims2.0]</a></td>
<td class="author-text">Maler, E., “<a href="http://wguma.org/confluence/display/uma/Claims+2.0">Claims 2.0</a>,” 2010.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><a name="Dyn-Reg">[Dyn-Reg]</a></td>
<td class="author-text">Scholz, C., “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oauth-dyn-reg-v1-00">OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol</a>,” 2010.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><a name="I-D.hammer-hostmeta">[I-D.hammer-hostmeta]</a></td>
<td class="author-text">Hammer-Lahav, E., “<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hammer-hostmeta-13.txt">Web Host Metadata</a>,” draft-hammer-hostmeta-13 (work in progress), June 2010 (<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hammer-hostmeta-13.txt">TXT</a>).</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><a name="I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging">[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]</a></td>
<td class="author-text">Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., and J. Reschke, “<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09.txt">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</a>,” draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09 (work in progress), March 2010 (<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09.txt">TXT</a>).</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><a name="OAuth2">[OAuth2]</a></td>
<td class="author-text">Hammer-Lahav, E., “<a href="http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-10.txt">The OAuth 2.0 Protocol</a>,” 2010.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><a name="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</a></td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:sob@harvard.edu">Bradner, S.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt">TXT</a>, <a href="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html">HTML</a>, <a href="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2119.xml">XML</a>).</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><a name="RFC2617">[RFC2617]</a></td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:john@math.nwu.edu">Franks, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:pbaker@verisign.com">Hallam-Baker, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:jeff@AbiSource.com">Hostetler, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:lawrence@agranat.com">Lawrence, S.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com">Leach, P.</a>, Luotonen, A., and <a href="mailto:stewart@OpenMarket.com">L. Stewart</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2617">HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication</a>,” RFC 2617, June 1999 (<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2617.txt">TXT</a>, <a href="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2617.html">HTML</a>, <a href="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2617.xml">XML</a>).</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><a name="RFC5785">[RFC5785]</a></td>
<td class="author-text">Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785">Defining Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)</a>,” RFC 5785, April 2010 (<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5785.txt">TXT</a>).</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><a name="hostmeta">[hostmeta]</a></td>
<td class="author-text">Hammer-Lahav, E., “<a href="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-hammer-hostmeta-13.xml">Web Host Metadata</a>,” 2010.</td></tr>
</table>
<a name="rfc.authors"></a><br /><hr />
<table summary="layout" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" class="TOCbug" align="right"><tr><td class="TOCbug"><a href="#toc"> TOC </a></td></tr></table>
<h3>Authors' Addresses</h3>
<table width="99%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">Christian Scholz (editor)</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">COM.lounge GmbH</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">Email: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:cs@comlounge.net">cs@comlounge.net</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">URI: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="http://comlounge.net">http://comlounge.net</a></td></tr>
<tr cellpadding="3"><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">Paul Bryan</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">?</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">Email: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:email@pbryan.net">email@pbryan.net</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">URI: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="http://pbryan.net">http://pbryan.net</a></td></tr>
<tr cellpadding="3"><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">Maciej Machulak</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">Newcastle University</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">Email: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:m.p.machulak@ncl.ac.uk">m.p.machulak@ncl.ac.uk</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">URI: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="http://ncl.ac.uk/">http://ncl.ac.uk/</a></td></tr>
<tr cellpadding="3"><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">Eve Maler</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">PayPal</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">Email: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:eve@xmlgrrl.com">eve@xmlgrrl.com</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">URI: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="http://www.paypal.com/">http://www.paypal.com/</a></td></tr>
</table>
</body></html>