Identity Authority Interface Version 1.0
Committee Specification Draft 02 /
Public Review Draft 01
13 October 2016
Specification URIs
This version:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/csprd01/IDA-v1.0-csprd01.docx (Authoritative)
http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/csprd01/IDA-v1.0-csprd01.html
http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/csprd01/IDA-v1.0-csprd01.pdf
Previous version:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/csd01/IDA-v1.0-csd01.docx (Authoritative)
http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/csd01/IDA-v1.0-csd01.html
http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/csd01/IDA-v1.0-csd01.pdf
Latest version:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/IDA-v1.0.docx (Authoritative)
http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/IDA-v1.0.html
http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/IDA-v1.0.pdf
Technical Committee:
OASIS Classification of
Everyday Living (COEL) TC
Chairs:
David Snelling (David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com),
Fujitsu Limited
Joss Langford (joss@activinsights.co.uk), Activinsights Ltd
Editor:
Paul Bruton (Paul.Bruton@tessella.com), Tessella
Ltd.
Related work:
This specification is related to:
·
Classification of Everyday Living Version 1.0. Edited by
Joss Langford. Latest version: http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/COEL/v1.0/COEL-v1.0.html.
·
Roles, Principles, and Ecosystem Version 1.0. Edited by
Matthew Reed. Latest version: http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/RPE/v1.0/RPE-v1.0.html.
·
Behavioural Atom Protocol Version 1.0. Edited by Joss
Langford. Latest version: http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/BAP/v1.0/BAP-v1.0.html.
·
Minimal Management Interface Version 1.0. Edited by David
Snelling. Latest version: http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/MMI/v1.0/MMI-v1.0.html.
·
Public Query Interface Version 1.0. Edited by David
Snelling. Latest version: http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/PQI/v1.0/PQI-v1.0.html.
Abstract:
This document defines the interface protocol
for an Identity Authority (IDA). The IDA is a central web-based service, needed
in any ecosystem that conforms to the ecosystem architecture, that statelessly
provides unique, signed Pseudonymous Keys. These Pseudonymous Keys are used to
register actors within the ecosystem and are then requested by an actor wishing
to register an individual person within the ecosystem (and thus enter into data
exchanges about that person's Behavioural Atoms).
Status:
This document was last revised or approved by the OASIS
Classification of Everyday Living (COEL) TC on the above date. The level of
approval is also listed above. Check the “Latest version” location noted above
for possible later revisions of this document. Any other numbered Versions and
other technical work produced by the Technical Committee (TC) are listed at https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=coel#technical.
TC members should send comments on this specification to the
TC’s email list. Others should send comments to the TC’s public comment list,
after subscribing to it by following the instructions at the “Send
A Comment button on the TC’s web page at https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/coel/.
For information on whether any patents have been disclosed
that may be essential to implementing this specification, and any offers of
patent licensing terms, please refer to the Intellectual Property Rights
section of the TC’s web page (https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/coel/ipr.php).
Citation format:
When referencing this specification the following citation
format should be used:
[COEL-IDA-v1.0]
Identity Authority Interface Version 1.0. Edited by Paul
Bruton. 13 October 2016. OASIS Committee Specification Draft 02 / Public Review
Draft 01. http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/csprd01/IDA-v1.0-csprd01.html. Latest version: http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/IDA/v1.0/IDA-v1.0.html.
Copyright © OASIS Open 2016. All Rights Reserved.
All capitalized terms in the following text have the
meanings assigned to them in the OASIS Intellectual Property Rights Policy (the
"OASIS IPR Policy"). The full Policy may be
found at the OASIS website.
This document and translations of it may be copied and
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided
that the above copyright notice and this section are included on all such
copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified
in any way, including by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS,
except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or deliverable
produced by an OASIS Technical Committee (in which case the rules applicable to
copyrights, as set forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be followed) or as
required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will
not be revoked by OASIS or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is
provided on an "AS IS" basis and OASIS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
OASIS requests that any OASIS Party or any other party that
believes it has patent claims that would necessarily be infringed by
implementations of this OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS Standard, to
notify OASIS TC Administrator and provide an indication of its willingness to
grant patent licenses to such patent claims in a manner consistent with the IPR
Mode of the OASIS Technical Committee that produced this specification.
OASIS invites any party to contact the OASIS TC
Administrator if it is aware of a claim of ownership of any patent claims that
would necessarily be infringed by implementations of this specification by a
patent holder that is not willing to provide a license to such patent claims in
a manner consistent with the IPR Mode of the OASIS Technical Committee that
produced this specification. OASIS may include such claims on its website, but
disclaims any obligation to do so.
OASIS takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to
the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the
extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available;
neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such
rights. Information on OASIS' procedures with respect to rights in any document
or deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical Committee can be found on the
OASIS website. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and
any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary
rights by implementers or users of this OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS
Standard, can be obtained from the OASIS TC Administrator. OASIS makes no
representation that any information or list of intellectual property rights
will at any time be complete, or that any claims in such list are, in fact,
Essential Claims.
The name "OASIS" is a trademark of OASIS, the owner and developer of this
specification, and should be used only to refer to the organization and its
official outputs. OASIS welcomes reference to, and implementation and use of,
specifications, while reserving the right to enforce its marks against
misleading uses. Please see https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/trademark
for above guidance.
1 Introduction. 5
1.1 Terminology. 5
1.2 Normative
References. 5
1.3 Non-Normative
References. 5
2 The Identity Authority. 6
3 Protocol Overview. 7
4 API Overview. 9
4.1 Introduction. 9
4.2 Authentication
and Authorisation. 9
4.3 Identity
Authority Information Request 9
4.4 PseudonymousKey
endpoint 10
4.4.1 Response. 10
4.5
PseudonymousKeyBatch endpoint 11
4.5.1 Request 12
4.5.2 Response. 12
4.6 Validation
endpoint 13
4.6.1 Request 13
4.6.2 Response. 14
5 Conformance. 15
Appendix A.
Acknowledgments. 16
Appendix B. Revision
History. 17
[All text is normative unless otherwise
labelled]
The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”,
“REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”,
and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels”, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., Salz, R., “A Universally
Unique Identifier (UUID) URN Namespace”, RFC 4122, July 2005. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4122
[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Newman, C., “Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps”, RFC 3339, July 2002. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3339.txt
[COEL_RPE-1.0] Roles, Principles, and Ecosystem Version 1.0. Latest
version: http://docs.oasis-open.org/coel/RPE/v1.0/RPE-v1.0.docx
[Data to Life] Reed, M. &
Langford, J. (2013). Data to Life. Coelition, London. ISBN 978-0957609402
An Identity Authority (IDA) provides an
Identity Authority Interface (the API) that generates and subsequently
validates a digitally signed unique Pseudonymous Key to be used in signup to
Data Engine services. The IDA does not require any input to generate the
Pseudonymous Key.
Section 3 of this document describes how
the API is used by Operators, Service Providers, and Data Engines to register
Consumers or Devices. Section 4 gives details on the API itself.
The terms Pseudonymous Key, Data Engine,
Operator, Hardware Developer and Service Provider are as defined in [COEL-RPE-1.0].
Figure
1: IDA/Data Engine signup
sequence
Figure 1 shows the sequence an Operator
MUST follow in signing up a new consumer: obtain a Pseudonymous Key from IDA
and then use it to signup with the Data Engine. The Pseudonymous Key is used in
all subsequent communications with the Data Engine such as sending data,
requesting reports. For each new consumer, the Operator and Data Engine use a
separate Pseudonymous Key. Applications that generate input (Behavioural Atoms)
for the Data Engine also use the Pseudonymous Key.
The signature is used so that the Data
Engine can be assured that the Pseudonymous Key is genuine. Rather than using
asymmetric key-pairs and distributing a public key and signing algorithm, the
IDA provides the means for a receiver of a signed Pseudonymous Key to validate
its signature. The Data Engine MUST use this validation mechanism.
It is assumed that this transaction is
short – Operators only request Pseudonymous Keys when they need them and
register them shortly afterwards (probably within minutes). The Identity
Authority needs to be free to alter the means of signature (if for example it
believes the mechanism used internally has been revealed). If this change
happens during a transaction then validation will fail. This is an unlikely
event, but parties in the transaction need to be able to manage it:
·
Data Engines receiving a failed validation code MUST pass the
failure back to the Operator.
·
Operators receiving a failed validation code from the Data Engine
MUST discard the Pseudonymous Key and request a new one from the IDA.
·
If the second attempt also fails, the Operator SHOULD try once
more after a short delay (1-2 seconds) before aborting the attempt to register.
Figure
2: Service Provider registering
a batch of DeviceIDs
The IDA also provides a means to generate a
batch of up to 1000 Pseudonymous Keys in one request. The batch contains a
single signature and the same protocol MUST be followed for validation: The Service
Provider passes the batch to the Data Engine which MUST validate the batch with
the IDA. It is expected that the Service Provider will then provide this batch
of IDs to a Hardware Developer to be used in devices.
Pseudonymous Keys are primarily intended to
represent a consumer in the ecosystem. However, Operators and Service Providers
also require keys to identify themselves in their machine to machine interactions.
IDA generated Pseudonymous Keys MAY be used for this purpose since they are
devoid of DIPI and unique across the ecosystem.
The Identity Authority (IDA) API provides a
means for Operators and/or Service Providers to generate unique Pseudonymous
Keys for Consumers or Devices. A Pseudonymous Key is REQUIRED when an Operator or
Service Provider registers a consumer or device with a Data Engine.
Pseudonymous Keys are digitally signed so that Data Engines can validate them to
ensure they were generated by the IDA and have not been altered.
To access the IDA API, callers need API
Credentials with two components:
·
A userid to identify the caller.
·
A password to authenticate the caller.
A userid MUST be assigned to one of the
following two roles in the IDA:
·
Generator: Allowing the userid to generate Pseudonymous
Keys
·
Validator: Allowing the userid to validate Pseudonymous
Keys
HTTP basic authentication SHALL be used to
authenticate calls to the API. Passwords SHOULD be 64 bytes in length and MUST
be supplied as an ASCII string. This MUST be prefixed with the userid followed
by a colon to form the token passed in the HTTP Authorisation Header.
Example:
“9abf5386-2ac6-4e61-abc4-6b809a85d6cb:JhmiDAlnpo1SBrlrN6H09RqQoerdLCyepbXgE7005OSzXzMeUsGCEXaVNAMrKv8D”
If the userid is unrecognized, or the wrong
password is supplied a HTTP status code 401 Invalid username or password
SHALL be returned.
If a request is made with a userid that is
assigned a role that is not authorized to perform that action then the HTTP
status code 403 Unauthorised SHALL be returned.
Every Identity Authority SHALL publish its
Home URI. Performing a GET on this URI SHALL return general information about
the Identity Authority as JSON object.
|
Method
|
Request
|
Response
Status
|
Response
Content-Type
|
Response Body
|
|
GET
|
None
|
200 (OK)
|
application/json
|
JSON object
|
|
POST
|
Any
|
405 (Method Not
Allowed)
|
None
|
None
|
Format for the returned JSON Object:
|
Name
|
Value
|
Description
|
REQUIRED
|
|
IdentityAuthorityURI
|
String
|
The URI of the
Identity Authority service encoded as a string.
|
Yes
|
|
ServerTime
|
Integer
|
Current server
time in UTC as a Unix timestamp.
|
Yes
|
|
IdentityAuthorityStatus
|
String
|
The current status
of the Identity Authority service encoded as a string. It MUST be one of
“Up”, “Down”, or “Unknown”.
|
Yes
|
The JSON object of the response MAY contain
additional fields with information about the Identity Authority.
Example request message:
GET /home
Example
response message:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
{“IdenityAuthorityURI”:
“https://www.ida.com/api”,
“IdentityAuthorityStatus”:
“Up”,
“ServerTime”:
1470822001}
The IDA SHALL provide a PseudonymousKey
end-point which provides the means to generate Pseudonymous Keys for users
whose API Credentials have the Generator role.
|
API
|
Description
|
|
POST
/PseudonymousKey
|
Generate a new signed Pseudonymous Key for an actor.
The mechanism used to sign the response is periodically changed, so the
response SHOULD be passed to the Data Engine shortly after generation or
validation can fail.
|
The response SHALL contain three
parameters: The Pseudonymous Key; the timestamp at which the response was
generated; and a signature that can be used for validation.
|
Parameter Name
|
Description
|
Type
|
|
PseudonymousKey
|
Unique key to
be used to represent a consumer, Service Provider, Operator or device in the
ecosystem.
|
String: Formatted as a UUID as defined in [RFC_4122, Section 3]
|
|
TimeStamp
|
Date and time
at which the PseudonymousKey was generated.
|
String: Formatted as a date-time according to [RFC_3339].
|
|
Signature
|
ASCII encoded
signature which the IDA will use for validation.
|
String
|
Media type:
application/json, text/json
Sample:
{
“PseudonymousKey”: “00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000”,
“TimeStamp”: “2011-02-14T00:00:00”,
“Signature”: “SGFDXCTVIVVIFUJUVUYBKYKJHBK==”
}
Status:
200: The
operation was successful
401/403: The
operation failed due to authentication or authorization failure. The caller
should confirm its credentials and retry.
500: Internal
error, the caller should retry
The IDA SHALL provide a
PseudonymousKeyBatch end-point which provides the means to generate a batch of
Pseudonymous Keys in one response packet for users whose API Credentials have
the Generator role.
|
API
|
Description
|
|
POST /PseudonymousKeyBatch
|
Generate a new signed batch of Pseudonymous Keys. The
mechanism used to sign the response is periodically changed, so the response
SHOULD be passed to the Data Engine shortly after generation or validation
can fail.
|
The request body SHALL contain one
parameter: Size.
|
Parameter Name
|
Description
|
Type
|
|
Size
|
The number of PseudonymousKeys to return in the batch.
|
Integer: 1 <= n
<= 1000
|
Media type:
application/json, text/json
Sample:
{“Size”: 1000}
The response SHALL contain three parameters:
An array of Pseudonymous Keys; the timestamp at which the response was
generated; and a signature that can be used for validation.
|
Parameter Name
|
Description
|
Type
|
|
PseudonymousKeys
|
Array of unique keys to be used to
represent a devices in the ecosystem.
|
Array of String: Each string formatted as a UUID as defined in [RFC_4122, Section
3]
|
|
TimeStamp
|
Date and time at which the
PseudonymousKey was generated.
|
String:
Formatted as a date-time according to [RFC_3339].
|
|
Signature
|
ASCII encoded signature which the IDA
will use for validation.
|
String
|
Media type:
application/json, text/json
Sample:
{
“PseudonymousKeys”: [
“00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000”,
“00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001”,
“00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000002”]
“TimeStamp”: “2011-02-14T00:00:00”,
“Signature”: “SGFDXCTVIVVIFUJUVUYBKYKJHBK==”
}
Status:
200: The
operation was successful
400: The
operation failed due to the request body being malformed or the size being out
of range [1..1000]
401/403: The
operation failed due to authentication or authorization failure. The caller
should confirm its credentials and retry.
500: Internal
error, the caller should retry
The IDA SHALL be capable of generating a
batch of up to 1000 PseudonymousKeys.
The IDA SHALL provide a Validation
end-point which provides the means to validate a signed PseudonymousKey or a
signed batch of PseudonymousKeys for users whose API Credentials have the
Validator role.
|
API
|
Description
|
|
POST /Validation
|
Validates a single signed Pseudonymous Key or a signed
batch of Pseudonymous Keys to ensure that they were generated by IDA. The
mechanism used for signing is periodically changed. If validation fails, the
caller MUST request that the Operator requests a new Pseudonymous Key.
|
The request body format SHALL conform to
the specification of EITHER the /PseudonymousKey response packet OR the
/PseudonymousKeyBatch response packet.
Media type:
application/json, text/json
Sample 1 (Single input):
{
“PseudonymousKey”: “00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000”,
“TimeStamp”: “2011-02-14T00:00:00”,
“Signature”: “SGFDXCTVIVVIFUJUVUYBKYKJHBK==”
}
Sample 2 (Batch input):
{
“PseudonymousKeys”: [
“00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000”,
“00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001”,
“00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000002”]
“TimeStamp”: “2011-02-14T00:00:00”,
“Signature”: “SGFDXCTVIVVIFUJUVUYBKYKJHBK==”
}
If successful, an HTTP status code of 200 OK
MUST be returned. If unsuccessful, an HTTP error code SHOULD be returned and a
JSON object MAY be returned providing some explanation of the failure.
|
Parameter Name
|
Description
|
Type
|
|
Reason
|
An optional description of why
the operation failed.
|
String:
|
Media type:
application/json, text/json
Sample:
{“Reason”: “The input was missing mandatory
elements”}
Status:
200: The
operation was successful. The Pseudonymous Key or batch of Pseudonymous Keys is
valid.
410: The
operation was successful (the request was properly formed and authorized) but
the Pseudonymous Key or batch of Pseudonymous Keys is no longer valid.
400: The
operation failed due to the request body being malformed.
401/403: The
operation failed due to authentication or authorization failure. The caller
should confirm its credentials and retry.
500: Internal
error, the caller should retry
An implementation is a conforming Identity
Authority Interface if the implementation meets the conditions in Section 4 of
this document AND the conformance criteria in [COEL_RPE-1.0]
The following individuals have participated
in the creation of this specification and are gratefully acknowledged:
Participants:
Paul Bruton, Individual Member
Joss Langford, Activinsights
Matthew Reed, Coelition
David Snelling, Fujitsu
|
Revision
|
Date
|
Editor
|
Changes Made
|
|
1
|
27/07/2015
|
Paul Bruton
|
Initial version for OASIS submission
|
|
2
|
15/09/2015
|
Paul Bruton
|
Header page, references,
acknowledgements, conformance sections finalized. Body text still needs a
review so that it clearly uses normative language in section 4, with sections
2 and 3 being descriptive text only.
|
|
3
|
21/09/2015
|
Paul Bruton
|
Clarification of terms by replacing
‘access credentials’ with ‘API Credentials’ to signify that the
userid/password combination is used only for API access.
|
|
4
|
22/09/2015
|
Paul Bruton
|
Action #0016: Removed ‘api/’ prefix from
methods in API.
|
|
5
|
23/09/2015
|
Paul Bruton
|
Added normative references for UUID and
TimeStamp formats. Corrected sequence diagrams following removal of api/.
Section 4 altered to use appropriate normative terms. Added definitions of
request and response (action #0014). Added references to related works
|
|
6
|
25/09/2015
|
Joss Langford
|
Review with minor changes to clarify
meanings and correct spelling.
|
|
7
|
05/10/2015
|
Paul Bruton
|
Previous changes accepted. Added
reference to conformance criteria in RPE and clarified the name of the
conformance target: Identity Authority Interface, referred to as the API.
|
|
8
|
19/10/2015
|
David Snelling
|
A few tweaks and fixed the COEL link.
|
|
9
|
20/10/2015
|
Paul Bruton
|
Accepted changes, Resolved COEL-39 (data
engine must validate) and COEL-40 (removed unnecessary text about combining data
engine data)
|
|
10
|
21/10/2015
|
Paul Bruton
|
Minor changes for consistent style
|
|
11
|
31/10/2015
|
Joss Langford
|
Accept all changes, track changes off,
check references and style consistency.
|
|
12
|
02/11/2015
|
David Snelling
|
Final data change.
|
|
13
|
03/11/2015
|
Paul Bruton
|
Spelling correction following review.
|
|
14
|
25/11/2015
|
David Snelling
|
Set date for final CD publication.
|
|
15
|
07/01/2016
|
Paul Bruton
|
COEL-42 clarification of response codes
and updated to WD02
|
|
16
|
20/01/2016
|
Paul Bruton
|
COEL-42 implementation of 410 status code
in event of validation failure. Also fixed broken hyperlinks and removed
hidden hyperlinks.
|
|
17
|
10/08/2016
|
David Snelling
|
Added status field to IDA information
request, COEL-68.
|
|
18
|
14/08/2016
|
Joss Langford
|
Checked and changes accepted.
|
|
19
|
23/09/2016
|
Paul Bruton
|
Corrected role of Hardware Developer
(COEL-83)
|
|
20
|
27/09/2016
|
David Snelling
|
Final review: Rebuild the ToC, corrected
spelling of artefact, labelled, added Service Providers to list of IDA users
in section 2 & 4.1, and accepted all changes.
|
