rfc6711
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Johansson
Request for Comments: 6711 NORDUNet
Category: Informational August 2012
ISSN: 2070-1721
An IANA Registry for Level of Assurance (LoA) Profiles
Abstract
This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance
(LoA) Profiles. The registry is intended to be used as an aid to
discovering such LoA definitions in protocols that use an LoA
concept, including Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 and
OpenID Connect.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6711.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
Johansson Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6711 LoA Registry August 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Name of Registry ................................................3
3. Registration Template ...........................................3
3.1. Example Registration .......................................4
3.2. Note on the Example ........................................5
4. Registration Policy .............................................5
4.1. Reviewer Expectations ......................................5
5. Registry Semantics ..............................................6
6. IANA Considerations .............................................6
7. Security Considerations .........................................7
8. Acknowledgements ................................................7
9. References ......................................................7
9.1. Normative References .......................................7
9.2. Informative References .....................................7
1. Introduction
This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance
(LoA) Profiles.
[SAML] provides the following definition of the concept of "level of
assurance":
Many existing (and potential) SAML federation deployments have
adopted a "levels of assurance" (or LOA) model for categorizing
the wide variety of authentication methods into a small number of
levels, typically based on some notion of the strength of the
authentication. Federation members (service providers or "relying
parties") then decide which level of assurance is required to
access specific protected resources, based on some assessment of
"value" or "risk".
Another definition of an "assurance level" is given in RFC 4949
[RFC4949], which also identifies the roots of such profiles in the
NIST special publication series, in particular SP 800-63 [SP63].
Level of Assurance Profiles are used in various protocols, including
the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) version 2.0 and OpenID
Connect.
Several so-called trust frameworks and identity federations now
exist, some of which define one or more LoAs. The purpose of this
specification is to create an IANA registry where such LoA
definitions can be discovered. While the quote above references
SAML, the notion of a level of assurance has gained widespread
acceptance and should be treated as a protocol-independent concept.
The newly created IANA registry attempts to reflect this.
Johansson Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6711 LoA Registry August 2012
Although the registry will contain URIs that reference SAML
Authentication Context Profiles, other protocols may use such URIs to
identify level of assurance definitions without relying on or
transmitting their SAML XML definitions. Use of the registry by
protocols other than SAML is encouraged.
For instance, OpenID Connect defines the standard claim 'acr' as a
identifier that may reference a SAML Authentication Context Class
even though OpenID Connect is not itself based on XML or SAML.
Protocol designers who want to reference the registry should be aware
that registered LoAs may depend on assumptions that do not carry over
to all protocols and that such assumptions may vary among the
protocols for which the LoAs were originally registered.
2. Name of Registry
The name of the registry shall be "Level of Assurance (LoA) Profile",
in plural "Level of Assurance (LoA) Profiles".
3. Registration Template
The following information must be provided with each registration:
URI: A URI referencing a Level of Assurance Profile. This is the
registry key.
Context Class: A valid XML schema definition for the SAML 2.0 LoA
Context Class fulfilling the requirements of [SAML]. The registry
key (the URI) is the unique identifier for the Context Class.
Name: A string uniquely and unambiguously identifying the LoA for
use in protocols where URIs are not appropriate.
Informational URL: A URL containing auxiliary information. This URL
must minimally reference contact information for the
administrative authority of the level of assurance definition and
must use either the http or https scheme.
Note that it is possible for a single SAML Authentication Context
Class to contain definitions of multiple URIs. In that case, a
separate registration is to be used for each URI. Both the name and
the URI are to uniquely and unambiguously identify the LoA. The name
is meant to be used in protocols where URIs are not appropriate. In
addition the requester is expected to provide basic contact
information and the name of the organization on behalf of which the
LoA definition is registered.
Johansson Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6711 LoA Registry August 2012
The name is defined by the following ABNF (as defined in RFC 5234
[RFC5234]):
label = ( ALPHA / DIGIT )
name = label 1*( label / "-" / "." / "_" )
The elements defined by the following ABNF productions represent a
set of reserved values for the name element and are not to be
registered:
reserved = loa / al / num
loa = ( "l" / "L" ) ( "o" / "O" ) ( "a" / "A") *DIGIT
al = ( "a" / "A") ( "l" / "L") *DIGIT
num = *DIGIT
The reason for excluding these productions is a desire to avoid a
race to register overly generic LoA Profiles under names like "AL1"
or "LOA2".
3.1. Example Registration
1. Name of requester: J. Random User
2. Email address of requester: jrandom@example.com
3. Organization of requester: Example Trust Frameworks LLP
4. Requested registration:
URI http://foo.example.com/assurance/loa-1
Name foo-loa-1
Informational URL https://foo.example.com/assurance/
SAML 2.0 Authentication Context Class Definition
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema
targetNamespace="http://foo.example.com/assurance/loa-1"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns="http://foo.example.com/assurance/loa-1"
finalDefault="extension"
blockDefault="substitution"
version="2.0">
<xs:redefine
schemaLocation="saml-schema-authn-context-loa-profile.xsd">
<xs:annotation>
Johansson Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6711 LoA Registry August 2012
<xs:documentation>
Class identifier:
http://foo.example.com/assurance/loa-1
Defines Level 1 of the Foo Assurance Framework
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:complexType name="GoverningAgreementRefType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="GoverningAgreementRefType">
<xs:attribute name="governingAgreementRef"
type="xs:anyURI"
fixed="https://foo.example.com/assurance/"
use="required"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:redefine>
</xs:schema>
3.2. Note on the Example
The example is borrowed (slightly modified) from [SAML]. The example
should not be registered.
4. Registration Policy
The registry is to be operated under the "Expert Review" policy from
RFC 5226 [RFC5226], employing a pool of experts. IANA will be kindly
asked to do rough, randomized load-balancing among the experts and
also to perform an initial review of each submission to ensure that
the name and URI are unique within the registry. The review criteria
are outlined below.
For registrations that reference multiple LoAs in a consistent set of
policies -- for instance, when a trust framework defines multiple
levels of assurance -- the registered LoA name and URIs should be
consistently named so that they can be identified as belonging to the
same set of registrations. For instance, fruitLoA1, fruitLoA2, and
fruitLoA3 are preferred over apple, pear, and banana when these names
refer to a single set of policies defining three LoAs.
4.1. Reviewer Expectations
The expectation of the IANA LoA Registry is that it will contain
registrations of bona fide Level of Assurance Profiles while not
presenting a very high bar for entry.
Johansson Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6711 LoA Registry August 2012
Expert reviewers are expected to verify that:
o the registration is consistent and that the provided XML fulfills
the requirements of [SAML].
o the name element is clearly associated with the registered LoA
Profile and is not a reserved value.
o the URI and name elements are not already registered.
o the Informational URL can be expected to be stable and permanent.
Note that multiple registrations may share a common Informational
URL.
The reviewers should exclude registrations where the name does not
unambiguously identify the LoA definition or where the name is a
simple variation on one of the reserved names.
Expert reviewers are expected to allow registrations made in good
faith that fulfill these requirements.
5. Registry Semantics
The intended use for this registry is to serve as a basis for
discovery of LoA definitions that might, for instance, be used by
protocol-specific (e.g., SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect) management
tools.
Note that consumers of the registry, being implementations of [SAML],
are expected to allow configuration of LoA URIs at system deployment
time. If multiple sources of LoA URIs are permitted in addition to
the registry (e.g., manual input), then it is important to avoid
collisions with URIs found in the registry.
The presence of an entry in the registry does not imply any semantics
or quality beyond that which results from the review done by the
expert reviewer as part of the registration process.
6. IANA Considerations
This document sets up a registry with IANA, making the whole document
a set of considerations for IANA.
Johansson Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6711 LoA Registry August 2012
7. Security Considerations
The registry is not a federation or trust framework. Consumers of
the registry are strongly advised to review the information about an
LoA before relying on it.
8. Acknowledgements
RL "Bob" Morgan, Scott Cantor, Lucy Lynch, and John Bradley were
involved in the initial discussions around this idea and contributed
to the semantics of the registry. The various versions of the
document were socialized in the Kantara Federation Interoperability
WG and in other parts of the identity community.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[SAML] Morgan, RL., Madsen, PM., and S. Cantor, "SAML V2.0
Identity Assurance Profiles, Version 1.0", November 2010,
<http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/Post2.0/
sstc-saml-assurance-profile.html>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
RFC 4949, August 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[SP63] NIST, "Electronic Authentication Guideline, NIST Special
Publication 800-63", June 2004.
Author's Address
Leif Johansson
NORDUNet
Tulegatan 11
Stockholm
Sweden
EMail: leifj@nordu.net
Johansson Informational [Page 7]
ERRATA
