[TSG-Access-RD] Text Added

[Andrew Newton]

Jody,

I'll note this in the doc and place potential resolution language.

Thanks.

-andy

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:31 AM Jody Kolker <jkolker at godaddy.com> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> Regarding this text:
>
>
>
> <<
>
> While this model relieves ICANN of a significant and potentially
> unworkable burden of vetting and credentialing requestors, it also
> delegates control of data exposure policy to third parties, a complication
> that may be overkill given the number of policies necessary for proper data
> governance.
>
> >>
>
>
>
> Is it worthwhile to mention that CP’s will most likely not be comfortable
> with allowing anyone but ICANN controlling data exposure policy?  Again,
> one of the assumptions that still hasn’t been added to the document is that
> ICANN will enter into an agreement indemnifying CPs if fines are levied due
> to the release of non-public data.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jody Kolker
>
>
>
> *From:* TSG-Access-RD <tsg-access-rd-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Newton
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:33 AM
> *To:* Jorge Cano <jcano at nic.mx>
> *Cc:* tsg-access-rd at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [TSG-Access-RD] Text Added
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jorge Cano <jcano at nic.mx> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I read the document and pretty much agree with it, but have a couple of
> questions.
>
> 1. In the Actor Models section, at the mapping of the organizational
> entities to the actors, the point 5 defines the ICANN RDAP Proxy as a
> Relying Party. Shouldn’t the ICANN RDAP Proxy be defined as a Resource
> Server?
>
> From RFC 6749 “The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework” (
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749.txt)
> Resource server: The server hosting the protected resources, capable of
> accepting and responding to protected resource requests using access tokens.
>
> And from “OpenID Connect Core 1.0 Specification” (
> https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html)
> Relying Party (RP): OAuth 2.0 Client application requiring End-User
> Authentication and Claims from an OpenID Provider.
>
> Isn’t this last definition better suited for the ICANN RDAP Access Service?
>
>
>
>
>
> Jorge,
>
>
>
> I believe you are correct. I'll make the change. Thanks for double
> checking this.
>
>
>
> -andy
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tsg-access-rd/attachments/20190219/1826b383/attachment-0001.html>