Internet Engineering Task Force K. Hazelton, Ed.
Internet-Draft B. Oshrin
Intended status: Informational ciferproject.org
Expires: August 9, 2014 February 5, 2014

CIFER ID Match API Draft 00
ciferproject-org-idmatch-api-v1-draft-00

Abstract

TBD

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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/.

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."

This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2014 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.


Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The [CIFER] initiative includes work to define a set of shared APIs for core functions in identity and access management. One key requirement of such systems is to match person records found in Systems of Record (SOR) with person records that may or may not already be in the core identity registry. This document defines the ID Match API that supports this essential suite of functions.

1.1. Definitions

Base URL:
The ID Match REST API invocations defined below are always relative to a Base URL. The Base URL MUST NOT contain a query string as clients may append additional path information and query parameters as part of the request. Example Base URL: https://api.example.com/idmatch/v1/
System of Record (SOR):
TBD
Identity Registry (IdReg):
TBD

2. Requirements Language

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3. Authentication and Authorization

TBD

4. API

4.1. People

4.1.1. Matching SOR person and Identity Registry person

PUT /people/{SOR_ID}/{SOR_PERSON_ID}

Parameter Value Description Parameter Type Data Type
SOR_ID Required The identifier for the System of Record that is the source of the person entry path string
SOR_PERSON_ID Required The identifier for the person per the System of Record path string
Person Attributes Required A subset of the persons attributes in the source system body JSON

Response content type: application/json

4.1.1.1. Response: Unique match found in Identity Registry:

Status code: 200 OK

Response Body:

{
  "referenceId": "xxxxxxx"
}

Where xxxxxxx is an Identity Registry identifier for the matched SOR person.

Q: What is the effect on the state of the Identity Registry?

4.1.1.2. Response: New identifier assigned

Status code: 201 Created

Response Body:

{
  "referenceId": "xxxxxxx"
}

Where xxxxxxx is an Identity Registry identifier for the matched SOR person.

Q: What is the effect on the state of the Identity Registry?

4.1.1.3. Other Responses TBD

4.1.2. Searching Identity Registry for a Match to SOR person

If a POST is used instead of a PUT in the API call in Section 4.1.1, there will be no change in the state of the Identity Registry. The call is effectively a search operation. The status codes and response bodies are the same as above except that by definition the status code 201, "Created" will never be returned.

4.1.2.1. Response: No match found

Status code: 404 Not Found

5. Data Input/Output formats

6. API Versioning

7. HTTP Method Overloading

8. IANA Considerations

This memo includes no request to IANA.

9. Security Considerations

TBD

10. Acknowledgements

This document was produced by the CIFER Shared API work team. People who made particular contributions to the work include Jim Fox, Keith Hazelton, Chris Hyzer, Benn Oshrin, Jonathan Pass and Jimmy Vuccolo

11. References

11.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

11.2. Informative References

[CIFER] CIFER, "CIFER Home Page", 2014.

Authors' Addresses

Keith Hazelton (editor) ciferproject.org PO Box 260011 Madison, Wisconsin 53726-0011 US Phone: +1 608 262 0771 EMail: khazelton@gmail.com
Benn Oshrin ciferproject.org EMail: benno@internet2.edu