Thank you for your email. I hope at this point you may have tried out our IoT
Server and the samples it provides. As you have figured out already, UMA is an
Access Control Mechanism, that delegates management of access to personal
information of users to themselves.
So in this scenario that we have envisioned, a user may have a bunch of devices
they registered with IOT Server. For the purpose of this example, lets imagine
one of these devices is a smart lock installed in the owner’s house, and their
is a requirement for the owner to provide access to another party. With UMA,
she can share control of the lock with the new tenant, by simply logging in to
a device management dashboard. Lets assume the owner also has a baby monitor in
the house and she can remotely monitor the video feed. She wants to share this
video feed with a baby sitter, but she does not want to share control of the
entire device, for example the third party shouldn’t be able to switch off/on
the device. Going by the same mechanism quoted earlier, she can selectively
grant/revoke to certain functionalities on the fly with the use of UMA.
Another, usecase would be to group a set of devices or functions and share
control or monitor data of the device as a whole.
In the current implementation of the IoT Server, we already have support for
grouping and sharing of devices, but this implementation is not UMA based. It
is an implementation of our own. Going ahead with UMA would mean that we would
have a more scalable approach to share access, and it would make things easier
when dealing with sharing of devices between multiple groups with different
We already have a UMA implementation in WSO2 Identity Server in POC form,
deliverable would be to do the changes on CDMF side to accommodate the
transition to UMA, for sharing of devices, groups and data.
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:59, Pubudu Meththananda <pubudurw...@cse.mrt.ac.lk>
> Pubudu Mahesh Meththananda
Dev mailing list