diff --git a/c2bo/batch-fetching/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.html b/c2bo/batch-fetching/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d9f48d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/c2bo/batch-fetching/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.html @@ -0,0 +1,3019 @@ + + + + + + +Token Status List + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Internet-DraftToken Status ListMay 2024
Looker, et al.Expires 16 November 2024[Page]
+
+
+
+
Workgroup:
+
Network Working Group
+
Internet-Draft:
+
draft-ietf-oauth-status-list-latest
+
Published:
+
+ +
+
Intended Status:
+
Informational
+
Expires:
+
+
Authors:
+
+
+
T. Looker
+
MATTR
+
+
+
P. Bastian
+
+
+
C. Bormann
+
+
+
+
+

Token Status List

+
+

Abstract

+

This specification defines status list data structures and processing rules for representing the status of tokens secured by JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) or CBOR Object Signing and Encryption(COSE), such as JSON Web Tokens (JWTs), CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) and ISO mdoc. +The status list token data structures themselves are also represented as JWTs or CWTs.

+
+
+

+About This Document +

+

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

+

+ The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://oauth-wg.github.io/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.html. + Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/.

+

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at + https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.

+
+
+
+

+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 https://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 16 November 2024.

+
+
+ +
+
+ ▲

+Table of Contents +

+ +
+
+
+
+

+1. Introduction +

+

Token formats secured by JOSE [IANA.JOSE] or COSE [RFC9052], such as JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) [RFC7519], CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) [RFC8392] and ISO mdoc [ISO.mdoc], have vast possible applications. Some of these applications can involve issuing a token whereby certain semantics about the token can change over time, which are important to be able to communicate to relying parties in an interoperable manner, such as whether the token is considered invalidated or suspended by its issuer.

+

This document defines a Status List and its representations in JSON and CBOR formats that describe the individual statuses of multiple Referenced Tokens, which themselves are JWTs or CWTs. The statuses of all Referenced Tokens are conveyed via a bit array in the Status List. Each Referenced Token is allocated an index during issuance that represents its position within this bit array. The value of the bit(s) at this index correspond to the Referenced Token's status. A Status List may either be provided by an endpoint or be signed and embedded into a Status List Token, whereas this document defines its representations in JWT and CWT. Status Lists may be composed for expressing a range of Status Types. This document defines basic Status Types for the most common use cases as well as an extensibility mechanism for custom Status Types. The document also defines how an issuer of a Referenced Token references a Status List (Token).

+

An example for the usage of a Status List is to manage the status of issued access tokens as defined in section 1.4 of [RFC6749]. Token Introspection [RFC7662] defines another way to determine the status of an issued access token, but it requires the party trying to validate an access tokens status to directly contact the token issuer, whereas the mechanism defined in this specification does not have this limitation.

+

Another possible use case for the Status List is to express the status of verifiable credentials (Referenced Tokens) issued by an Issuer in the Issuer-Holder-Verifier model [SD-JWT.VC]. +The following diagram depicts the basic conceptual relationship.

+
+
++-------------------+                  +------------------------+
+|                   | describes status |                        |
+|    Status List    +----------------->|    Referenced Token    |
+|   (JSON or CBOR)  <------------------+      (JOSE, COSE)      |
+|                   |   references     |                        |
++-------+-----------+                  +--------+---------------+
+        |
+        |embedded in
+        v
++-------------------+
+|                   |
+| Status List Token |
+|  (JWT or CWT)     |
+|                   |
++-------------------+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+1.1. Rationale +

+

Revocation mechanisms are an essential part for most identity ecosystems. In the past, revocation of X.509 TLS certificates has been proven difficult. Traditional certificate revocation lists (CRLs) have limited scalability; Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) has additional privacy risks, since the client is leaking the requested website to a third party. OCSP stapling is addressing some of these problems at the cost of less up-to-date data. Modern approaches use accumulator-based revocation registries and Zero-Knowledge-Proofs to accommodate for this privacy gap, but face scalability issues again.

+

This specification seeks to find a balance between scalability, security, and privacy by minimizing the status information to mere bits (often a single bit) and compressing the resulting binary data. Thereby, a Status List may contain statuses of many thousands or millions Referenced Tokens while remaining as small as possible. Placing large amounts of Referenced Tokens into the same list also enables herd privacy relative to the Issuer.

+

This specification establishes the IANA "Status Mechanism Methods" registry for status mechanism and registers the members defined by this specification. Other specifications can register other members used for status retrieval.

+
+
+
+
+

+1.2. Design Considerations +

+

The decisions taken in this specification aim to achieve the following design goals:

+
    +
  • +

    the specification shall favor a simple and easy to understand concept

    +
    • +
  • +

    the specification shall be easy, fast and secure to implement in all major programming languages

    +
    • +
  • +

    the specification shall be optimized to support the most common use cases and avoid unnecessary complexity of corner cases

    +
    • +
  • +

    the Status List shall scale up to millions of tokens to support large scale government or enterprise use cases

    +
    • +
  • +

    the Status List shall enable caching policies and offline support

    +
    • +
  • +

    the specification shall support JSON and CBOR based tokens

    +
    • +
  • +

    the specification shall not specify key resolution or trust frameworks

    +
    • +
  • +

    the specification shall design an extension point to convey information about the status of a token that can be re-used by other mechanisms

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+2. Conventions and Definitions +

+

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", +"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as +described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they +appear in all capitals, as shown here.

+
+
+
+
+

+3. Terminology +

+
+
Issuer:
+
+

An entity that issues the Referenced Token and provides the status information of the Referenced Token by serving a Status List Token on a public endpoint.

+
+
+
Relying Party:
+
+

An entity that relies on the Status List to validate the status of the Referenced Token. Also known as Verifier.

+
+
+
Status List:
+
+

An object in JSON or CBOR representation containing a bit array that lists the statuses of many Referenced Tokens.

+
+
+
Status List Token:
+
+

A token in JWT or CWT representation that contains a cryptographically secured Status List.

+
+
+
Referenced Token:
+
+

A cryptographically secured data structure which contains a reference to a Status List or Status List Token. It is RECOMMENDED to use JSON [RFC8259] or CBOR [RFC8949] for representation of the token and secure it using JSON Object Signing as defined in [RFC7515] or CBOR Object Signing and Encryption as defined in [RFC9052]. The information from the contained Status List may give a Relying Party additional information about up-to-date status of the Referenced Token.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+4. Status List +

+

A Status List is a byte array that contains the statuses of many Referenced Tokens represented by one or multiple bits. A common representation of a Status List is composed by the following algorithm:

+
    +
  1. +

    Each status of a Referenced Token MUST be represented with a bit-size of 1,2,4, or 8. Therefore up to 2,4,16, or 256 statuses for a Referenced Token are possible, depending on the bit-size. This limitation is intended to limit bit manipulation necessary to a single byte for every operation and thus keeping implementations simpler and less error prone.

    +
    2. +
  2. +

    The overall Status List is encoded as a byte array. Depending on the bit-size, each byte corresponds to 8/(#bit-size) statuses (8,4,2, or 1). The status of each Referenced Token is identified using the index that maps to one or more specific bits within the byte array. The index starts counting at 0 and ends with "size" - 1 (being the last valid entry). The bits within an array are counted from least significant bit "0" to the most significant bit ("7"). All bits of the byte array at a particular index are set to a status value.

    +
    3. +
  3. +

    The byte array is compressed using DEFLATE [RFC1951] with the ZLIB [RFC1950] data format. Implementations are RECOMMENDED to use the highest compression level available.

    +
    4. +
+

The following example illustrates a Status List that represents the statuses of 16 Referenced Tokens, requiring 16 bits (2 bytes) for the uncompressed byte array:

+
+
+status[0] = 1
+status[1] = 0
+status[2] = 0
+status[3] = 1
+status[4] = 1
+status[5] = 1
+status[6] = 0
+status[7] = 1
+status[8] = 1
+status[9] = 1
+status[10] = 0
+status[11] = 0
+status[12] = 0
+status[13] = 1
+status[14] = 0
+status[15] = 1
+
+
+

These bits are concatenated:

+
+
+byte             0                  1               2
+bit       7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0    7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0    7
+         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+...
+values   |1|0|1|1|1|0|0|1|  |1|0|1|0|0|0|1|1|  |0|...
+         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+...
+index     7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0   15   ...  10 9 8   23
+         \_______________/  \_______________/
+                0xB9               0xA3
+
+
+
+
+
+

+4.1. Status List in JSON Format +

+

This section defines the structure for a JSON-encoded Status List:

+
    +
  • +

    status_list: REQUIRED. JSON Object that contains a Status List. The object contains exactly two claims:

    +
      +
    • +

      bits: REQUIRED. JSON Integer specifying the number of bits per Referenced Token in the Status List (lst). The allowed values for bits are 1,2,4 and 8.

      +
      • +
    • +

      lst: REQUIRED. JSON String that contains the status values for all the Referenced Tokens it conveys statuses for. The value MUST be the base64url-encoded (as defined in Section 2 of [RFC7515]) Status List as specified in Section 4.

      +
      • +
    • +

      aggregation_uri: OPTIONAL. An URI to retrieve a the Status List Aggregation for this credential type. See section Section 9 for further detail.

      +
      • +
    +
    • +
+

The following example illustrates the JSON representation of the Status List:

+
+
+byte_array = [0xb9, 0xa3]
+encoded:
+{
+  "bits": 1,
+  "lst": "eNrbuRgAAhcBXQ"
+}
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+4.2. Status List in CBOR Format +

+

This section defines the structure for a CBOR-encoded Status List:

+
    +
  • +

    The StatusList structure is a map (Major Type 5) and defines the following entries:

    +
      +
    • +

      bits: REQUIRED. Unsigned int (Major Type 0) that contains the number of bits per Referenced Token in the Status List. The allowed values for bits are 1, 2, 4 and 8.

      +
      • +
    • +

      lst: REQUIRED. Byte string (Major Type 2) that contains the Status List as specified in Section 4.1.

      +
      • +
    • +

      aggregation_uri: OPTIONAL. Byte string (Major Type2) that contains an URI to retrieve the Status List Aggregation for this credential type. See section Section 9 for further detail.

      +
      • +
    +
    • +
+

The following example illustrates the CBOR representation of the Status List:

+
+
+byte_array = [0xb9, 0xa3]
+encoded:
+a2646269747301636c73744a78dadbb918000217015d
+
+
+

The following is the CBOR diagnostic output of the example above:

+
+
+a2                              # map(2)
+  64                            #   string(4)
+    62697473                    #     "bits"
+  01                            #   uint(1)
+  63                            #   string(3)
+    6c7374                      #     "lst"
+  4a                            #   bytes(10)
+    78dadbb918000217015d        #     "xÚÛ¹\x18\x00\x02\x17\x01]"
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+5. Status List Token +

+

A Status List Token embeds the Status List into a token that is cryptographically signed and protects the integrity of the Status List. This allows for the Status List Token to be hosted by third parties or be transferred for offline use cases.

+

This section specifies Status List Tokens in JSON Web Token (JWT) and CBOR Web Token (CWT) format.

+
+
+

+5.1. Status List Token in JWT Format +

+

The Status List Token MUST be encoded as a "JSON Web Token (JWT)" according to [RFC7519].

+

The following content applies to the JWT Header:

+
    +
  • +

    typ: REQUIRED. The JWT type MUST be statuslist+jwt.

    +
    • +
+

The following content applies to the JWT Claims Set:

+
    +
  • +

    iss: REQUIRED when also present in the Referenced Token. The iss (issuer) claim MUST specify a unique string identifier for the entity that issued the Status List Token. In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare issuer values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC3986]. The value MUST be equal to that of the iss claim contained within the Referenced Token.

    +
    • +
  • +

    sub: REQUIRED. The sub (subject) claim MUST specify a unique string identifier for the Status List Token. The value MUST be equal to that of the uri claim contained in the status_list claim of the Referenced Token.

    +
    • +
  • +

    iat: REQUIRED. The iat (issued at) claim MUST specify the time at which the Status List Token was issued.

    +
    • +
  • +

    exp: OPTIONAL. The exp (expiration time) claim, if present, MUST specify the time at which the Status List Token is considered expired by its issuer.

    +
    • +
  • +

    ttl: OPTIONAL. The ttl (time to live) claim, if present, MUST specify the maximum amount of time, in seconds, that the Status List Token can be cached by a consumer before a fresh copy SHOULD be retrieved. The value of the claim MUST be a positive number.

    +
    • +
  • +

    status_list: REQUIRED. The status_list (status list) claim MUST specify the Status List conforming to the rules outlined in Section 4.1.

    +
    • +
+

The following additional rules apply:

+
    +
  1. +

    The JWT MAY contain other claims.

    +
    2. +
  2. +

    The JWT MUST be digitally signed using an asymmetric cryptographic algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject the JWT if it is using a Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject JWTs with an invalid signature.

    +
    3. +
  3. +

    Relying parties MUST reject JWTs that are not valid in all other respects per "JSON Web Token (JWT)" [RFC7519].

    +
    4. +
  4. +

    Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.

    +
    5. +
+

The following is a non-normative example for a Status List Token in JWT format:

+
+
+{
+  "alg": "ES256",
+  "kid": "12",
+  "typ": "statuslist+jwt"
+}
+.
+{
+  "exp": 2291720170,
+  "iat": 1686920170,
+  "iss": "https://example.com",
+  "status_list": {
+    "bits": 1,
+    "lst": "eNrbuRgAAhcBXQ"
+  },
+  "sub": "https://example.com/statuslists/1"
+}
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+5.2. Status List Token in CWT Format +

+

The Status List Token MUST be encoded as a "CBOR Web Token (CWT)" according to [RFC8392].

+

The following content applies to the CWT protected header:

+
    +
  • +

    16 TBD (type): REQUIRED. The type of the CWT MUST be statuslist+cwt as defined in [CWT.typ].

    +
    • +
+

The following content applies to the CWT Claims Set:

+
    +
  • +

    1 (issuer): REQUIRED. Same definition as iss claim in Section 5.1.

    +
    • +
  • +

    2 (subject): REQUIRED. Same definition as sub claim in Section 5.1.

    +
    • +
  • +

    6 (issued at): REQUIRED. Same definition as iat claim in Section 5.1.

    +
    • +
  • +

    4 (expiration time): OPTIONAL. Same definition as exp claim in Section 5.1.

    +
    • +
  • +

    65534 (status list): REQUIRED. The status list claim MUST specify the Status List conforming to the rules outlined in Section 4.2.

    +
    • +
+

The following additional rules apply:

+
    +
  1. +

    The CWT MAY contain other claims.

    +
    2. +
  2. +

    The CWT MUST be digitally signed using an asymmetric cryptographic algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject the CWT if it is using a Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject CWTs with an invalid signature.

    +
    3. +
  3. +

    Relying parties MUST reject CWTs that are not valid in all other respects per "CBOR Web Token (CWT)" [RFC8392].

    +
    4. +
  4. +

    Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.

    +
    5. +
+

The following is a non-normative example for a Status List Token in CWT format (not including the type header yet):

+
+
+d28453a20126106e7374617475736c6973742b637774a1044231325860a502782168
+747470733a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f7374617475736c697374732f310173
+68747470733a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d061a648c5bea041a8898dfea19fffe
+56a2646269747301636c73744a78dadbb918000217015d584056563ed9f171f1cdce
+63e809b80999814d7bcd6aac7e2269c0bd15eb09e4497ef2e553838f3871a37a42b6
+d62166305dd303ca99c272df13aa6eca8b5d693740
+
+
+

The following is the CBOR diagnostic output of the example above:

+
+
+d2                              # tag(18)
+  84                            #   array(4)
+    53                          #     bytes(19)
+      a20126106e7374617475736c  #       "¢\x01&\x10nstatusl"
+      6973742b637774            #       "ist+cwt"
+    a1                          #     map(1)
+      04                        #       uint(4)
+      42                        #       bytes(2)
+        3132                    #         "12"
+    58 60                       #     bytes(96)
+      a502782168747470733a2f2f  #       "¥\x02x!https://"
+      6578616d706c652e636f6d2f  #       "example.com/"
+      7374617475736c697374732f  #       "statuslists/"
+      31017368747470733a2f2f65  #       "1\x01shttps://e"
+      78616d706c652e636f6d061a  #       "xample.com\x06\x1a"
+      648c3fca041a8898c3ca19ff  #       "d\x8c?Ê\x04\x1a\x88\x98ÃÊ\x19ÿ"
+      fe56a2646269747301636c73  #       "þV¢dbits\x01cls"
+      744a78dadbb918000217015d  #       "tJxÚÛ¹\x18\x00\x02\x17\x01]"
+    58 40                       #     bytes(64)
+      3fd60a6d10eb4b4131f1f6c1  #       "?Ö\x0am\x10ëKA1ñöÁ"
+      2fb365ae27b969e8e8df0b4f  #       "/³e®'¹ièèß\x0bO"
+      4029815b679cb1051c1c9eb3  #       "@)\x81[g\x9c±\x05\x1c\x1c\x9e³"
+      6aa72f6f17bcfdb5ed443bdf  #       "j§/o\x17¼ýµíD;ß"
+      c2339568ab42949169b413e7  #       "Â3\x95h«B\x94\x91i´\x13ç"
+      02ae1e6a                  #       "\x02®\x1ej"
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+6. Referenced Token +

+
+
+

+6.1. Status Claim +

+

By including a "status" claim in a Referenced Token, the Issuer is referencing a mechanism to retrieve status information about this Referenced Token. The claim contains members used to reference to a status list as defined in this specification. Other members of the "status" object may be defined by other specifications. This is analogous to "cnf" claim in Section 3.1 of [RFC7800] in which different authenticity confirmation methods can be included.

+
+
+
+
+

+6.2. Referenced Token in JWT Format +

+

The Referenced Token MUST be encoded as a "JSON Web Token (JWT)" according to [RFC7519].

+

The following content applies to the JWT Claims Set:

+
    +
  • +

    iss: REQUIRED when also present in the Status List Token. The iss (issuer) claim MUST specify a unique string identifier for the entity that issued the Referenced Token. In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare issuer values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC3986]. The value MUST be equal to that of the iss claim contained within the referenced Status List Token.

    +
    • +
  • +

    status: REQUIRED. The status (status) claim MUST specify a JSON Object that contains at least one reference to a status mechanism.

    +
      +
    • +

      status_list: REQUIRED when the status list mechanism defined in this specification is used. It contains a reference to a Status List or Status List Token. The object contains exactly two claims:

      +
        +
      • +

        idx: REQUIRED. The idx (index) claim MUST specify an Integer that represents the index to check for status information in the Status List for the current Referenced Token. The value of idx MUST be a non-negative number, containing a value of zero or greater.

        +
        • +
      • +

        uri: REQUIRED. The uri (URI) claim MUST specify a String value that identifies the Status List or Status List Token containing the status information for the Referenced Token. The value of uri MUST be a URI conforming to [RFC3986].

        +
        • +
      +
      • +
    +
    • +
+

Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.

+

The following is a non-normative example for a decoded header and payload of a Referenced Token:

+
+
+{
+  "alg": "ES256",
+  "kid": "11"
+}
+.
+{
+  "iss": "https://example.com",
+  "status": {
+    "status_list": {
+      "idx": 0,
+      "uri": "https://example.com/statuslists/1"
+    }
+  }
+}
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+6.3. Referenced Token in CWT Format +

+

The Referenced Token MUST be encoded as a "COSE Web Token (CWT)" object according to [RFC8392].

+

The following content applies to the CWT Claims Set:

+
    +
  • +

    1 (issuer): REQUIRED. Same definition as iss claim in Section 6.2.

    +
    • +
  • +

    65535 (status): REQUIRED. The status claim is encoded as a Status CBOR structure and MUST include at least one data item that refers to a status mechanism. Each data item in the Status CBOR structure comprises a key-value pair, where the key must be a CBOR text string (Major Type 3) specifying the identifier of the status mechanism, and the corresponding value defines its contents. This specification defines the following data items:

    +
      +
    • +

      status_list (status list): REQUIRED when the status list mechanism defined in this specification is used. It has the same definition as the status_list claim in Section 6.2 but MUST be encoded as a StatusListInfo CBOR structure with the following fields:

      +
        +
      • +

        idx: REQUIRED. Same definition as idx claim in Section 6.2.

        +
        • +
      • +

        uri: REQUIRED. Same definition as uri claim in Section 6.2.

        +
        • +
      +
      • +
    +
    • +
+

Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.

+

The following is a non-normative example for a decoded payload of a Referenced Token:

+
+
+18(
+    [
+      / protected / << {
+        / alg / 1: -7 / ES256 /
+      } >>,
+      / unprotected / {
+        / kid / 4: h'3132' / '13' /
+      },
+      / payload / << {
+        / iss    / 1: "https://example.com",
+        / status / 65535: {
+          "status_list": {
+            "idx": "0",
+            "uri": "https://example.com/statuslists/1"
+          }
+        }
+      } >>,
+      / signature / h'...'
+    ]
+  )
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+6.4. Referenced Token in other COSE/CBOR Format +

+

The Referenced Token MUST be encoded as a COSE_Sign1 or COSE_Sign CBOR structure as defined in "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)" [RFC9052].

+

It is required to encode the status mechanisms referred to in the Referenced Token using the Status CBOR structure defined in Section 6.3.

+

It is RECOMMENDED to use status for the label of the field that contains the Status CBOR structure.

+

Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.

+

The following is a non-normative example for a decoded payload of a Referenced Token:

+

TBD: example

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+7. Status Types +

+

This document defines potential statuses of Referenced Tokens as Status Type values. If the Status List contains more than one bit per token (as defined by "bits" in the Status List), then the whole value of bits MUST describe one value. A Status List can not represent multiple statuses per Referenced Token.

+

The registry in this document describes the basic Status Type values required for the most common use cases. +Additional values may defined for particular use cases.

+
+
+

+7.1. Status Types Values +

+

A status describes the state, mode, condition or stage of an entity that is described by the Status List. Status Types MUST be numeric values between 0 and 255. +Status types described by this specification comprise:

+
    +
  • +

    0x00 - "VALID" - The status of the Token is valid, correct or legal.

    +
    • +
  • +

    0x01 - "INVALID" - The status of the Token is revoked, annulled, taken back, recalled or cancelled. This state is irreversible.

    +
    • +
  • +

    0x02 - "SUSPENDED" - The status of the Token is temporarily invalid, hanging, debarred from privilege. This state is reversible.

    +
    • +
+

The issuer of the Status List MUST choose an adequate bits (bit size) to be able to describe the required Status Types for the application.

+

The processing rules for JWT or CWT precede any evaluation of a Referenced Token's status. For example, if a token is evaluated as being expired through the "exp" (Expiration Time) but also has a status of 0x00 ("VALID"), the token is considered expired.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+8. Verification and Processing +

+
+
+

+8.1. Status List Request +

+

To obtain the Status List or Status List Token, the Relying Party MUST send a HTTP GET request to the Status List Endpoint. Communication with the Status List Endpoint MUST utilize TLS. Which version(s) should be implemented will vary over time. A TLS server certificate check MUST be performed as defined in Section 5 and 6 of [RFC6125].

+

The Relying Party SHOULD send the following Accept-Header to indicate the requested response type:

+
    +
  • +

    "application/statuslist+json" for Status List in JSON format

    +
    • +
  • +

    "application/statuslist+jwt" for Status List in JWT format

    +
    • +
  • +

    "application/statuslist+cbor" for Status List in CBOR format

    +
    • +
  • +

    "application/statuslist+cwt" for Status List in CWT format

    +
    • +
+

If the Relying Party does not send an Accept Header, the response type is assumed to be known implicit or out-of-band.

+
+
+
+
+

+8.2. Status List Response +

+

In the successful response, the Status List Provider MUST use the following content-type:

+
    +
  • +

    "application/statuslist+json" for Status List in JSON format

    +
    • +
  • +

    "application/statuslist+jwt" for Status List in JWT format

    +
    • +
  • +

    "application/statuslist+cbor" for Status List in CBOR format

    +
    • +
  • +

    "application/statuslist+cwt" for Status List in CWT format

    +
    • +
+

In the case of "application/statuslist+json", the response MUST be of type JSON and follow the rules of Section 4.1. +In the case of "application/statuslist+jwt", the response MUST be of type JWT and follow the rules of Section 5.1. +In the case of "application/statuslist+cbor", the response MUST be of type CBOR and follow the rules of Section 4.2. +In the case of "application/statuslist+cwt", the response MUST be of type CWT and follow the rules of Section 5.2.

+

The HTTP response SHOULD use gzip Content-Encoding as defined in [RFC9110].

+
+
+
+
+

+8.3. Caching +

+

If caching is required (e.g., to enable the use of alternative mechanisms for hosting, like Content Delivery Networks), the control of the caching mechanism SHOULD be implemented using the standard HTTP Cache-Control as defined in [RFC9111].

+
+
+
+
+

+8.4. Validation Rules +

+

TBD

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+9. Batch Fetching +

+

To allow a Relying Party to fetch all status lists for a specific type of credential or a specific issuer, an optional mechanism is provided to retrieve an Object containing a list of Status Lists called Status List Aggregation. This mechanism is intended to optimize fetching and caching mechanisms and allow offline validation of the status.

+

There are two options that a Relying Party can use to discover the relevant Status List Aggregation URI. +An issuer MAY support any of these mechanisms:

+ +
+
+

+9.1. Status List Aggregation in JSON Format +

+

This section defines the structure for a JSON-encoded Status List Aggregation:

+
    +
  • +

    status_lists: REQUIRED. Contains an array of strings, each containing an URI to a Status List (Token)

    +
    • +
+

The Status List Aggregation URI provides a list of Status List URIs. This aggregation in JSON and the media type return SHOULD be application/json.

+

The following is a non-normative example for media type application/json:

+
+
+{
+   "status_lists" : [
+      "https://example.com/statuslists/1",
+      "https://example.com/statuslists/2",
+      "https://example.com/statuslists/3"
+   ]
+}
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+9.2. Issuer Metadata +

+

The issuer MAY link to the Status List Aggregation URI in metadata that can be provided by different means like .well-known metadata as is used in OAuth and OpenID, or via a VICAL extension for ISO mDoc / mDL.

+
    +
  • +

    OpenID4VCI Example

    +
    • +
+
    +
  • +

    VICAL example

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+9.3. Status List Parameter +

+

The URI to the Status List Aggregation MAY be provided as the optional parameter aggregation_uri in the Status List itself as explained inSection 4.2 and Section 4.1 respectively. A Relying Party can choose to follow this link and retrieve an up-to-date list of the relevant Status Lists.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+10. Further Examples +

+
+
+

+10.1. Status List Token with 2-Bit Status Values in JWT format +

+

In this example, the Status List additionally includes the Status Type "SUSPENDED". As the Status Type value for "SUSPENDED" is 0x02 and does not fit into 1 bit, the "bits" is required to be 2.

+

This example Status List represents the status of 12 Referenced Tokens, requiring 24 bits (3 bytes) of status.

+
+
+status[0] = 1
+status[1] = 2
+status[2] = 0
+status[3] = 3
+status[4] = 0
+status[5] = 1
+status[6] = 0
+status[7] = 1
+status[8] = 1
+status[9] = 2
+status[10] = 3
+status[11] = 3
+
+
+

These bits are concatenated:

+
+
+byte             0                  1                  2
+bit       7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0    7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0    7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
+         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+values   |1|1|0|0|1|0|0|1|  |0|1|0|0|0|1|0|0|  |1|1|1|1|1|0|0|1|
+         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+          \ / \ / \ / \ /    \ / \ / \ / \ /    \ / \ / \ / \ /
+status     3   0   2   1      1   0   1   0      3   3   2   1
+index      3   2   1   0      7   6   5   4      11  10  9   8
+           \___________/      \___________/      \___________/
+                0xC9               0x44               0xF9
+
+
+
+

Resulting in the byte array and compressed/base64url encoded status list:

+
+
+byte_array = [0xc9, 0x44, 0xf9]
+encoded:
+{
+  "bits": 2,
+  "lst": "eNo76fITAAPfAgc"
+}
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+11. Security Considerations +

+
+
+

+11.1. Correct decoding and parsing of the encoded status list +

+

TODO elaborate on risks of incorrect parsing/decoding leading to erroneous status data

+
+
+
+
+

+11.2. Cached and Stale status lists +

+

When consumers or verifiers of the Status List fetch the data, they need to be aware of its up-to-date status. The 'ttl' (time-to-live) claim +in the Status List Token provides one mechanism for setting a maximum cache time for the fetched data. This property permits distribution of +a status list to a CDN or other distribution mechanism while giving guidance to consumers of the status list on how often they need to fetch +a fresh copy of the status list even if that status list is not expired.

+
+
+
+
+

+11.3. Authorized access to the Status List +

+

TODO elaborate on authorization mechanisms preventing misuse and profiling as described in privacy section

+
+
+
+
+

+11.4. History +

+

TODO elaborate on status list only providing the up-to date/latest status, no historical data, may be provided by the underlying hosting architecture

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+12. Privacy Considerations +

+
+
+

+12.1. Limiting issuers observability of token verification +

+

The main privacy consideration for a Status List, especially in the context of the Issuer-Holder-Verifier model [SD-JWT.VC], is to prevent the Issuer from tracking the usage of the Referenced Token when the status is being checked. If an Issuer offers status information by referencing a specific token, this would enable him to create a profile for the issued token by correlating the date and identity of Relying Parties, that are requesting the status.

+

The Status List approaches these privacy implications by integrating the status information of many Referenced Tokens into the same list. Therefore, the Issuer does not learn for which Referenced Token the Relying Party is requesting the Status List. The privacy of the Holder is protected by the anonymity within the set of Referenced Tokens in the Status List, also called herd privacy. This limits the possibilities of tracking by the Issuer.

+

The herd privacy is depending on the number of entities within the Status List called its size. A larger size results in better privacy but also impacts the performance as more data has to be transferred to read the Status List.

+
+
+
+
+

+12.2. Malicious Issuers +

+

A malicious Issuer could bypass the privacy benefits of the herd privacy by generating a unique Status List for every Referenced Token. By these means, he could maintain a mapping between Referenced Tokens and Status Lists and thus track the usage of Referenced Tokens by utilizing this mapping for the incoming requests. This malicious behaviour could be detected by Relying Parties that request large amounts of Referenced Tokens by comparing the number of different Status Lists and their sizes.

+
+
+
+
+

+12.3. Unobservability of Relying Parties +

+

Once the Relying Party receives the Referenced Token, this enables him to request the Status List to validate its status through the provided uri parameter and look up the corresponding index. However, the Relying Party may persistently store the uri and index of the Referenced Token to request the Status List again at a later time. By doing so regularly, the Relying Party may create a profile of the Referenced Token's validity status. This behaviour may be intended as a feature, e.g. for a KYC process that requires regular validity checks, but might also be abused in cases where this is not intended and unknown to the Holder, e.g. profiling the suspension of a driving license or checking the employment status of an employee credential.

+

This behaviour could be mitigated by: +- adding authorization rules to the Status List, see Section 11.3. +- regular re-issuance of the Referenced Token, see Section 13.1.

+
+
+
+
+

+12.4. Unlinkability +

+

Colluding Issuers and a Relying Parties have the possibility to link two transactions, as the tuple of uri and index inside the Referenced Token are unique and therefore traceable data. By comparing the status claims of received Referenced Tokens, two colluding Relying Parties could determine that they have interacted with the same user or an Issuer could trace the usage of its issued Referenced Token by colluding with various Relying Parties. It is therefore recommended to use Status Lists for Referenced Token formats that have similar unlinkability properties.

+

To avoid privacy risks for colluding Relying Parties, it is RECOMMENDED that Issuers use batch issuance to issue multiple tokens, see Section 13.1.

+

To avoid further correlatable information by the values of uri and index, Issuers are RECOMMENDED to:

+
    +
  • +

    choose non-sequential, pseudo-random or random indices

    +
    • +
  • +

    use decoy or dead entries to obfuscate the real number of Referenced Tokens within a Status List

    +
    • +
  • +

    choose to deploy and utilize multiple Status Lists simultaneously

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+12.5. Third Party Hosting +

+

TODO elaborate on increased privacy if the status list is hosted by a third party instead of the issuer reducing tracking possibilities +TODO evaluate definition of Status List Provider? + An entity that hosts the Status List as a resource for potential Relying Parties. The Status List Provider may be the issuer of the Status List but may also be outsourced to a trusted third party.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+13. Implementation Considerations +

+
+
+

+13.1. Token Lifecycle +

+

The lifetime of a Status List (and the Status List Token) depends on the lifetime of its Referenced Tokens. Once all Referenced Tokens are expired, the Issuer may stop serving the Status List (and the Status List Token).

+

Referenced Tokens may be regularly re-issued to increase security or to mitigate linkability and prevent tracking by Relying Parties. In this case, every Referenced Token MUST have a fresh Status List entry.

+

Referenced Tokens may also be issued in batches, such that Holders can use individual tokens for every transaction. In this case, every Referenced Token MUST have a dedicated Status List entry. Revoking batch issued Referenced Tokens might reveal this correlation later on.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+14. IANA Considerations +

+
+
+

+14.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registration +

+

This specification requests registration of the following Claims in the +IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry [IANA.JWT] established by [RFC7519].

+
+
+

+14.1.1. Registry Contents +

+
    +
  • +

    Claim Name: status

    +
    • +
  • +

    Claim Description: Reference to a status or validity mechanism containing up-to-date status information on the JWT.

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change Controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Specification Document(s): Section 6.1 of this specification

    +
    • +
  • +

    Claim Name: status_list

    +
    • +
  • +

    Claim Description: A status list containing up-to-date status information on multiple other JWTs encoded as a bitarray.

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change Controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of this specification

    +
    • +
  • +

    Claim Name: ttl

    +
    • +
  • +

    Claim Description: Time to Live

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change Controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of this specification

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+14.2. JWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry +

+

This specification establishes the IANA "Status Mechanism Methods" registry for JWT "status" member values. The registry records the status mechanism method member and a reference to the specification that defines it.

+
+
+

+14.2.1. Registration Template +

+

Status Method Value:

+
    +
  • +

    The name requested (e.g., "status_list"). The name is case sensitive. Names may not match other registered names in a case-insensitive manner unless the Designated Experts state that there is a compelling reason to allow an exception.

    +
    • +
+

Status Method Description:

+
    +
  • +

    Brief description of the status mechanism method.

    +
    • +
+

Change Controller:

+
    +
  • +

    For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IESG". For others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, email address, home page URI) may also be included.

    +
    • +
+

Specification Document(s):

+
    +
  • +

    Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter, preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be included but is not required.

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+14.2.2. Initial Registry Contents +

+
    +
  • +

    Status Method Value: status_list

    +
    • +
  • +

    Status Method Description: A status list containing up-to-date status information on multiple other JWTs encoded as a bitarray.

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change Controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Specification Document(s): Section 6.2 of this specification

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+14.3. CBOR Web Token Claims Registration +

+

This specification requests registration of the following Claims in the +IANA "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims" registry [IANA.CWT] established by [RFC8392].

+
+
+

+14.3.1. Registry Contents +

+
    +
  • +

    Claim Name: status

    +
    • +
  • +

    Claim Description: Reference to a status or validity mechanism containing up-to-date status information on the CWT.

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change Controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Specification Document(s): Section 6.1 of this specification

    +
    • +
  • +

    Claim Name: status_list

    +
    • +
  • +

    Claim Description: A status list containing up-to-date status information on multiple other CWTs encoded as a bitarray.

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change Controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Specification Document(s): Section 5.2 of this specification

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+14.4. CWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry +

+

This specification establishes the IANA "Status Mechanism Methods" registry for CWT "status" member values. The registry records the status mechanism method member and a reference to the specification that defines it.

+
+
+

+14.4.1. Registration Template +

+

Status Method Value:

+
    +
  • +

    The name requested (e.g., "status_list"). The name is case sensitive. Names may not match other registered names in a case-insensitive manner unless the Designated Experts state that there is a compelling reason to allow an exception.

    +
    • +
+

Status Method Description:

+
    +
  • +

    Brief description of the status mechanism method.

    +
    • +
+

Change Controller:

+
    +
  • +

    For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IESG". For others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, email address, home page URI) may also be included.

    +
    • +
+

Specification Document(s):

+
    +
  • +

    Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter, preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be included but is not required.

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+

+14.4.2. Initial Registry Contents +

+
    +
  • +

    Status Method Value: status_list

    +
    • +
  • +

    Status Method Description: A status list containing up-to-date status information on multiple other CWTs encoded as a bitarray.

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change Controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Specification Document(s): Section 6.3 of this specification

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+14.5. Media Type Registration +

+

This section requests registration of the following media types [RFC2046] in +the "Media Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the manner described +in [RFC6838].

+

To indicate that the content is an JSON-based Status List:

+
    +
  • +

    Type name: application

    +
    • +
  • +

    Subtype name: statuslist+json

    +
    • +
  • +

    Required parameters: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Optional parameters: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Encoding considerations: binary; A JSON-based Status List is a JSON Object.

    +
    • +
  • +

    Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ]

    +
    • +
  • +

    Interoperability considerations: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Published specification: [ this specification ]

    +
    • +
  • +

    Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this specification ] for updated status information of tokens

    +
    • +
  • +

    Fragment identifier considerations: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Additional information:

    +
      +
    • +

      File extension(s): n/a

      +
      • +
    • +

      Macintosh file type code(s): n/a

      +
      • +
    +
    • +
  • +

    Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de

    +
    • +
  • +

    Intended usage: COMMON

    +
    • +
  • +

    Restrictions on usage: none

    +
    • +
  • +

    Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Provisional registration? No

    +
    • +
+

To indicate that the content is an JWT-based Status List:

+
    +
  • +

    Type name: application

    +
    • +
  • +

    Subtype name: statuslist+jwt

    +
    • +
  • +

    Required parameters: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Optional parameters: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Encoding considerations: binary; A JWT-based Status List is a JWT; JWT values are encoded as a series of base64url-encoded values (some of which may be the empty string) separated by period ('.') characters.

    +
    • +
  • +

    Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ]

    +
    • +
  • +

    Interoperability considerations: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Published specification: [ this specification ]

    +
    • +
  • +

    Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this specification ] for updated status information of tokens

    +
    • +
  • +

    Fragment identifier considerations: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Additional information:

    +
      +
    • +

      File extension(s): n/a

      +
      • +
    • +

      Macintosh file type code(s): n/a

      +
      • +
    +
    • +
  • +

    Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de

    +
    • +
  • +

    Intended usage: COMMON

    +
    • +
  • +

    Restrictions on usage: none

    +
    • +
  • +

    Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Provisional registration? No

    +
    • +
+

To indicate that the content is an CBOR-based Status List:

+
    +
  • +

    Type name: application

    +
    • +
  • +

    Subtype name: statuslist+cbor

    +
    • +
  • +

    Required parameters: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Optional parameters: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Encoding considerations: binary; A CBOR-based Status List is a CBOR Object.

    +
    • +
  • +

    Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ]

    +
    • +
  • +

    Interoperability considerations: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Published specification: [ this specification ]

    +
    • +
  • +

    Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this specification ] for updated status information of tokens

    +
    • +
  • +

    Fragment identifier considerations: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Additional information:

    +
      +
    • +

      File extension(s): n/a

      +
      • +
    • +

      Macintosh file type code(s): n/a

      +
      • +
    +
    • +
  • +

    Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de

    +
    • +
  • +

    Intended usage: COMMON

    +
    • +
  • +

    Restrictions on usage: none

    +
    • +
  • +

    Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Provisional registration? No

    +
    • +
+

To indicate that the content is an CWT-based Status List:

+
    +
  • +

    Type name: application

    +
    • +
  • +

    Subtype name: statuslist+cwt

    +
    • +
  • +

    Required parameters: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Optional parameters: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Encoding considerations: binary;

    +
    • +
  • +

    Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ]

    +
    • +
  • +

    Interoperability considerations: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Published specification: [ this specification ]

    +
    • +
  • +

    Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this specification ] for updated status information of tokens

    +
    • +
  • +

    Fragment identifier considerations: n/a

    +
    • +
  • +

    Additional information:

    +
      +
    • +

      File extension(s): n/a

      +
      • +
    • +

      Macintosh file type code(s): n/a

      +
      • +
    +
    • +
  • +

    Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de

    +
    • +
  • +

    Intended usage: COMMON

    +
    • +
  • +

    Restrictions on usage: none

    +
    • +
  • +

    Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de

    +
    • +
  • +

    Change controller: IETF

    +
    • +
  • +

    Provisional registration? No

    +
    • +
+
+
+
+
+
+

+15. References +

+
+
+

+15.1. Normative References +

+
+
[CWT.typ]
+
+Jones, M. B. and O. Steele, "COSE "typ" (type) Header Parameter", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cose-typ-header-parameter-05, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-typ-header-parameter-05>.
+
+
[IANA.CWT]
+
+IANA, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/cwt.xhtml>.
+
+
[IANA.JOSE]
+
+IANA, "JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/jose.xhtml>.
+
+
[IANA.JWT]
+
+IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml>.
+
+
[IANA.MediaTypes]
+
+IANA, "Media Types", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml>.
+
+
[RFC1950]
+
+Deutsch, P. and J. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, DOI 10.17487/RFC1950, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1950>.
+
+
[RFC1951]
+
+Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3", RFC 1951, DOI 10.17487/RFC1951, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1951>.
+
+
[RFC2046]
+
+Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2046>.
+
+
[RFC2119]
+
+Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
+
+
[RFC3986]
+
+Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.
+
+
[RFC6125]
+
+Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6125>.
+
+
[RFC6838]
+
+Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838>.
+
+
[RFC7515]
+
+Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7515>.
+
+
[RFC7519]
+
+Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519>.
+
+
[RFC8174]
+
+Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
+
+
[RFC8259]
+
+Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259>.
+
+
[RFC8392]
+
+Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8392>.
+
+
[RFC8949]
+
+Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949>.
+
+
[RFC9052]
+
+Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052, DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9052>.
+
+
[RFC9110]
+
+Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.
+
+
[RFC9111]
+
+Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Caching", STD 98, RFC 9111, DOI 10.17487/RFC9111, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+15.2. Informative References +

+
+
[ISO.mdoc]
+
+ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17, "ISO/IEC 18013-5:2021 ISO-compliant driving licence", n.d..
+
+
[RFC6749]
+
+Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749>.
+
+
[RFC7662]
+
+Richer, J., Ed., "OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection", RFC 7662, DOI 10.17487/RFC7662, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7662>.
+
+
[RFC7800]
+
+Jones, M., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)", RFC 7800, DOI 10.17487/RFC7800, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7800>.
+
+
[SD-JWT.VC]
+
+Terbu, O., Fett, D., and B. Campbell, "SD-JWT-based Verifiable Credentials (SD-JWT VC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-03, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-03>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+Acknowledgments +

+

We would like to thank +Brian Campbell, +Filip Skokan, +Francesco Marino, +Guiseppe De Marco, +Kristina Yasuda, +Michael B. Jones, +Mike Prorock, +Oliver Terbu, +Orie Steele, +Timo Glastra +and +Torsten Lodderstedt

+

for their valuable contributions, discussions and feedback to this specification.

+
+
+
+
+

+Document History +

+

-02

+ +

-01

+ +

-00

+ +

[ draft-ietf-oauth-status-list ]

+

-01

+ +

-00

+ +
+
+
+
+

+Authors' Addresses +

+
+
Tobias Looker
+
MATTR
+ +
+
+
Paul Bastian
+ +
+
+
Christian Bormann
+ +
+
+
+ + + diff --git a/c2bo/batch-fetching/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.txt b/c2bo/batch-fetching/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e02b323 --- /dev/null +++ b/c2bo/batch-fetching/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1587 @@ + + + + +Network Working Group T. Looker +Internet-Draft MATTR +Intended status: Informational P. Bastian +Expires: 16 November 2024 + C. Bormann + 15 May 2024 + + + Token Status List + draft-ietf-oauth-status-list-latest + +Abstract + + This specification defines status list data structures and processing + rules for representing the status of tokens secured by JSON Object + Signing and Encryption (JOSE) or CBOR Object Signing and + Encryption(COSE), such as JSON Web Tokens (JWTs), CBOR Web Tokens + (CWTs) and ISO mdoc. The status list token data structures + themselves are also represented as JWTs or CWTs. + +About This Document + + This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. + + The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://oauth- + wg.github.io/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/draft-ietf-oauth-status- + list.html. Status information for this document may be found at + https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/. + + Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at + https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list. + +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 https://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 16 November 2024. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as + described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are + provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction + 1.1. Rationale + 1.2. Design Considerations + 2. Conventions and Definitions + 3. Terminology + 4. Status List + 4.1. Status List in JSON Format + 4.2. Status List in CBOR Format + 5. Status List Token + 5.1. Status List Token in JWT Format + 5.2. Status List Token in CWT Format + 6. Referenced Token + 6.1. Status Claim + 6.2. Referenced Token in JWT Format + 6.3. Referenced Token in CWT Format + 6.4. Referenced Token in other COSE/CBOR Format + 7. Status Types + 7.1. Status Types Values + 8. Verification and Processing + 8.1. Status List Request + 8.2. Status List Response + 8.3. Caching + 8.4. Validation Rules + 9. Batch Fetching + 9.1. Status List Aggregation in JSON Format + 9.2. Issuer Metadata + 9.3. Status List Parameter + 10. Further Examples + 10.1. Status List Token with 2-Bit Status Values in JWT format + 11. Security Considerations + 11.1. Correct decoding and parsing of the encoded status list + 11.2. Cached and Stale status lists + 11.3. Authorized access to the Status List + 11.4. History + 12. Privacy Considerations + 12.1. Limiting issuers observability of token verification + 12.2. Malicious Issuers + 12.3. Unobservability of Relying Parties + 12.4. Unlinkability + 12.5. Third Party Hosting + 13. Implementation Considerations + 13.1. Token Lifecycle + 14. IANA Considerations + 14.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registration + 14.1.1. Registry Contents + 14.2. JWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry + 14.2.1. Registration Template + 14.2.2. Initial Registry Contents + 14.3. CBOR Web Token Claims Registration + 14.3.1. Registry Contents + 14.4. CWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry + 14.4.1. Registration Template + 14.4.2. Initial Registry Contents + 14.5. Media Type Registration + 15. References + 15.1. Normative References + 15.2. Informative References + Acknowledgments + Document History + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + Token formats secured by JOSE [IANA.JOSE] or COSE [RFC9052], such as + JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) [RFC7519], CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) [RFC8392] + and ISO mdoc [ISO.mdoc], have vast possible applications. Some of + these applications can involve issuing a token whereby certain + semantics about the token can change over time, which are important + to be able to communicate to relying parties in an interoperable + manner, such as whether the token is considered invalidated or + suspended by its issuer. + + This document defines a Status List and its representations in JSON + and CBOR formats that describe the individual statuses of multiple + Referenced Tokens, which themselves are JWTs or CWTs. The statuses + of all Referenced Tokens are conveyed via a bit array in the Status + List. Each Referenced Token is allocated an index during issuance + that represents its position within this bit array. The value of the + bit(s) at this index correspond to the Referenced Token's status. A + Status List may either be provided by an endpoint or be signed and + embedded into a Status List Token, whereas this document defines its + representations in JWT and CWT. Status Lists may be composed for + expressing a range of Status Types. This document defines basic + Status Types for the most common use cases as well as an + extensibility mechanism for custom Status Types. The document also + defines how an issuer of a Referenced Token references a Status List + (Token). + + An example for the usage of a Status List is to manage the status of + issued access tokens as defined in section 1.4 of [RFC6749]. Token + Introspection [RFC7662] defines another way to determine the status + of an issued access token, but it requires the party trying to + validate an access tokens status to directly contact the token + issuer, whereas the mechanism defined in this specification does not + have this limitation. + + Another possible use case for the Status List is to express the + status of verifiable credentials (Referenced Tokens) issued by an + Issuer in the Issuer-Holder-Verifier model [SD-JWT.VC]. The + following diagram depicts the basic conceptual relationship. + + +-------------------+ +------------------------+ + | | describes status | | + | Status List +----------------->| Referenced Token | + | (JSON or CBOR) <------------------+ (JOSE, COSE) | + | | references | | + +-------+-----------+ +--------+---------------+ + | + |embedded in + v + +-------------------+ + | | + | Status List Token | + | (JWT or CWT) | + | | + +-------------------+ + +1.1. Rationale + + Revocation mechanisms are an essential part for most identity + ecosystems. In the past, revocation of X.509 TLS certificates has + been proven difficult. Traditional certificate revocation lists + (CRLs) have limited scalability; Online Certificate Status Protocol + (OCSP) has additional privacy risks, since the client is leaking the + requested website to a third party. OCSP stapling is addressing some + of these problems at the cost of less up-to-date data. Modern + approaches use accumulator-based revocation registries and Zero- + Knowledge-Proofs to accommodate for this privacy gap, but face + scalability issues again. + + This specification seeks to find a balance between scalability, + security, and privacy by minimizing the status information to mere + bits (often a single bit) and compressing the resulting binary data. + Thereby, a Status List may contain statuses of many thousands or + millions Referenced Tokens while remaining as small as possible. + Placing large amounts of Referenced Tokens into the same list also + enables herd privacy relative to the Issuer. + + This specification establishes the IANA "Status Mechanism Methods" + registry for status mechanism and registers the members defined by + this specification. Other specifications can register other members + used for status retrieval. + +1.2. Design Considerations + + The decisions taken in this specification aim to achieve the + following design goals: + + * the specification shall favor a simple and easy to understand + concept + + * the specification shall be easy, fast and secure to implement in + all major programming languages + + * the specification shall be optimized to support the most common + use cases and avoid unnecessary complexity of corner cases + + * the Status List shall scale up to millions of tokens to support + large scale government or enterprise use cases + + * the Status List shall enable caching policies and offline support + + * the specification shall support JSON and CBOR based tokens + + * the specification shall not specify key resolution or trust + frameworks + + * the specification shall design an extension point to convey + information about the status of a token that can be re-used by + other mechanisms + +2. Conventions and Definitions + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and + "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in + BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all + capitals, as shown here. + +3. Terminology + + Issuer: An entity that issues the Referenced Token and provides the + status information of the Referenced Token by serving a Status + List Token on a public endpoint. + + Relying Party: An entity that relies on the Status List to validate + the status of the Referenced Token. Also known as Verifier. + + Status List: An object in JSON or CBOR representation containing a + bit array that lists the statuses of many Referenced Tokens. + + Status List Token: A token in JWT or CWT representation that + contains a cryptographically secured Status List. + + Referenced Token: A cryptographically secured data structure which + contains a reference to a Status List or Status List Token. It is + RECOMMENDED to use JSON [RFC8259] or CBOR [RFC8949] for + representation of the token and secure it using JSON Object + Signing as defined in [RFC7515] or CBOR Object Signing and + Encryption as defined in [RFC9052]. The information from the + contained Status List may give a Relying Party additional + information about up-to-date status of the Referenced Token. + +4. Status List + + A Status List is a byte array that contains the statuses of many + Referenced Tokens represented by one or multiple bits. A common + representation of a Status List is composed by the following + algorithm: + + 1. Each status of a Referenced Token MUST be represented with a bit- + size of 1,2,4, or 8. Therefore up to 2,4,16, or 256 statuses for + a Referenced Token are possible, depending on the bit-size. This + limitation is intended to limit bit manipulation necessary to a + single byte for every operation and thus keeping implementations + simpler and less error prone. + + 2. The overall Status List is encoded as a byte array. Depending on + the bit-size, each byte corresponds to 8/(#bit-size) statuses + (8,4,2, or 1). The status of each Referenced Token is identified + using the index that maps to one or more specific bits within the + byte array. The index starts counting at 0 and ends with "size" + - 1 (being the last valid entry). The bits within an array are + counted from least significant bit "0" to the most significant + bit ("7"). All bits of the byte array at a particular index are + set to a status value. + + 3. The byte array is compressed using DEFLATE [RFC1951] with the + ZLIB [RFC1950] data format. Implementations are RECOMMENDED to + use the highest compression level available. + + The following example illustrates a Status List that represents the + statuses of 16 Referenced Tokens, requiring 16 bits (2 bytes) for the + uncompressed byte array: + + status[0] = 1 + status[1] = 0 + status[2] = 0 + status[3] = 1 + status[4] = 1 + status[5] = 1 + status[6] = 0 + status[7] = 1 + status[8] = 1 + status[9] = 1 + status[10] = 0 + status[11] = 0 + status[12] = 0 + status[13] = 1 + status[14] = 0 + status[15] = 1 + + These bits are concatenated: + + byte 0 1 2 + bit 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+... + values |1|0|1|1|1|0|0|1| |1|0|1|0|0|0|1|1| |0|... + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+... + index 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 15 ... 10 9 8 23 + \_______________/ \_______________/ + 0xB9 0xA3 + +4.1. Status List in JSON Format + + This section defines the structure for a JSON-encoded Status List: + + * status_list: REQUIRED. JSON Object that contains a Status List. + The object contains exactly two claims: + + - bits: REQUIRED. JSON Integer specifying the number of bits per + Referenced Token in the Status List (lst). The allowed values + for bits are 1,2,4 and 8. + + - lst: REQUIRED. JSON String that contains the status values for + all the Referenced Tokens it conveys statuses for. The value + MUST be the base64url-encoded (as defined in Section 2 of + [RFC7515]) Status List as specified in Section 4. + + - aggregation_uri: OPTIONAL. An URI to retrieve a the Status + List Aggregation for this credential type. See section + Section 9 for further detail. + + The following example illustrates the JSON representation of the + Status List: + + byte_array = [0xb9, 0xa3] + encoded: + { + "bits": 1, + "lst": "eNrbuRgAAhcBXQ" + } + +4.2. Status List in CBOR Format + + This section defines the structure for a CBOR-encoded Status List: + + * The StatusList structure is a map (Major Type 5) and defines the + following entries: + + - bits: REQUIRED. Unsigned int (Major Type 0) that contains the + number of bits per Referenced Token in the Status List. The + allowed values for bits are 1, 2, 4 and 8. + + - lst: REQUIRED. Byte string (Major Type 2) that contains the + Status List as specified in Section 4.1. + + - aggregation_uri: OPTIONAL. Byte string (Major Type2) that + contains an URI to retrieve the Status List Aggregation for + this credential type. See section Section 9 for further + detail. + + The following example illustrates the CBOR representation of the + Status List: + + byte_array = [0xb9, 0xa3] + encoded: + a2646269747301636c73744a78dadbb918000217015d + + The following is the CBOR diagnostic output of the example above: + + a2 # map(2) + 64 # string(4) + 62697473 # "bits" + 01 # uint(1) + 63 # string(3) + 6c7374 # "lst" + 4a # bytes(10) + 78dadbb918000217015d # "xÚÛ¹\x18\x00\x02\x17\x01]" + +5. Status List Token + + A Status List Token embeds the Status List into a token that is + cryptographically signed and protects the integrity of the Status + List. This allows for the Status List Token to be hosted by third + parties or be transferred for offline use cases. + + This section specifies Status List Tokens in JSON Web Token (JWT) and + CBOR Web Token (CWT) format. + +5.1. Status List Token in JWT Format + + The Status List Token MUST be encoded as a "JSON Web Token (JWT)" + according to [RFC7519]. + + The following content applies to the JWT Header: + + * typ: REQUIRED. The JWT type MUST be statuslist+jwt. + + The following content applies to the JWT Claims Set: + + * iss: REQUIRED when also present in the Referenced Token. The iss + (issuer) claim MUST specify a unique string identifier for the + entity that issued the Status List Token. In the absence of an + application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications + MUST compare issuer values using the Simple String Comparison + method defined in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC3986]. The value MUST be + equal to that of the iss claim contained within the Referenced + Token. + + * sub: REQUIRED. The sub (subject) claim MUST specify a unique + string identifier for the Status List Token. The value MUST be + equal to that of the uri claim contained in the status_list claim + of the Referenced Token. + + * iat: REQUIRED. The iat (issued at) claim MUST specify the time at + which the Status List Token was issued. + + * exp: OPTIONAL. The exp (expiration time) claim, if present, MUST + specify the time at which the Status List Token is considered + expired by its issuer. + + * ttl: OPTIONAL. The ttl (time to live) claim, if present, MUST + specify the maximum amount of time, in seconds, that the Status + List Token can be cached by a consumer before a fresh copy SHOULD + be retrieved. The value of the claim MUST be a positive number. + + * status_list: REQUIRED. The status_list (status list) claim MUST + specify the Status List conforming to the rules outlined in + Section 4.1. + + The following additional rules apply: + + 1. The JWT MAY contain other claims. + + 2. The JWT MUST be digitally signed using an asymmetric + cryptographic algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject the JWT if + it is using a Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. + Relying parties MUST reject JWTs with an invalid signature. + + 3. Relying parties MUST reject JWTs that are not valid in all other + respects per "JSON Web Token (JWT)" [RFC7519]. + + 4. Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the + discretion of the verifying party. + + The following is a non-normative example for a Status List Token in + JWT format: + + { + "alg": "ES256", + "kid": "12", + "typ": "statuslist+jwt" + } + . + { + "exp": 2291720170, + "iat": 1686920170, + "iss": "https://example.com", + "status_list": { + "bits": 1, + "lst": "eNrbuRgAAhcBXQ" + }, + "sub": "https://example.com/statuslists/1" + } + +5.2. Status List Token in CWT Format + + The Status List Token MUST be encoded as a "CBOR Web Token (CWT)" + according to [RFC8392]. + + The following content applies to the CWT protected header: + + * 16 TBD (type): REQUIRED. The type of the CWT MUST be + statuslist+cwt as defined in [CWT.typ]. + + The following content applies to the CWT Claims Set: + + * 1 (issuer): REQUIRED. Same definition as iss claim in + Section 5.1. + + * 2 (subject): REQUIRED. Same definition as sub claim in + Section 5.1. + + * 6 (issued at): REQUIRED. Same definition as iat claim in + Section 5.1. + + * 4 (expiration time): OPTIONAL. Same definition as exp claim in + Section 5.1. + + * 65534 (status list): REQUIRED. The status list claim MUST specify + the Status List conforming to the rules outlined in Section 4.2. + + The following additional rules apply: + + 1. The CWT MAY contain other claims. + + 2. The CWT MUST be digitally signed using an asymmetric + cryptographic algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject the CWT if + it is using a Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. + Relying parties MUST reject CWTs with an invalid signature. + + 3. Relying parties MUST reject CWTs that are not valid in all other + respects per "CBOR Web Token (CWT)" [RFC8392]. + + 4. Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the + discretion of the verifying party. + + The following is a non-normative example for a Status List Token in + CWT format (not including the type header yet): + + d28453a20126106e7374617475736c6973742b637774a1044231325860a502782168 + 747470733a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f7374617475736c697374732f310173 + 68747470733a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d061a648c5bea041a8898dfea19fffe + 56a2646269747301636c73744a78dadbb918000217015d584056563ed9f171f1cdce + 63e809b80999814d7bcd6aac7e2269c0bd15eb09e4497ef2e553838f3871a37a42b6 + d62166305dd303ca99c272df13aa6eca8b5d693740 + + The following is the CBOR diagnostic output of the example above: + +d2 # tag(18) + 84 # array(4) + 53 # bytes(19) + a20126106e7374617475736c # "¢\x01&\x10nstatusl" + 6973742b637774 # "ist+cwt" + a1 # map(1) + 04 # uint(4) + 42 # bytes(2) + 3132 # "12" + 58 60 # bytes(96) + a502782168747470733a2f2f # "¥\x02x!https://" + 6578616d706c652e636f6d2f # "example.com/" + 7374617475736c697374732f # "statuslists/" + 31017368747470733a2f2f65 # "1\x01shttps://e" + 78616d706c652e636f6d061a # "xample.com\x06\x1a" + 648c3fca041a8898c3ca19ff # "d\x8c?Ê\x04\x1a\x88\x98ÃÊ\x19ÿ" + fe56a2646269747301636c73 # "þV¢dbits\x01cls" + 744a78dadbb918000217015d # "tJxÚÛ¹\x18\x00\x02\x17\x01]" + 58 40 # bytes(64) + 3fd60a6d10eb4b4131f1f6c1 # "?Ö\x0am\x10ëKA1ñöÁ" + 2fb365ae27b969e8e8df0b4f # "/³e®'¹ièèß\x0bO" + 4029815b679cb1051c1c9eb3 # "@)\x81[g\x9c±\x05\x1c\x1c\x9e³" + 6aa72f6f17bcfdb5ed443bdf # "j§/o\x17¼ýµíD;ß" + c2339568ab42949169b413e7 # "Â3\x95h«B\x94\x91i´\x13ç" + 02ae1e6a # "\x02®\x1ej" + +6. Referenced Token + +6.1. Status Claim + + By including a "status" claim in a Referenced Token, the Issuer is + referencing a mechanism to retrieve status information about this + Referenced Token. The claim contains members used to reference to a + status list as defined in this specification. Other members of the + "status" object may be defined by other specifications. This is + analogous to "cnf" claim in Section 3.1 of [RFC7800] in which + different authenticity confirmation methods can be included. + +6.2. Referenced Token in JWT Format + + The Referenced Token MUST be encoded as a "JSON Web Token (JWT)" + according to [RFC7519]. + + The following content applies to the JWT Claims Set: + + * iss: REQUIRED when also present in the Status List Token. The iss + (issuer) claim MUST specify a unique string identifier for the + entity that issued the Referenced Token. In the absence of an + application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications + MUST compare issuer values using the Simple String Comparison + method defined in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC3986]. The value MUST be + equal to that of the iss claim contained within the referenced + Status List Token. + + * status: REQUIRED. The status (status) claim MUST specify a JSON + Object that contains at least one reference to a status mechanism. + + - status_list: REQUIRED when the status list mechanism defined in + this specification is used. It contains a reference to a + Status List or Status List Token. The object contains exactly + two claims: + + o idx: REQUIRED. The idx (index) claim MUST specify an + Integer that represents the index to check for status + information in the Status List for the current Referenced + Token. The value of idx MUST be a non-negative number, + containing a value of zero or greater. + + o uri: REQUIRED. The uri (URI) claim MUST specify a String + value that identifies the Status List or Status List Token + containing the status information for the Referenced Token. + The value of uri MUST be a URI conforming to [RFC3986]. + + Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the + discretion of the verifying party. + + The following is a non-normative example for a decoded header and + payload of a Referenced Token: + + { + "alg": "ES256", + "kid": "11" + } + . + { + "iss": "https://example.com", + "status": { + "status_list": { + "idx": 0, + "uri": "https://example.com/statuslists/1" + } + } + } + +6.3. Referenced Token in CWT Format + + The Referenced Token MUST be encoded as a "COSE Web Token (CWT)" + object according to [RFC8392]. + + The following content applies to the CWT Claims Set: + + * 1 (issuer): REQUIRED. Same definition as iss claim in + Section 6.2. + + * 65535 (status): REQUIRED. The status claim is encoded as a Status + CBOR structure and MUST include at least one data item that refers + to a status mechanism. Each data item in the Status CBOR + structure comprises a key-value pair, where the key must be a CBOR + text string (Major Type 3) specifying the identifier of the status + mechanism, and the corresponding value defines its contents. This + specification defines the following data items: + + - status_list (status list): REQUIRED when the status list + mechanism defined in this specification is used. It has the + same definition as the status_list claim in Section 6.2 but + MUST be encoded as a StatusListInfo CBOR structure with the + following fields: + + o idx: REQUIRED. Same definition as idx claim in Section 6.2. + + o uri: REQUIRED. Same definition as uri claim in Section 6.2. + + Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the + discretion of the verifying party. + + The following is a non-normative example for a decoded payload of a + Referenced Token: + + 18( + [ + / protected / << { + / alg / 1: -7 / ES256 / + } >>, + / unprotected / { + / kid / 4: h'3132' / '13' / + }, + / payload / << { + / iss / 1: "https://example.com", + / status / 65535: { + "status_list": { + "idx": "0", + "uri": "https://example.com/statuslists/1" + } + } + } >>, + / signature / h'...' + ] + ) + +6.4. Referenced Token in other COSE/CBOR Format + + The Referenced Token MUST be encoded as a COSE_Sign1 or COSE_Sign + CBOR structure as defined in "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption + (COSE)" [RFC9052]. + + It is required to encode the status mechanisms referred to in the + Referenced Token using the Status CBOR structure defined in + Section 6.3. + + It is RECOMMENDED to use status for the label of the field that + contains the Status CBOR structure. + + Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the + discretion of the verifying party. + + The following is a non-normative example for a decoded payload of a + Referenced Token: + + TBD: example + +7. Status Types + + This document defines potential statuses of Referenced Tokens as + Status Type values. If the Status List contains more than one bit + per token (as defined by "bits" in the Status List), then the whole + value of bits MUST describe one value. A Status List can not + represent multiple statuses per Referenced Token. + + The registry in this document describes the basic Status Type values + required for the most common use cases. Additional values may + defined for particular use cases. + +7.1. Status Types Values + + A status describes the state, mode, condition or stage of an entity + that is described by the Status List. Status Types MUST be numeric + values between 0 and 255. Status types described by this + specification comprise: + + * 0x00 - "VALID" - The status of the Token is valid, correct or + legal. + + * 0x01 - "INVALID" - The status of the Token is revoked, annulled, + taken back, recalled or cancelled. This state is irreversible. + + * 0x02 - "SUSPENDED" - The status of the Token is temporarily + invalid, hanging, debarred from privilege. This state is + reversible. + + The issuer of the Status List MUST choose an adequate bits (bit size) + to be able to describe the required Status Types for the application. + + The processing rules for JWT or CWT precede any evaluation of a + Referenced Token's status. For example, if a token is evaluated as + being expired through the "exp" (Expiration Time) but also has a + status of 0x00 ("VALID"), the token is considered expired. + +8. Verification and Processing + +8.1. Status List Request + + To obtain the Status List or Status List Token, the Relying Party + MUST send a HTTP GET request to the Status List Endpoint. + Communication with the Status List Endpoint MUST utilize TLS. Which + version(s) should be implemented will vary over time. A TLS server + certificate check MUST be performed as defined in Section 5 and 6 of + [RFC6125]. + + The Relying Party SHOULD send the following Accept-Header to indicate + the requested response type: + + * "application/statuslist+json" for Status List in JSON format + + * "application/statuslist+jwt" for Status List in JWT format + + * "application/statuslist+cbor" for Status List in CBOR format + + * "application/statuslist+cwt" for Status List in CWT format + + If the Relying Party does not send an Accept Header, the response + type is assumed to be known implicit or out-of-band. + +8.2. Status List Response + + In the successful response, the Status List Provider MUST use the + following content-type: + + * "application/statuslist+json" for Status List in JSON format + + * "application/statuslist+jwt" for Status List in JWT format + + * "application/statuslist+cbor" for Status List in CBOR format + + * "application/statuslist+cwt" for Status List in CWT format + + In the case of "application/statuslist+json", the response MUST be of + type JSON and follow the rules of Section 4.1. In the case of + "application/statuslist+jwt", the response MUST be of type JWT and + follow the rules of Section 5.1. In the case of "application/ + statuslist+cbor", the response MUST be of type CBOR and follow the + rules of Section 4.2. In the case of "application/statuslist+cwt", + the response MUST be of type CWT and follow the rules of Section 5.2. + + The HTTP response SHOULD use gzip Content-Encoding as defined in + [RFC9110]. + +8.3. Caching + + If caching is required (e.g., to enable the use of alternative + mechanisms for hosting, like Content Delivery Networks), the control + of the caching mechanism SHOULD be implemented using the standard + HTTP Cache-Control as defined in [RFC9111]. + +8.4. Validation Rules + + TBD + +9. Batch Fetching + + To allow a Relying Party to fetch all status lists for a specific + type of credential or a specific issuer, an optional mechanism is + provided to retrieve an Object containing a list of Status Lists + called Status List Aggregation. This mechanism is intended to + optimize fetching and caching mechanisms and allow offline validation + of the status. + + There are two options that a Relying Party can use to discover the + relevant Status List Aggregation URI. An issuer MAY support any of + these mechanisms: + + * Issuer metadata: The issuer publishes an URI which links to Status + List Aggregation + + * Status List Parameter: The issuer can choose to add an additional + claim to the Status List (Token) that links to the Status List + Aggregation. + +9.1. Status List Aggregation in JSON Format + + This section defines the structure for a JSON-encoded Status List + Aggregation: + + * status_lists: REQUIRED. Contains an array of strings, each + containing an URI to a Status List (Token) + + The Status List Aggregation URI provides a list of Status List URIs. + This aggregation in JSON and the media type return SHOULD be + application/json. + + The following is a non-normative example for media type application/ + json: + + { + "status_lists" : [ + "https://example.com/statuslists/1", + "https://example.com/statuslists/2", + "https://example.com/statuslists/3" + ] + } + +9.2. Issuer Metadata + + The issuer MAY link to the Status List Aggregation URI in metadata + that can be provided by different means like .well-known metadata as + is used in OAuth and OpenID, or via a VICAL extension for ISO mDoc / + mDL. + + OpenID4VCI Example + + VICAL example + +9.3. Status List Parameter + + The URI to the Status List Aggregation MAY be provided as the + optional parameter aggregation_uri in the Status List itself as + explained inSection 4.2 and Section 4.1 respectively. A Relying + Party can choose to follow this link and retrieve an up-to-date list + of the relevant Status Lists. + +10. Further Examples + +10.1. Status List Token with 2-Bit Status Values in JWT format + + In this example, the Status List additionally includes the Status + Type "SUSPENDED". As the Status Type value for "SUSPENDED" is 0x02 + and does not fit into 1 bit, the "bits" is required to be 2. + + This example Status List represents the status of 12 Referenced + Tokens, requiring 24 bits (3 bytes) of status. + + status[0] = 1 + status[1] = 2 + status[2] = 0 + status[3] = 3 + status[4] = 0 + status[5] = 1 + status[6] = 0 + status[7] = 1 + status[8] = 1 + status[9] = 2 + status[10] = 3 + status[11] = 3 + + These bits are concatenated: + + byte 0 1 2 + bit 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + values |1|1|0|0|1|0|0|1| |0|1|0|0|0|1|0|0| |1|1|1|1|1|0|0|1| + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / + status 3 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 + index 3 2 1 0 7 6 5 4 11 10 9 8 + \___________/ \___________/ \___________/ + 0xC9 0x44 0xF9 + + Resulting in the byte array and compressed/base64url encoded status + list: + + byte_array = [0xc9, 0x44, 0xf9] + encoded: + { + "bits": 2, + "lst": "eNo76fITAAPfAgc" + } + +11. Security Considerations + +11.1. Correct decoding and parsing of the encoded status list + + TODO elaborate on risks of incorrect parsing/decoding leading to + erroneous status data + +11.2. Cached and Stale status lists + + When consumers or verifiers of the Status List fetch the data, they + need to be aware of its up-to-date status. The 'ttl' (time-to-live) + claim in the Status List Token provides one mechanism for setting a + maximum cache time for the fetched data. This property permits + distribution of a status list to a CDN or other distribution + mechanism while giving guidance to consumers of the status list on + how often they need to fetch a fresh copy of the status list even if + that status list is not expired. + +11.3. Authorized access to the Status List + + TODO elaborate on authorization mechanisms preventing misuse and + profiling as described in privacy section + +11.4. History + + TODO elaborate on status list only providing the up-to date/latest + status, no historical data, may be provided by the underlying hosting + architecture + +12. Privacy Considerations + +12.1. Limiting issuers observability of token verification + + The main privacy consideration for a Status List, especially in the + context of the Issuer-Holder-Verifier model [SD-JWT.VC], is to + prevent the Issuer from tracking the usage of the Referenced Token + when the status is being checked. If an Issuer offers status + information by referencing a specific token, this would enable him to + create a profile for the issued token by correlating the date and + identity of Relying Parties, that are requesting the status. + + The Status List approaches these privacy implications by integrating + the status information of many Referenced Tokens into the same list. + Therefore, the Issuer does not learn for which Referenced Token the + Relying Party is requesting the Status List. The privacy of the + Holder is protected by the anonymity within the set of Referenced + Tokens in the Status List, also called herd privacy. This limits the + possibilities of tracking by the Issuer. + + The herd privacy is depending on the number of entities within the + Status List called its size. A larger size results in better privacy + but also impacts the performance as more data has to be transferred + to read the Status List. + +12.2. Malicious Issuers + + A malicious Issuer could bypass the privacy benefits of the herd + privacy by generating a unique Status List for every Referenced + Token. By these means, he could maintain a mapping between + Referenced Tokens and Status Lists and thus track the usage of + Referenced Tokens by utilizing this mapping for the incoming + requests. This malicious behaviour could be detected by Relying + Parties that request large amounts of Referenced Tokens by comparing + the number of different Status Lists and their sizes. + +12.3. Unobservability of Relying Parties + + Once the Relying Party receives the Referenced Token, this enables + him to request the Status List to validate its status through the + provided uri parameter and look up the corresponding index. However, + the Relying Party may persistently store the uri and index of the + Referenced Token to request the Status List again at a later time. + By doing so regularly, the Relying Party may create a profile of the + Referenced Token's validity status. This behaviour may be intended + as a feature, e.g. for a KYC process that requires regular validity + checks, but might also be abused in cases where this is not intended + and unknown to the Holder, e.g. profiling the suspension of a driving + license or checking the employment status of an employee credential. + + This behaviour could be mitigated by: - adding authorization rules to + the Status List, see Section 11.3. - regular re-issuance of the + Referenced Token, see Section 13.1. + +12.4. Unlinkability + + Colluding Issuers and a Relying Parties have the possibility to link + two transactions, as the tuple of uri and index inside the Referenced + Token are unique and therefore traceable data. By comparing the + status claims of received Referenced Tokens, two colluding Relying + Parties could determine that they have interacted with the same user + or an Issuer could trace the usage of its issued Referenced Token by + colluding with various Relying Parties. It is therefore recommended + to use Status Lists for Referenced Token formats that have similar + unlinkability properties. + + To avoid privacy risks for colluding Relying Parties, it is + RECOMMENDED that Issuers use batch issuance to issue multiple tokens, + see Section 13.1. + + To avoid further correlatable information by the values of uri and + index, Issuers are RECOMMENDED to: + + * choose non-sequential, pseudo-random or random indices + + * use decoy or dead entries to obfuscate the real number of + Referenced Tokens within a Status List + + * choose to deploy and utilize multiple Status Lists simultaneously + +12.5. Third Party Hosting + + TODO elaborate on increased privacy if the status list is hosted by a + third party instead of the issuer reducing tracking possibilities + TODO evaluate definition of Status List Provider? An entity that + hosts the Status List as a resource for potential Relying Parties. + The Status List Provider may be the issuer of the Status List but may + also be outsourced to a trusted third party. + +13. Implementation Considerations + +13.1. Token Lifecycle + + The lifetime of a Status List (and the Status List Token) depends on + the lifetime of its Referenced Tokens. Once all Referenced Tokens + are expired, the Issuer may stop serving the Status List (and the + Status List Token). + + Referenced Tokens may be regularly re-issued to increase security or + to mitigate linkability and prevent tracking by Relying Parties. In + this case, every Referenced Token MUST have a fresh Status List + entry. + + Referenced Tokens may also be issued in batches, such that Holders + can use individual tokens for every transaction. In this case, every + Referenced Token MUST have a dedicated Status List entry. Revoking + batch issued Referenced Tokens might reveal this correlation later + on. + +14. IANA Considerations + +14.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registration + + This specification requests registration of the following Claims in + the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry [IANA.JWT] established by + [RFC7519]. + +14.1.1. Registry Contents + + * Claim Name: status + + * Claim Description: Reference to a status or validity mechanism + containing up-to-date status information on the JWT. + + * Change Controller: IETF + + * Specification Document(s): Section 6.1 of this specification + + * Claim Name: status_list + + * Claim Description: A status list containing up-to-date status + information on multiple other JWTs encoded as a bitarray. + + * Change Controller: IETF + + * Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of this specification + + * Claim Name: ttl + + * Claim Description: Time to Live + + * Change Controller: IETF + + * Specification Document(s): Section 5.1 of this specification + +14.2. JWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry + + This specification establishes the IANA "Status Mechanism Methods" + registry for JWT "status" member values. The registry records the + status mechanism method member and a reference to the specification + that defines it. + +14.2.1. Registration Template + + Status Method Value: + + The name requested (e.g., "status_list"). The name is case + sensitive. Names may not match other registered names in a case- + insensitive manner unless the Designated Experts state that there + is a compelling reason to allow an exception. + + Status Method Description: + + Brief description of the status mechanism method. + + Change Controller: + + For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IESG". For others, give the + name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal + address, email address, home page URI) may also be included. + + Specification Document(s): + + Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter, + preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of + the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be + included but is not required. + +14.2.2. Initial Registry Contents + + * Status Method Value: status_list + + * Status Method Description: A status list containing up-to-date + status information on multiple other JWTs encoded as a bitarray. + + * Change Controller: IETF + + * Specification Document(s): Section 6.2 of this specification + +14.3. CBOR Web Token Claims Registration + + This specification requests registration of the following Claims in + the IANA "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims" registry [IANA.CWT] + established by [RFC8392]. + +14.3.1. Registry Contents + + * Claim Name: status + + * Claim Description: Reference to a status or validity mechanism + containing up-to-date status information on the CWT. + + * Change Controller: IETF + + * Specification Document(s): Section 6.1 of this specification + + * Claim Name: status_list + + * Claim Description: A status list containing up-to-date status + information on multiple other CWTs encoded as a bitarray. + + * Change Controller: IETF + + * Specification Document(s): Section 5.2 of this specification + +14.4. CWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry + + This specification establishes the IANA "Status Mechanism Methods" + registry for CWT "status" member values. The registry records the + status mechanism method member and a reference to the specification + that defines it. + +14.4.1. Registration Template + + Status Method Value: + + The name requested (e.g., "status_list"). The name is case + sensitive. Names may not match other registered names in a case- + insensitive manner unless the Designated Experts state that there + is a compelling reason to allow an exception. + + Status Method Description: + + Brief description of the status mechanism method. + + Change Controller: + + For Standards Track RFCs, list the "IESG". For others, give the + name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal + address, email address, home page URI) may also be included. + + Specification Document(s): + + Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter, + preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of + the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be + included but is not required. + +14.4.2. Initial Registry Contents + + * Status Method Value: status_list + + * Status Method Description: A status list containing up-to-date + status information on multiple other CWTs encoded as a bitarray. + + * Change Controller: IETF + + * Specification Document(s): Section 6.3 of this specification + +14.5. Media Type Registration + + This section requests registration of the following media types + [RFC2046] in the "Media Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the + manner described in [RFC6838]. + + To indicate that the content is an JSON-based Status List: + + * Type name: application + + * Subtype name: statuslist+json + + * Required parameters: n/a + + * Optional parameters: n/a + + * Encoding considerations: binary; A JSON-based Status List is a + JSON Object. + + * Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ] + + * Interoperability considerations: n/a + + * Published specification: [ this specification ] + + * Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this + specification ] for updated status information of tokens + + * Fragment identifier considerations: n/a + + * Additional information: + + - File extension(s): n/a + + - Macintosh file type code(s): n/a + + * Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul + Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de + + * Intended usage: COMMON + + * Restrictions on usage: none + + * Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de + + * Change controller: IETF + + * Provisional registration? No + + To indicate that the content is an JWT-based Status List: + + * Type name: application + + * Subtype name: statuslist+jwt + + * Required parameters: n/a + + * Optional parameters: n/a + + * Encoding considerations: binary; A JWT-based Status List is a JWT; + JWT values are encoded as a series of base64url-encoded values + (some of which may be the empty string) separated by period ('.') + characters. + + * Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ] + + * Interoperability considerations: n/a + + * Published specification: [ this specification ] + + * Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this + specification ] for updated status information of tokens + + * Fragment identifier considerations: n/a + + * Additional information: + + - File extension(s): n/a + + - Macintosh file type code(s): n/a + + * Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul + Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de + + * Intended usage: COMMON + + * Restrictions on usage: none + + * Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de + + * Change controller: IETF + + * Provisional registration? No + + To indicate that the content is an CBOR-based Status List: + + * Type name: application + + * Subtype name: statuslist+cbor + + * Required parameters: n/a + + * Optional parameters: n/a + + * Encoding considerations: binary; A CBOR-based Status List is a + CBOR Object. + + * Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ] + + * Interoperability considerations: n/a + + * Published specification: [ this specification ] + + * Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this + specification ] for updated status information of tokens + + * Fragment identifier considerations: n/a + + * Additional information: + + - File extension(s): n/a + + - Macintosh file type code(s): n/a + + * Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul + Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de + + * Intended usage: COMMON + + * Restrictions on usage: none + + * Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de + + * Change controller: IETF + + * Provisional registration? No + + To indicate that the content is an CWT-based Status List: + + * Type name: application + + * Subtype name: statuslist+cwt + + * Required parameters: n/a + + * Optional parameters: n/a + + * Encoding considerations: binary; + + * Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ] + + * Interoperability considerations: n/a + + * Published specification: [ this specification ] + + * Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this + specification ] for updated status information of tokens + + * Fragment identifier considerations: n/a + + * Additional information: + + - File extension(s): n/a + + - Macintosh file type code(s): n/a + + * Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul + Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de + + * Intended usage: COMMON + + * Restrictions on usage: none + + * Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de + + * Change controller: IETF + + * Provisional registration? No + +15. References + +15.1. Normative References + + [CWT.typ] Jones, M. B. and O. Steele, "COSE "typ" (type) Header + Parameter", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- + cose-typ-header-parameter-05, 3 April 2024, + . + + [IANA.CWT] IANA, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims", n.d., + . + + [IANA.JOSE] + IANA, "JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)", n.d., + . + + [IANA.JWT] IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims", n.d., + . + + [IANA.MediaTypes] + IANA, "Media Types", n.d., + . + + [RFC1950] Deutsch, P. and J. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format + Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, + DOI 10.17487/RFC1950, May 1996, + . + + [RFC1951] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification + version 1.3", RFC 1951, DOI 10.17487/RFC1951, May 1996, + . + + [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail + Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996, + . + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . + + [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform + Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, + RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, + . + + [RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and + Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity + within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 + (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer + Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March + 2011, . + + [RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type + Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, + RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013, + . + + [RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web + Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May + 2015, . + + [RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token + (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, + . + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, . + + [RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data + Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, + . + + [RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, + "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392, + May 2018, . + + [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object + Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, + . + + [RFC9052] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): + Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022, + . + + [RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, + Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022, + . + + [RFC9111] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, + Ed., "HTTP Caching", STD 98, RFC 9111, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9111, June 2022, + . + +15.2. Informative References + + [ISO.mdoc] ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17, "ISO/IEC 18013-5:2021 ISO-compliant + driving licence", n.d.. + + [RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", + RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012, + . + + [RFC7662] Richer, J., Ed., "OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection", + RFC 7662, DOI 10.17487/RFC7662, October 2015, + . + + [RFC7800] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof-of- + Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)", + RFC 7800, DOI 10.17487/RFC7800, April 2016, + . + + [SD-JWT.VC] + Terbu, O., Fett, D., and B. Campbell, "SD-JWT-based + Verifiable Credentials (SD-JWT VC)", Work in Progress, + Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-03, 4 March + 2024, . + +Acknowledgments + + We would like to thank Brian Campbell, Filip Skokan, Francesco + Marino, Guiseppe De Marco, Kristina Yasuda, Michael B. Jones, Mike + Prorock, Oliver Terbu, Orie Steele, Timo Glastra and Torsten + Lodderstedt + + for their valuable contributions, discussions and feedback to this + specification. + +Document History + + -02 + + * add ttl claim to Status List Token to convey caching + + * relax requirements on referenced token + + * clarify Deflate / zlib compression + + * make a reference to the Issuer-Holder-Verifier model of SD-JWT VC + + * add COSE/CWT/CBOR encoding + + -01 + + * Rename title of the draft + + * add design consideration to the introduction + + * Change status claim to in referenced token to allow re-use for + other mechanisms + + * Add IANA Registry for status mechanisms + + * restructure the sections of this document + + * add option to return an unsigned Status List + + * Changing compression from gzip to zlib + + * Change typo in Status List Token sub claim description + + * Add access token as an example use-case + + -00 + + * Initial draft after working group adoption + + * update acknowledgments + + * renamed Verifier to Relying Party + + * added IANA consideration + + [ draft-ietf-oauth-status-list ] + + -01 + + * Applied editorial improvements suggested by Michael Jones. + + -00 + + * Initial draft + +Authors' Addresses + + Tobias Looker + MATTR + Email: tobias.looker@mattr.global + + + Paul Bastian + Email: paul.bastian@posteo.de + + + Christian Bormann + Email: chris.bormann@gmx.de diff --git a/c2bo/batch-fetching/index.html b/c2bo/batch-fetching/index.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..652c6eb --- /dev/null +++ b/c2bo/batch-fetching/index.html @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ + + + + oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list c2bo/batch-fetching preview + + + + +

Editor's drafts for c2bo/batch-fetching branch of oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list

+ + + + + + +
Token Status Listplain textsame as main
+ + + diff --git a/index.html b/index.html index adb170d..8c2d964 100644 --- a/index.html +++ b/index.html @@ -73,6 +73,14 @@

Preview for branch c2bo/fix-cwt-iss

diff with main +

Preview for branch c2bo/batch-fetching

+ + + + + + +
Token Status Listplain textdiff with main

Preview for branch c2bo/upgrade-dependencies