Token Status List
draft-ietf-oauth-status-list-03
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (oauth WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tobias Looker , Paul Bastian , Christian Bormann | ||
| Last updated | 2024-07-08 | ||
| Replaces | draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-oauth-status-list-03
Network Working Group T. Looker
Internet-Draft MATTR
Intended status: Informational P. Bastian
Expires: 9 January 2025
C. Bormann
Robert Bosch GmbH
8 July 2024
Token Status List
draft-ietf-oauth-status-list-03
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."
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 January 2025.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Status List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Status List in JSON Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Status List in CBOR Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Status List Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Status List Token in JWT Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Status List Token in CWT Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Referenced Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Status Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Referenced Token in JWT Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Referenced Token in CWT Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.4. Referenced Token in other COSE/CBOR Format . . . . . . . 16
7. Status Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Status Types Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Verification and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Status List Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Status List Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.3. Validation Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Status List Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.1. Issuer Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. Status List Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.3. Status List Aggregation in JSON Format . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Further Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.1. Status List Token with 2-Bit Status Values in JWT
format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
11.1. Correct decoding and parsing of the encoded status
list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.2. Cached and Stale status lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.3. Authorized access to the Status List . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.4. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.1. Limiting issuers observability of token verification . . 23
12.2. Malicious Issuers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.3. Unobservability of Relying Parties . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.4. Unlinkability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.5. Third Party Hosting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13.1. Token Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.1.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.2. JWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry . . . . . . . . . 26
14.2.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.2.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
14.3. CBOR Web Token Claims Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 27
14.3.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
14.4. CWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry . . . . . . . . . 28
14.4.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
14.4.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14.5. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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 via HTTPS 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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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.
It MUST contain at least the following 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. JSON String that contains a URI to
retrieve the Status List Aggregation for this type of
Referenced Token. 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. Text string (Major Type 3) that
contains a URI to retrieve the Status List Aggregation for this
type of Referenced Token. See section Section 9 for further
detail.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
The following example illustrates the CBOR representation of the
Status List in Hex:
byte_array = [0xb9, 0xa3]
encoded:
a2646269747301636c73744a78dadbb918000217015d
The following is the CBOR Annotated Hex 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.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* sub: REQUIRED. The sub (subject) claim MUST specify the URI of
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:
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
{
"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",
"ttl": 43200
}
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 (type): REQUIRED. The type of the CWT MUST be statuslist+cwt
as defined in [RFC9596].
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 (time to live): OPTIONAL. Same definition as ttl claim in
Section 5.1.
* 65535 (status list): REQUIRED. The status list claim MUST specify
the Status List conforming to the rules outlined in Section 4.2.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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 in Hex:
d28453a20126106e7374617475736c6973742b637774a1044231325866a602782168
747470733a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f7374617475736c697374732f310173
68747470733a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d061a648c5bea041a8898dfea19fffe
19a8c019ffff56a2646269747301636c73744a78dadbb918000217015d5840631658
af937b8e8ce7e0081027ed8200ebde64e60cab690da369f0d6a85dd899ec1561bfcd
e0a0e38a7c775e46e8e76af7bf7da6448aa8b6c25dd04ddc1128d4
The following is the CBOR Annotated Hex output of the example above:
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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 66 # bytes(102)
a602782168747470733a2f2f # "¦\x02x!https://"
6578616d706c652e636f6d2f # "example.com/"
7374617475736c697374732f # "statuslists/"
31017368747470733a2f2f65 # "1\x01shttps://e"
78616d706c652e636f6d061a # "xample.com\x06\x1a"
648c5bea041a8898dfea19ff # "d\x8c[ê\x04\x1a\x88\x98ßê\x19ÿ"
fe19a8c019ffff56a2646269 # "þ\x19¨À\x19ÿÿV¢dbi"
747301636c73744a78dadbb9 # "ts\x01clstJxÚÛ¹"
18000217015d # "\x18\x00\x02\x17\x01]"
58 40 # bytes(64)
631658af937b8e8ce7e00810 # "c\x16X¯\x93{\x8e\x8cçà\x08\x10"
27ed8200ebde64e60cab690d # "'í\x82\x00ëÞdæ\x0c«i\x0d"
a369f0d6a85dd899ec1561bf # "£iðÖ¨]Ø\x99ì\x15a¿"
cde0a0e38a7c775e46e8e76a # "Íà\xa0ã\x8a|w^Fèçj"
f7bf7da6448aa8b6c25dd04d # "÷¿}¦D\x8a¨¶Â]ÐM"
dc1128d4 # "Ü\x11(Ô"
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:
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* 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. It MUST at least contain the
following 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"
}
}
}
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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 when also present in the Referenced Token.
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 of a Referenced Token in CWT
format in Hex:
d28443a10126a1044231325866a502653132333435017368747470733a2f2f657861
6d706c652e636f6d061a648c5bea041a8898dfea19ffffa16b7374617475735f6c69
7374a2636964780063757269782168747470733a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f
7374617475736c697374732f315840af320cd20f3cb5e2e8823d3982d77e56b6f3f3
57c5ba7e128d22eea523f2bd03c1a9fde1005db07883fdb7aaf25c95e67e4a229f97
efd50fb6544dcb218a66d0
The following is the CBOR Annotated Hex output of the example above:
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
d2 # tag(18)
84 # array(4)
43 # bytes(3)
a10126 # "¡\x01&"
a1 # map(1)
04 # uint(4)
42 # bytes(2)
3132 # "12"
58 66 # bytes(102)
a50265313233343501736874 # "¥\x02e12345\x01sht"
7470733a2f2f6578616d706c # "tps://exampl"
652e636f6d061a648c5bea04 # "e.com\x06\x1ad\x8c[ê\x04"
1a8898dfea19ffffa16b7374 # "\x1a\x88\x98ßê\x19ÿÿ¡kst"
617475735f6c697374a26369 # "atus_list¢ci"
647800637572697821687474 # "dx\x00curix!htt"
70733a2f2f6578616d706c65 # "ps://example"
2e636f6d2f7374617475736c # ".com/statusl"
697374732f31 # "ists/1"
58 40 # bytes(64)
af320cd20f3cb5e2e8823d39 # "¯2\x0cÒ\x0f<µâè\x82=9"
82d77e56b6f3f357c5ba7e12 # "\x82×~V¶óóWź~\x12"
8d22eea523f2bd03c1a9fde1 # "\x8d"î¥#ò½\x03Á©ýá"
005db07883fdb7aaf25c95e6 # "\x00]°x\x83ý·ªò\\x95æ"
7e4a229f97efd50fb6544dcb # "~J"\x9f\x97ïÕ\x0f¶TMË"
218a66d0 # "!\x8afÐ"
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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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 an HTTP GET request to the URI provided in the Referenced
Token.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
If the Status List is provided by an HTTP endpoint (and not as a
Status List Token), the provider of the Status List 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].
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
8.3. Validation Rules
Upon receiving a Referenced Token, a Relying Party MUST first perform
the validation of the Referenced Token - e.g., checking for expected
attributes, valid signature, expiration time. As this is out of
scope of this document, this validation is not be described here, but
is expected to be done according to the format of the Referenced
Token.
If this validation was not successful, the Referenced Token MUST be
rejected. If the validation was successful, the Relying Party MUST
perform the following validation steps to evaluate the status of the
reference token:
1. Check for the existence of a status claim, check for the
existence of a status_list claim within the status claim and
validate that the content of status_list adheres to the rules
defined in Section 6.2 for JWTs and Section 6.3 for CWTs. This
step can be overruled if defined within the Referenced Token
Format natively
2. Resolve the Status List from the provided URI
3. Validate the Status List Token:
1. Validate the Status List Token by following the rules defined
in section 7.2 of [RFC7519] for JWTs and section 7.2 of
[RFC8392] for CWTs.
2. Check for the existence of the required claims as defined in
Section 5.1 and Section 5.2
4. All existing claims in the Status List Token MUST be checked
according to the rules in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2
1. The subject claim (sub or 2) of the Status List Token MUST be
equal to the uri claim in the status_list object of the
Referenced Token
2. If the Relying Party has custom policies regarding the
freshness of the Status List Token, it SHOULD check the
issued at claim (iat or 6)
3. If expiration time is defined (exp or 4), it MUST be checked
if the Status List Token is expired
4. If the Referenced Token contains an issuer claim, the Status
List Token MUST contain the same issuer claim (iss or 1)
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
5. If the Relying Party is using a system for caching the Status
List Token, it SHOULD check the ttl claim of the Status List
Token and retrieve a fresh copy if (time status was resolved
+ ttl < current time)
5. Decompress the Status List with a decompressor that is compatible
with DEFLATE [RFC1951] and ZLIB [RFC1950]
6. Retrieve the status value of the index specified in the
Referenced Token as described in Section 4. Fail if the provided
index is out of bound of the status list
7. Check the status value as described in Section 7
If any of these checks fails, no statement about the status of the
Referenced Token can be made and the Referenced Token SHOULD be
rejected.
9. Status List Aggregation
Status List Aggregation is an optional mechanism to retrieve a list
of URIs to all Status List Tokens, allowing a Relying Party to fetch
all relevant Status Lists for a specific type of Referenced Token or
issuer. This mechanism is intended to support fetching and caching
mechanisms and allow offline validation of the status of a reference
token for a period of time.
There are two options for a Relying Party to retrieve the Status List
Aggregation. An issuer MAY support any of these mechanisms:
* Issuer metadata: The issuer of the Referenced Token publishes an
URI which links to Status List Aggregation, e.g. in publicly
available metadata of an issuance protocol
* Status List Parameter: The issuer of the Referenced Token includes
an additional claim in the Status List (Token) that contains the
Status List Aggregation URI.
9.1. 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 commonly in OAuth and OpenID, or via a VICAL extension for
ISO mDoc / mDL.
The concrete specification on how this is implemented depends on the
specific ecosystem and is out of scope of this specification.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
9.2. 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 may use this URI to retrieve an up-to-date list of relevant
Status Lists.
9.3. Status List Aggregation in JSON Format
This section defines the structure for a JSON-encoded Status List
Aggregation:
* status_lists: REQUIRED. JSON array of strings that contains URIs
linking to Status List (Tokens).
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. A Relying Party can iterate through this list and
fetch all Status List Tokens before encountering the specific URI in
a Referenced Token.
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"
]
}
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.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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:
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* 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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* 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.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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 Key: TBD (requested assignment 65535)
* 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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* 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
* Claim Name: ttl
* Claim Key: TBD (requested assignment 65534)
* Claim Description: Time to Live
* 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):
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
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:
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
- 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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* 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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* 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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* Provisional registration? No
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[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, May 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1950>.
[RFC1951] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification
version 1.3", RFC 1951, DOI 10.17487/RFC1951, May 1996,
<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, November 1996,
<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, March 1997,
<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, January 2005,
<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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
2011, <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, January 2013,
<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, May
2015, <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, May 2015,
<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,
May 2017, <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, December 2017,
<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,
May 2018, <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, December 2020,
<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, August 2022,
<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, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
[RFC9596] Jones, M.B. and O. Steele, "CBOR Object Signing and
Encryption (COSE) "typ" (type) Header Parameter",
RFC 9596, DOI 10.17487/RFC9596, June 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9596>.
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749>.
[RFC7662] Richer, J., Ed., "OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection",
RFC 7662, DOI 10.17487/RFC7662, October 2015,
<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, April 2016,
<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-04, 8 July
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
oauth-sd-jwt-vc-04>.
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
-03
* remove unused reference to RFC9111
* add validation rules for status list token
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* introduce the status list aggregation mechanism
* relax requirements for status_list claims to contain other
parameters
* change cwt referenced token example to hex and annotated hex
* require TLS only for fetching Status List, not for Status List
Token
* remove the undefined phrase Status List endpoint
* remove http caching in favor of the new ttl claim
* clarify the sub claim of Status List Token
* relax status_list iss requirements for CWT
* Fixes missing parts & iana ttl registration in CWT examples
-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
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Token Status List July 2024
* 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
Robert Bosch GmbH
Email: christiancarl.bormann@bosch.com
Looker, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 37]