Vectors of Trust
draft-richer-vectors-of-trust-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Justin Richer  , Leif Johansson 
Last updated 2015-09-04
Stream (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                     J. Richer, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Bespoke Engineering
Intended status: Standards Track                            L. Johansson
Expires: March 7, 2016                        Swedish University Network
                                                       September 4, 2015

                            Vectors of Trust
                    draft-richer-vectors-of-trust-01

Abstract

   This document defines a mechanism for describing and signaling
   several aspects that are used to calculate trust placed in a digital
   identity transaction.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  An Identity Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Component Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Core Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Identity Proofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Primary Credential Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Primary Credential Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Assertion Presentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Vectors of Trust Inititial Component Definitions  . . . . . .   7
   4.  Communicating Vector Values to RPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  On the Wire Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  In OpenID Connect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  In SAML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Requesting Vector Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  In OpenID Connect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Discovery and Verification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Trustmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Vector Of Trust Components Registry . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Additions to JWT Claims Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix B.  Example Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   This document defines a mechanism for describing and signaling
   several aspects of digital identity transactions that are used to
   determine a level of trust in that transaction.  In the past, there
   have been two extremes of communicating authentication transaction
   information.  On one end, all attributes are communicated with full
   provenance and associated trust markings.  This approach seeks to

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

   create a fully distributed attribute system that can be used for
   things like attribute based access control (ABAC).  These attributes
   can be used to describe the end user, the identity provider, the
   relying party, or even the transaction itself.  While the information
   that can be expressed in this model is incredible, the complexity of
   such a system is often prohibitive to align across security domains,
   especially to relying parties needing to process the sea of disparate
   attributes.

   At the other extreme there are systems that collapse all of the
   attributes and aspects into a single scalar value that communicates,
   in sum, how much a transaction can be trusted.  The NIST special
   publication 800-63 [SP-800-63] defines a linear scale Level of
   Assurance (LoA) measure that combines multiple attributes about an
   identity transaction into a single measure of the level of trust a
   relying party should place on an identity transaction.  Even though
   this definition was originally made for a specific government use
   cases, the LoA scale appeared to be applicable with a wide variety of
   authentication use cases.  This has led to a proliferation of
   incompatible interpretations of the same scale in different trust
   frameworks, preventing interoperability between these frameworks in
   spite of their common measurement.  Since identity proofing strength
   increases linearly along with credential strength in the LoA scale,
   this scale is too limited for describing many valid and useful forms
   of an identity transaction.  For example, an anonymously assigned
   hardware token can be used in cases where the real world identity of
   the subject cannot be known, for privacy reasons, but the credential
   itself can be highly trusted.

   This work seeks to find a balance between these two extremes by
   creating a data model that combines attributes of the user and
   aspects of the authenticaiton context into several values that can be
   communicated together.  This approach is both coarser grained than
   the distributed attributes model and finer grained than the single
   value model, with the hope that it is a viable balance of
   expressivity and processability.  Importantly, these three levels of
   granularity can be mapped to each other.  The information of several
   attributes can be folded into a vector component, while the vector
   itself can be folded into an assurance category.  As such, the
   vectors of trust seeks to complement, not replace, these other
   identity and trust mechanisms.

1.1.  Terminology

   Identity Provider (IdP)  A system that manages identity information
      and is able to assert this information across the network through
      an identity API.

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

   Identity Subject  The person (user) engaging in the identity
      transaction, being identified by the identity provider and
      identified to the relying party.

   Primary Credential  The credential used by the identity subject to
      authenticate to the identity provider.

   Federated Credential  The assertion presented by the IdP to the RP
      across the network to authenticate the user.

   Relying Party (RP)  A system that consumes identity information from
      an IdP for the purposes of authenticating the user.

   Trust Framework  A document containing business rules and legal
      clauses that defines how different parties in an identity
      transaction may act.

   Trustmark  A verifiable attestation that a party has proved to follow
      the constraints of a trust framework.

   Trustmark Provider  A system that issues and provides verification
      for trustmarks.

   Vector  A multi-part data structure, used here for conveying
      information about an authentication transaction.

   Vector Component  One of several constituent parts that make up a
      vector.

1.2.  An Identity Model

   This document assumes the following (incomplete) model for identity.

   The identity subject (aka user) is associated with an identity
   provider which acts as a trusted 3rd party on behalf of the user with
   regard to a relying party by making identity assertions about the
   user to the relying party.

   The real-world person represented by the identity subject is in
   possession of a primary credential bound to the identity subject by
   identity provider (or an agent thereof) in such a way that the
   binding between the credential and the real-world user is a
   representation of the identity proofing process performed by the the
   identity provider (or an agent thereof) to verify the identity of the
   real-world person.

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

1.3.  Component Architecture

   The term Vectors of Trust is based on the mathematical construct of a
   Vector, which is defined as an item composed of multiple independent
   scalar values.  A vector is a set of coordinates that specifies a
   point in a (multi-dimensional) Cartesian coordinate space.  The
   reader is encouraged to think of a vector of trust as a point in a
   coordinate system, in the simples form (described below) a 3
   dimensional space that is intended to be a recognizable, if somewhat
   elided, model of identity subject trust.

   An important goal for this work is to balance the need for simplicity
   (particularly on the part of the relying party) with the need for
   expressiveness.  As such, this vector construct is designed to be
   composable and extensible.

   All components of the vector construct MUST be orthogonal in the
   sense that no aspect of a component overlap an aspect of another
   component.

   The values assigned to each component of a vector is sometimes
   written as an ordinal number (e.g. an integer) but MUST NOT be
   assumed as having inherent ordinal properties when compared to the
   same or other components in the vector space.  In other words, 1 is
   different from 2, but it is dangerous to assume that 2 is always
   "more" (better) than 1.

2.  Core Components

   This specification defines four orthogonal components: identity
   proofing, primary credential usge, primary credential management, and
   assertion presentation.  These dimensions MUST be evaluated in the
   context of a trust framework and SHOULD be combined with other
   information when making a trust and authorization decision.

   This specification also defines values for each component to be used
   in the absence of a more specific trust framework.  It is expected
   that trust frameworks will provide context, semantics, and mapping to
   legal statutes and business rules for each value in each component.
   Consequently, a particular vector value can only be compared with
   vectors defined in the same context.  The RP MUST understand and take
   into account the trust framework context in which a vector is being
   expressed in order for it to be processed securely.

   It is anticipated that trust frameworks will also define additional
   components using the component registry established in Section 8.

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

   Each component is identified by a demarcator consisting of a single
   case-sensitive ASCII character in the range [A-Za-z].  A value for a
   given component is defined by its demarcator character followed by a
   single case-sensitive ASCII character in the range [0-9A-Za-z].

2.1.  Identity Proofing

   The Identity Proofing dimension defines, overall, how strongly the
   set of identity attributes have been verified and vetted, and how
   strongly they are tied to a particular credential set.  In other
   words, this dimension describes how likely it is that a given digital
   identity corresponds to a particular (real-world) identity subject.

   This dimension SHALL be represented by the "P" demarcator and a
   single-character level value, such as "P1", "P2", etc.

2.2.  Primary Credential Usage

   The primary credential usage dimension defines how strongly the
   primary credential can be verified by the IdP.  In other words, and
   how easily that credential could be spoofed or stolen.

   This dimension SHALL be represented by the "C" demarcator and a
   single-character level value, such as "C1", "C2", etc.  Multiple
   credential usage factors MAY be communicated simultaneously, such as
   when Multi-Factor Authentication is used.

2.3.  Primary Credential Management

   The primary credential management dimension conveys information about
   the expected lifecycle of the primary credential in use, including
   its binding, rotation, and revocation.  This component defines how
   strongly the primary credential can be trusted to be presented by the
   party represented by the credential based on knowledge of the
   management of the credentials at the IdP.  In other words, this
   dimension describes how likely it is that the right person is
   presenting the credential to the identity provider.

   This dimension SHALL be represented by the "M" demarcator and a
   single-character level value, such as "M1", "M2", etc.

2.4.  Assertion Presentation

   The Assertion Presentation dimension defines how well the given
   digital identity can be communicated across the network without
   information leaking to unintended parties, and without spoofing.  In
   other words, this dimension describes how likely it is that a given
   digital identity asserted was actually asserted by a given identity

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

   provider for a given transaction.  While this information is largely
   already known by the RP by the nature of processing an identity
   assertion, this dimension is still useful when the RP requests a
   login (Section 5) and when describing the capabilities of an IdP
   (Section 6.2).

   This dimension SHALL be represented by the "A" demarcator and a level
   value, such as "A1", "A2", etc.

3.  Vectors of Trust Inititial Component Definitions

   This specification defines the following general-purpose component
   definitions, which MAY be used when a more specific set is
   unavailable.  These component values are referenced in a trustmark
   definition defined by [[ this document URL ]].

   P0 No proofing is done, data is not guaranteed to be persistent
      across sessions

   P1 Attributes are self-asserted but consistent over time, potentially
      pseudonymous

   P2 Identity has been proofed either in person or remotely using
      trusted mechanisms (such as social proofing)

   P3 There is a binding relationship between the identity provider and
      the identified party (such as signed/notarized documents,
      employment records)

   C0 No credential is used / anonymous public service / simple session
      cookies (with nothing else)

   C1 Known device

   C2 Shared secret such as a username and password combination

   C3 Cryptographic proof of key possession using shared key

   C4 Cryptographic proof of key possession using asymmetric key

   C5 Sealed hardware token / trusted biometric / TPM-backed keys

   M0 Self-asserted credentials

   M1 Remote issuance and rotation / use of backup recover credentials
      (such as email verification) / deletion on user request

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

   M2 Full proofing required for each issuance and rotation / revocation
      on suspicious activity

   A0 No protection / unsigned bearer identifier (such as a session
      cookie)

   A1 Signed and verifiable token, passed through the browser

   A2 Signed and verifiable token, passed through a back channel

   A3 Token encrypted to the relying parties key and audience protected

4.  Communicating Vector Values to RPs

   All four of these dimensions (and others, as they are defined in
   extension work) MUST be combined into a single vector that can be
   communicated across the wire unbroken.  All vector components MUST be
   individually available, MUST NOT be "collapsed" into a single value
   without also presenting the constituent dimensions as well.

   When communicating the vectors across the wire, they MUST be
   protected in transit and MUST signed by the asserting authority (such
   as the IdP).

4.1.  On the Wire Representation

   The vector MUST be represented as a period-separated ('.') list of
   vector components, with no specific order.  A vector component type
   MAY occur multiple times within a single vector, with each component
   separated by periods.  Multiple values for a component are considered
   an AND of the values.  A single value of a vector component MUST NOT
   occur more than once in a single vector.  In order to simplify
   processing by RPs, it is RECOMMENDED that trust framework definitions
   carefully define component values such that they are mutually
   exclusive or subsumptive in order to avoid repeated vector components
   where possible.

   Vector components MAY be omitted from a vector.  No holding space is
   left for an omitted vector component.  If a vector component is
   omitted, the IdP is making no claim for that category.

   For example, the vector value "P1.C3.A2" translates to pseudonymous,
   proof of shared key, signed back-channel verified token in the
   context of this specification's definitions (Section 3).

   Vector values MUST be communicated along side of a trustmark
   definition to give the components context.  A vector value without
   context is unprocessable.

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

4.2.  In OpenID Connect

   In OpenID Connect [OpenID], the IdP MUST send the vector value as a
   string with the "vot" (vector of trust) claim in the ID token.  The
   trustmark (Section 6.1) that applies to this vector MUST be sent as
   an HTTPS URL in the "vtm" (vector trust mark) claim to provide
   context to the vector.

   For example:

   {
       "iss": "https://idp.example.com/",
       "sub": "jondoe1234",
       "vot": "P1.C3.A2",
       "vtm": "https://trustmark.example.org/trustmark/idp.example.com"
   }

4.3.  In SAML

   In SAML a VoT vector is communicated as an
   AuthenticationContextClassRef, a sample definition of which might
   look something like this:

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <xs:schema
        targetNamespace="urn:x-vot:P1:C3:A2"
        xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
        xmlns="urn:x-vot:P1.C3.A2"
        finalDefault="extension"
        blockDefault="substitution"
        version="2.0">
        <xs:redefine
            schemaLocation="saml-schema-authn-context-loa-profile.xsd"/>
    <xs:annotation>
       <xs:documentation>VoT vector P1.C3.A2</xs:documentation>
    </xs:annotation>
    <xs:complexType name="GoverningAgreementRefType">
       <xs:complexContent>
          <xs:restriction base="GoverningAgreementRefType">
             <xs:attribute name="governingAgreementRef"
                type="xs:anyURI"
                fixed="draft-ietf-vot-this-document-00.txt"
                use="required"/>
          </xs:restriction>
       </xs:complexContent>
    </xs:complexType>
    </xs:redefine>
   </xs:schema>

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

5.  Requesting Vector Values

   In some identity protocols, the RP can request that particular
   attributes be applied to a given identity transaction.

5.1.  In OpenID Connect

   In OpenID Connect [OpenID], the client can request a set of
   acceptable VoT values with the "vtr" (vector of trust request) claim
   request as part of the Request Object.  The value of this field is an
   array of JSON strings, each string identifying an acceptable set of
   vector components.  The components within each vector are ANDed
   together while the individual vector strings are ORed together.
   Vector request values MAY omit components, indicating that any value
   is acceptable.

   {
       "vtr": ["P1.C2.C3.A2", "C5.A2"]
   }

6.  Discovery and Verification

6.1.  Trustmark

   When an RP receives a specific vector from an IdP, it needs to make a
   decision to trust the vector within a specific context.  A trust
   framework can provide such a context, allowing legal and business
   rules to give weight to an IdP's claims.  A trustmark is a verifiable
   claim to conform to a specific component of a trust framework, such
   as a verified identity provider.  The trustmark conveys the root of
   trustworthiness about the claims and assertions made by the IdP.

   The trustmark MUST be available from an HTTPS URL served by the trust
   framework provider.  The contents of this URL are a JSON [RFC7159]
   document with the following fields:

   idp  The issuer URL of the identity provider that this trustmark
      pertains to.  This MUST match the corresponding issuer claim in
      the identity token, such as the OpenID Connect "iss" field.  This
      MUST be an HTTPS URL.

   trustmark_provider  The issuer URL of the trustmark provider that
      issues this trustmark.  The URL that a trustmark is fetched from
      MUST start with the "iss" URL in this field.  This MUST be an
      HTTPS URL.

   P  Array of strings containing identity proofing values for which the
      identity provider has been assessed and approved

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

   C  Array of strings containing primary credential usage values for
      which the identity provider has been assessed and approved

   M  Array of strings containing primary credential management values
      for which the identitity provider has been assessed and approved

   A  Array of strings containing assertion strength values for which
      the identity provider has been assessed and approved

   Additional vector component values MUST be listed in a similar
   fashion using their demarcator.

   For example, the following trustmark provided by the
   trustmark.example.org organization applies to the idp.example.org
   identity provider:

   {
     "idp": "https://idp.example.org/",
     "trustmark_provider": "https://trustmark.example.org/",
     "P": ["P0", "P1"],
     "C": ["C1", "C2", "C3"],
     "M": ["M2"],
     "A": ["C2", "C3"]
   }

   A client wishing to check the claims made by an IdP can fetch the
   information from the trustmark provider about what claims the IdP is
   allowed to make in the first place and process them accordingly.

   The means by which the RP decides which trustmark providers it trusts
   is out of scope for this specification and is generally configured
   out of band.

   Though most trust frameworks will provide a third-party independent
   verification service for components, an IdP MAY host its own
   trustmark.  For example, a self-hosted trustmark would look like:

   {
     "idp": "https://idp.example.org/",
     "trustmark_provider": "https://idp.example.org/",
     "P": ["C0", "C1"],
     "C": ["C1", "C2", "C3"],
     "M": ["M2"],
     "A": ["C2", "C3"]
   }

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

6.2.  Discovery

   The IdP MAY list all of its available trustmarks as part of its
   discovery document, such as the OpenID Connect Discovery server
   configuration document.  Trustmarks are listed in the trustmarks
   element which contains a single JSON [RFC7159] object.  The keys of
   this JSON object are trustmark provider issuer URLs and the values of
   this object are the corresponding trustmarks for this IdP.

{
    "trustmark": {
         "https://trustmark.example.org/": "https://trustmark.example.org/trustmark/idp.example.org/
    }
}

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the members of the Vectors of Trust
   mailing list in the IETF for discussion and feedback on the concept
   and document.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This specification creates one registry and registers several values
   into an existing registry.

8.1.  Vector Of Trust Components Registry

   The Vector of Trust Components Registry contains the definitions of
   vector components and their associated demarcators.

   o  Demarcator Symbol: P

   o  Description: Identity proofing

   o  Document: [[ this document ]]

   o  Demarcator Symbol: C

   o  Description: Primary credential usage

   o  Document: [[ this document ]]

   o  Demarcator Symbol: M

   o  Description: Primary credential management

   o  Document: [[ this document ]]

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

   o  Demarcator Symbol: A

   o  Description: Assertion presentation

   o  Document: [[ this document ]]

8.2.  Additions to JWT Claims Registry

   This specification adds the following values to the JWT Claims
   Registry.

   o  Claim name: vot

   o  Description: Vector of Trust value

   o  Document: [[ this document ]]

   o  Demarcator Symbol: vtm

   o  Description: Vector of Trust Trustmark

   o  Document: [[ this document ]]

   o  Demarcator Symbol: vtr

   o  Description: Vector of Trust Request

   o  Document: [[ this document ]]

9.  Security Considerations

   The vector of trust value MUST be cryptographically protected in
   transit, using TLS.  The vector of trust value MUST be associated
   with a trustmark marker, and the two MUST be carried together in a
   cryptographically bound mechanism such as a signed identity
   assertion.

10.  Privacy Considerations

   By design, vector of trust values contain information about a user's
   identity and assications that can be made thereto.  Therefore, all
   aspects of a vector of trust contain potentially privacy-sensitive
   information and MUST be guarded as such.

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [OpenID]   Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., and M. Jones, "OpenID Connect
              Core 1.0", November 2014.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7159]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [SP-800-63]
              , , , , , , and , "Electronic Authentication Guideline",
              August 2013.

Appendix A.  Document History

   - 01

   o  Added IANA registry for components.

   o  Added preliminary security considerations and privacy
      considerations.

   o  Split "credential binding" into "primary credential usage" and
      "primary credential management".

   - 00

   o  Created initial IETF drafted based on strawman proposal discussed
      on VoT list.

   o  Split vector component definitions into their own section to allow
      extension and override.

   o  Solidified trustmark document definition.

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft              vectors-of-trust              September 2015

Appendix B.  Example Extension

   To extend the vector component definitions, a specification MUST
   register its contents in the

Authors' Addresses

   Justin Richer (editor)
   Bespoke Engineering

   Email: ietf@justin.richer.org

   Leif Johansson
   Swedish University Network
   Thulegatan 11
   Stockholm
   Sweden

   Email: leifj@sunet.se
   URI:   http://www.sunet.se

Richer & Johansson        Expires March 7, 2016                [Page 15]