Internet DRAFT - draft-prorock-spice-use-cases
draft-prorock-spice-use-cases
None M. Prorock
Internet-Draft mesur.io
Intended status: Informational B. Zundel
Expires: 4 September 2024 Gen Digital
3 March 2024
Use Cases for SPICE
draft-prorock-spice-use-cases-01
Abstract
This document describes various use cases related to credential
exchange in a three party model (issuer, holder, verifier). These
use cases aid in the identification of which Secure Patterns for
Internet CrEdentials (SPICE) are most in need of specification or
detailed documentation.
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 4 September 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.
Prorock & Zundel Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft sd-cwt March 2024
Table of Contents
1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. SPICE Common Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. SPICE Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Use Case Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1. Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2. Physical Supply Chain Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.3. Credentials related to Authenticity and Provenance . . . 4
5.4. Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Notational Conventions
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 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
There is a need to more clearly document verifiable credentials -
that is credentials that utilize the issuer, holder, and verifier
(three party) model across various work IETF, ISO, W3C, and other
SDOs. This need particularly arises in use cases for verifiable
credentials that do not involve human-in-the-loop interactions, need
strong identifiers for business entities, and for those that require
CBOR encoding, and those that leverage the cryptographic agility
properties of COSE. This document which covers multiple use cases
for verifiable credentials will help inform both the required
architecture and components, as well as to help frame needs for any
clearly defined message formats and/or supporting mechanisms.
3. SPICE Common Patterns
Within SPICE there are a few common patterns that continually arise:
* A need for selective disclosure with CBOR based verifiable
credentials
* Cryptographic agility support via COSE, including support for PQC,
and to permit use of the same signature algorithms with both
selective disclosure as well as fully disclosed credentials
Prorock & Zundel Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft sd-cwt March 2024
* Required strong and long lived identities that are correlated with
public key material for verifiacation and permit binding to DNS,
existing x509 certificates, as well as providing ready access to
public keys for verification utilizing HTTP
4. SPICE Use Cases
There are several expanding use cases and common patterns that
motivate the working group and broader community, including:
* Use of microcredentials, particularly in education
* Digitization of physical supply chain credentials in multiple
jurisdictions
- CBOR credentials
- High volume with system to system exchange of credentions
- both regulatory data as well as business driven information
* IoT, Control Systems, and Critical Infrastructure related
Credentials
* Credentials related to authenticity and provenance, especially of
digital media
* Offline exchange (in person) of credentials that may have been
internet issued
* Embedding of credentials in other data formats
* Digital Wallet Initiatives
5. Use Case Discussion
5.1. Roles
An "issuer", an entity (person, device, organization, or software
agent) that constructs and secures digital credentials.
A "holder", an entity (person, device, organization, or software
agent) that controls the disclosure of credentials.
A "verifier", an entity (person, device, organization, or software
agent) that verifies and validates secured digital credentials.
5.2. Physical Supply Chain Credentials
Physical supply chain credentials create several unique scenarios and
requirements for technical implementers. There is a strong movement
towards digitiztion of physical supply chain data which is often
exchanged in paper or scanned pdf form today using legacy approaches.
Some steps have been taken towards digitatization of supply chain
data in XML, however the steps have proved problematic over native
binary formats due to the complexity, size, and volumes of
transmission often involved.
Prorock & Zundel Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft sd-cwt March 2024
Common use cases for physical supply chains include:
* Regulatory data capture and exchange with governmental bodies
* Requirements around capturing specific types of data including:
- Inspection information
- Permits
- Compliance certification (both regulatory and private)
- Traceability information, including change of control and
geospatial coordinates
* Providing the ability for 3rd parties to "certify" information
about another actor in the supply chain. e.g. Vendor A is an
approved supplier for Company X
* Passing of data between multiple intermediaries, before being sent
along to customs agencies or consignees.
* Moving large amounts of signed data asyncronously, and bi-
directionally over a network channel
* Identifying actors in a supply chain and linking them with legal
entity information
5.3. Credentials related to Authenticity and Provenance
Due to a proliferation of AI generated or modified content, there has
been an increased need to provide the ability to establish the
provenance of digital material. Questions of authenticity and the
means of creation (human created, machine assited, machine created)
also abound, and in cases where AI generated content, providing the
model information related to the generation of that content is
becoming increasingly important.
Common use cases include:
* Understanding if a received piece of media is human created, and
that the content is authorized for certain uses.
* Providing the ability to trace training materials for LLMs and
similar models to output
* Understanding if media was created by an authoritative or
trustworthy source
5.4. Others
TBD
6. Security Considerations
TBD
Prorock & Zundel Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft sd-cwt March 2024
7. IANA Considerations
NONE
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank those that have worked on similar
items and/or whom have provided input into this document, especially:
Hannes Tschofenig, Henk Birkholz, Heather Flanagan, Kaliya Young,
Orie Steele, Leif Johansson, Pamela Dingle, Tobias Looker, Kristina
Yasuda, Daniel Fett, Oliver Terbu, and Michael Jones.
9. Normative References
[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/info/rfc2119>.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Prorock
mesur.io
Email: mprorock@mesur.io
Brent Zundel
Gen Digital
Email: Brent.Zundel@gendigital.com
Prorock & Zundel Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 5]