Internet DRAFT - draft-steele-spice-transparency-tokens
draft-steele-spice-transparency-tokens
Network Working Group O. Steele
Internet-Draft Transmute
Intended status: Standards Track 7 January 2024
Expires: 10 July 2024
Transparency Tokens
draft-steele-spice-transparency-tokens-00
Abstract
When professionals travel for business, they carry identity
documents, such as passports, employer related payment capabilites,
such as corporate credit cards, and security keys that might be used
for both personal or professional reasons, such as hotel or car keys.
These credentials might be stored in a purse, briefcase or wallet.
Digital storage systems struggle to support the various credential
formats, physical proximity and remote presentation protocols, and
assurance capabilities needed to enable international business.
Device capabilities, cost and power consumption can preclude access
and adoption of digital credentials, or exclude communities that
require higher than normal privacy, sustainability, or availability
guarantees.
This specification describes a scalable solution to digital
credentials, that is market friendly, transport agnostic, privacy
oriented, and accountable to users of digital credentials above all
other stakeholders.
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://OR13.github.io/draft-steele-spice-transparency-tokens/draft-
steele-transparency-tokens.html. Status information for this
document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
steele-spice-transparency-tokens/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Secure Patterns for
Internet CrEdentials (spice) Working Group mailing list
(mailto:spice@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spice/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spice/.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/OR13/draft-steele-spice-transparency-tokens.
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 10 July 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Credential Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Identity Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Credential Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Format Agility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. Anonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5. Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.6. Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
4.7. Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Credential Workflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Credential Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2. Presentation Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Credential Endorsement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Presentation Notarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Credential Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. CBOR Web Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. JSON Web Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. CBOR Web Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4. JSON Web Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.5. Transparency Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.5.1. Opaque Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.5.2. Detached Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5.3. Redundant Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5.4. Key Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5.5. Mutable Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5.6. Entity Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.5.7. Trusted Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.5.8. Architectural Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Credential Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1. Issued Credential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.2. Presented Credential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1. Collection limitation of attributes by Verifiers . . . . 24
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.1. Binding of an issued credential to the correct owner . . 24
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.1. Presented Token with Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.1.1. Protected Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.1.2. Unprotected Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.1.3. JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.1.4. Compact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.2. Issued Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.2.1. Protected Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.2.2. Unprotected Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.2.3. JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.2.4. Compact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
1. Introduction
The "Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir" is considered to be the oldest
known written complaint. The tablet was written in Akkadian
cuneiform, by a customer named Nanni to a merchant named Ea-nāṣir.
The complaint describes how Ea-nāṣir had agreed to sell copper ingots
to Nanni, via Nanni's unnamed servant, but the ingots were considered
sub standard and were not accepted. Nanni created the complaint
letter for delivery to Ea-nāṣir to explain that the copper was not
the correct grade, that his servant was treated poorly, and that at
the time of writing, he had not accepted the copper, but had paid for
it. Search for the wikipedia article for the full story.
Although humanity has moved on from clay tablets, to paper, to byte
streams on the internet, some business challenges have remained the
same.
Travel is dangerous and expensive.
The properties of the products we purchase, do not always match the
properties that were advertised.
There is a need to delegate negotiation to trusted intermediaries,
while convincing counter parties that the intermediary is authorized
to complete the transaction.
There is a need to ensure that intermediaries do not tamper with the
sale price or technical specification of the product.
And there is a need to provide transparency regarding supply chain
activities, so that consumers and businesses can make informed
decisions regarding products and the known risks associated with
them, as this information changes over time.
If Nanni and Ea-nāṣir had transparency tokens, their trade would have
been frictionless, and we would all be without the first written use
case expressing the concept of credentials.
2. Terminology
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.
To the best of our ability we reuse terminology from [RFC4949]. For
clarity, we provide more specific definitions when necessary.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
principal: A specific identity claimed by an entity when accessing a
system.
identity: The collective aspect of a set of attribute values (i.e.,
a set of characteristics) by which a system entity is recognizable
or known.
identifier: A data object -- often, a printable, non-blank character
string -- that definitively represents a specific identity of a
system entity, distinguishing that identity from all others.
issuer: An entity that makes statements. Also known as issuing
authority. This entity may have multiple identifiers.
statement: A definite or clear expression of something; a judgement,
opinion, attribute, predicate or proposition regarding a subject.
subject: The entity being discussed, described or attributed. This
entity may have multiple identifiers.
holder: An entity which knows or possesses statements. This entity
may have multiple identifiers.
verifier: An entity which reviews, checks or confirms proofs and
optionally statements. This entity may have multiple identifiers.
credential: A token (usually an unforgeable data object) that is a
portable representation of the association between an identifier
and a unit of authentication information, or statement and that
can be presented by a holder.
issued credential: A tamper-proof object that includes a set of
attributes about an entity issued by an issuing authority.
anonymous credential: An issued credential that has privacy-
preserving properties to enable data minimization and correlation
resistance. RFC4949, deprecated this term, but recent advances in
cryptography have changed the common understanding from what it
once was.
credential proof: An unforgeable data object derived from an issued
credential, constructed by the holder of they credential
presentation: The activity a holder performs when transmiting a
credential proofs, and optionally issued credentials to a
verifier.
notary: Provides a trusted timestamp for a document, so that someone
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
can later prove that the document existed at that point in time;
verifies the signature(s) on a signed document before applying the
stamp.
receipt: A token (usually an unforgeable data object) proving that
notarization has taken place.
counter signature: A token (usually an unforgeable data object)
proving that a second issuer, has seen a credential from a first
issuer.
mediator: A party that provides a transmission capability that
protects the confidentiality or presentations made by holders.
3. Architecture
3.1. Credential Roles
Credentials are essential to the efficient function of principals, be
they natural persons or legal entities.
Throughout their lifetime, a principal might create many identifiers,
and these identifiers may be known to fulfill the various roles
associated with digital credentials.
These roles include being the issuer of statements about a subject,
being the subject of statements made by issuers, holding credentials
regarding identifiers for the principal, holding credentials
regarding identifiers for other principals, presenting credentials to
verifiers, or receiving presentations from other holders.
The same entity may play all these roles, but for the sake of clarity
we usually refer to interactions where each distinct entity playes a
specific role in a workflow.
The canonical example is:
An issuer makes statements about a subject and produces an unforgable
token as the issued credential. The issuer transmits the issued
credential to a holder. A verifier requests a credential be
presented. The holder derives a presentable form of the issued
credential, called the presented credential. The holder transmits
the presented credential to a verifier.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
Holders
______
/\ \
/ \ \
/ \_____\
_\ / ____/_
/\ \ / /\ \
/ \ \/_/ \ \
/ \__/ \_____\
_\ / \ / ____/_
/\ \ / \ / /\ \
/ \ \/_____/\/_/ \ \
/ \_____\ / \_____\
Credentials _\ / / \ / ____/_ Proofs
/\ \ / / \ / /\ \
/ \ \/_____/ \/_/ \ \
/ \_____\ / \_____\
_\ / / \ / ____/_
/\ \ / / \ / /\ \
/ \ \/_____/ \/_/ \ \
/ \_____\ / \_____\
_\ / /_ ______ ______ _\____/ ____/_
/\ \ / / \/\ \/\ \/\ \/\ \
/ \ \/_____/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ \_____\ \_____\ \_____\ \_____\ \_____\ \_____\
\ / / / / / / / / / / / /
\ / / / / / / / / / / / /
Issuers \/_____/\/_____/\/_____/\/_____/\/_____/\/_____/ Verifiers
Status Checks
There are auxillary roles which are special cases of the issuer,
holder or verifier which are common in scenarious requiring
additional assurance or confidentiality.
In cases where the issuer, or holder lacks credibility, a
countersignature or endorsement from a more reputatible entity might
be required to convince a warry verifier.
In cases where the issuer or holder might rotate verification keys
frequently, or where the issuer or holder might not be well known to
a verifier, a receipt from a notary can provide assurance to the
verifier.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
.----+-----. .-----------.
Issuers --> | Statements || Envelopes |
'----+-----' '-----+-----'
| |
'----. .-----'
|
v
.------+------.
| Credentials |
'------+------'
| +--------------+
.-' '-------------->+ Transparency |
| .----------. | |
Authority A --> | | Receipt 1 +<---+ Service 1 |
| '---+------' +---------+----+
| | |
| | +--------------+
.-' '------)---------->+ Transparency |
| .----------. | |
Authority B --> | | Receipt 2 +<------+ Service 2 |
| '----+-----' +----+---------+
| | | | |
'-. .--' | | |
| | | |
'-. .-' | |
| | |
v v v
.-----+------. .---+-----+--.
| Transparency | | Identity |
| Tokens | | Documents |
'-----+------' '------+-----'
| |
'-------. .-------'
| |
v v
.-----------+---+--------.
Verifiers --> \ Credential Proofs /
'--------------------'
In cases where a holder requires untraceability or is required to
provide confidentiality regarding the provenance of a credential,
delegation with or without attenutation to intermediate, or mediators
holders, may be necessary.
Notaries and mediators can leverage receipts and counter signatures
to adjust the transparency, traceability and confidentiality
associated with credentials.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
Giving unique and meaningful names to these roles, allows for digital
trust systems to optimize for the properties that are most needed for
credential use cases.
3.2. Identity Documents
In order to verify a credential proof, verification material from the
issuer and holder needs to be available at the time the verification
algorithm is called.
Resolving key material just in time negatively impacts privacy,
security and performance.
Whenever possible, it recommended to fetch verification keys and any
associated metadata from a trusted source, and cache them locally.
Key material can also be delivered out of band or in band depending
on the envelope format used.
This specification defines an identity document format based on
transparency receipts that is compact, integrity protected, and can
be delivered in band to verifiers in a network denied environment.
This example is not normative.
The identity document is a COSE Key, which has been signed and made
transparent:
18( / COSE Sign 1 /
[
h'a4013822...31333337', / Protected /
{ / Unprotected /
-333: [ / Receipts (1) /
h'd2845867...cf71886e' / Receipt 1 /
]
},
nil, / Detached payload /
h'1c3271fb...b5df03d7' / Signature /
]
)
The protected header includes identifiers for the entity, and the
issuer of the identity document:
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
{ / Protected /
1: -35, / Algorithm /
3: application/cose-key, / Content type /
4: h'5b55dd99...8a2acc6b', / Key identifier /
13: { / CWT Claims /
1: issuer.example, / Issuer /
2: holder.example, / Subject /
},
}
Because the payload is opaque that content type can be used to
support key formats that are present in IANA Media Types
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml)
A verifier will need to discover or obtain the identity documents for
the issuer and the holder.
The identifier for the entity (issuer / holder) might be present in
identifiers for resources representing the identity document for the
identifier.
This can be accomplished several ways.
A verifier might discover an identity document through [RFC5785]
For example:
https://issuer.example/.well-known/id
A verifier might look up an identity document through a trusted key
server, distributed database, or transparency service:
https://service.example/keys/issuer.example
In some cases, a verifier might require multiple receipts for an
identity document, proving the same key information is bound to an
identifier in multiple independent systems.
https://government1.example/receipts/keys/issuer.example
https://government2.example/receipts/keys/issuer.example
The verifier can then decide to reject credential proofs from
holder's that are unable to demonstrate enough transparency.
During verification, the holder of a credential might be required to
demonstrate possession of an identity document similar to [RFC9449]
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
A verifier can prepare a challenge token (signed nonce) or nonce for
the holder.
The holder can sign the challenge or nonce, along with an audience
claim binding their response to the requesting verifier.
This "key binding token" is defined similar to
[I-D.ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt]
A credential requiring identity document confirmation (traceability,
NOT unlinkability) can contain a cnf claim with an identifier that
resolves to an identity document, and verifiers can confirm the
associated key binding token is signed with the public key in an
identity document for the holder.
An example of a credential with identity confirmation:
{ / Protected /
1: -35, / Algorithm /
3: application/example+xml, / Content type /
4: h'5b55dd99...8a2acc6b', / Issuer Key identifier /
13: { / CWT Claims /
1: issuer.example, / Issuer /
2: holder.example, / Subject /
8: { / Confirmation /
3: h'a04bfe57...296ea037' / Holder Identity Doc URI /
}
},
}
In order to verify credential proofs for this credential with
identity binding, the verifier must:
* decode the protected header, and lookup the issuer identity
document.
* confirm the issuer's identity document is still valid according to
the verifier's policy
- check the validity period, ensure the credential is not
activated in the future or expired in the past.
- check the status, in case the issuer of the issuer's identity
docment has suspended or revoked the document.
- check the key used to sign the credential proof, is present in
the issuer's identity document.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
* verify the credential proof with the issuer's public key, from
their identity document.
- decode the protected header, and validate the claims
- lookup the holder's identity document using the hints inside
the cnf claim
- perform the same validation checks as were done for the
issuer's identity document on the holder's identity document.
* verify the credential identity confirmation token using the
holder's public key from the holder's identity document.
- check the validity period, ensure the token is not activated in
the future or expired in the past.
- check the key used to sign the credential identity confirmation
token, is present in the holder's identity document.
After these verifications and validations have been completed, if
they have all succeeded the verifier should believe the following:
The issuer's intention to assert the payload's relation to the
subject has not been tampered with, the intention is still valid and
has not changed since the credential was issued. The holder is in
possession of the credential at the time of verification. The
identity documents for both the issuer and holder are still valid.
With these basics confirmed, the verifier can proceed to application
/ business layer processing of the payload.
In the example above the payload is XML, and could represent some
required legacy identity credential format.
The verifier can then advertise that the legacy identity credential
system is nearing end of life and that in order to support
sustainability initiatives, reduce attack surface, and reduce carbon
emmissions, only compact binary representations will be supported in
the future.
By keeping the payload opaque, transparency tokens can be intergrated
into legacy systems that require larger and older media types, and
assist those systems in modernizing to support compact binary.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
4. Credential Principles
Identification happens before we recognize threat or opportunity.
Digital credentials are tools but like most tools, access and
authority to use them are controlled by social, economic and
political factors.
Because this technology has the potential to adversly impact the
freedom and inalienable rights of human beings, and healthy
competition of legal entities, we state these principles of digital
credentials, but caution that not all these properties can be easily
achieved without sacrifice, and where some principles may be
appropriatly degraded for legal entities, other principles ought to
be preserved for natural persons.
4.1. Format Agility
Modern paper credentials come in many different shapes and sizes,
from notary stamped paper documents with wet ink signatures, to ASN.1
and X.509 signed XML documents representing commercial invoices.
New formats are created to address the challenges and shortcoming of
the formats that came before. Clay tablets were heavy, paper is
easily destroyed, XML Signatures were expensive to compute and error
prone, JSON while readable and writable by humans was wasteful of
compute and storage when processed by machines.
CBOR stands on the shoulders of giants, having benefitted from being
created last, and suffering for being less well adopted than XML and
JSON.
It is natural to wish for there to be only one format, for digital
credentials, as this would improve interoperability and reduce the
costs associated with verifying credentials as part of business
transactions, but nature does not produce discrete steps in
technology deployment. Horses and automobiles shared the streets of
cities in the early 19th century, and XML, ASN.1, JSON and CBOR will
coexist so long as business requires them too.
There are advantages to having multiple formats for digital
credentials, particular when attempting to give privacy or security
benefits to users that depend on specific protocols, that are only
able to handle certain credential formats. For example, OAuth and
OpenID Connect tend to require JSON claimsets and JWT credential
formats.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
In order to preserve format agility, while leveraging existing claims
and terminology, this document recommends a convention of preserving
payload content as opaque bytes, leveraging protected headers to
signature media types associated with validation of payloads, and
claims in headers, in cases where format specific claims need to be
consistently understood by verifiers.
4.2. Autonomy
Issuers reserve the right to make statements. Holders reserve the
right to present credentials. Verifiers reserve the right to reject
presentation.
Issuers may be subject to local, regional or global laws regarding
statements. Holders might be denied service, if they are unwilling
to present credentials. Verifiers might be subject to legal action
for rejecting presentations in ways that violate local laws.
When developing digital credential technology, consideration should
be given to allow these roles to perform their function, with respect
to local culture and conventions.
Globally compelling behavior reduces the value of digital reputation
over time, and degrades the ability of individual entities to provide
better security and privacy properties, by applying least privledge
and minimal disclosure.
4.3. Confidentiality
All information should be considered sensitive, including timing,
transmission metadata, the social graph that is built between
issuers, subjects, holders and verifiers, and of course the content
of statements.
All encryption has a shelf life, these signals should be protected
with cryptography appropriate for maintaining confidentiality for as
long as is necessary to prevent harm.
4.4. Anonymity
The act of observation changes the outcome, and character is what you
do when nobody is watching.
These technologies can be used to erode the abilty to create
unlinkable digital identifiers, which are necessary for maintaining
distinct digital identities.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
At the same time, these technologies can be used to create unlinkable
digital identifers, which can be used in ways that are unpredictable.
When designing digital trust systems, implementers should be cautious
to preserve anonymity when it is essential,
4.5. Authenticity
Perhaps the most essential property of digital credentials is
assuring that statements can be made unforgable.
Verifiers require this property to be able to make use of
presentations from holders, with confidence that the holder is not
able to tamper with or alter the statements made by issuers.
This property also applies to the act of presenting by the holder.
Assurance regarding the capabilities of the holder's device, or other
evidence regarding the presence or awareness of the holder can be
essential to convincing a verifier to accept a presentation.
See FIDO, etc...
4.6. Transparency
Transparency does not mean lack of confidentiality, it means
commiting to be honest, in a way that dishonesty can be detected.
This property is essential to service providers who maintain public
key to identity bindings such as the work describes in key
transparency.
This property is also essential to statements about artifacts or
ingredients that are assembled into more complex structures, so that
is a problem in a sub component is detected, the potential damage can
be mitigated, and the relying parties can be notified to protect
their systems from cascading faults.
4.7. Accountability
Of the various credential roles, holders and subjects are most
vulnerable, and have the least power or incentive to adopt digital
credential systems.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
Issuers and verifiers have great power and responsibility, and in
cases where holders might not have the choices regarding credential
storage, credential transmission, privacy and security features or
the principles above, it will be due to the choices made by issuers
and verifiers.
Implementers should seek to frame the design of digital trust systems
in terms of supporting the needs of holders, and challenged seek
accountability to holders before all other parties.
5. Credential Workflows
Credentials can be exchanged over differrent protocols. In this
section we outline a few exemplar exchange scenarios, however, this
list is not exhaustive and some protocols might define additional
variations on these examples.
5.1. Credential Delivery
A subject will request a credential be created by an issuer, or an
issuer will create a credential for a subject.
The next step requires the credential to be delivered to the subject,
so they can become a holder, and make presentations to verifiers.
This workflow is commonly referred to as credential delivery.
5.2. Presentation Delivery
A holder will be challenged to present credentials to a verifier.
It common for the verifier to specify the details of the credentials
requested along with with nonce, to prevent replay attacks.
The holder will craft a presentation for the verifier, possibly
proving they control key material commited to be the issuer, by
signing the nonce with a public key endorsed by the issuer.
The holder will then transmit the presentation to the verifier.
The verifier will check the signature from the issuer, the signature
from the holder, and evaluate the nonce and other time related data
to determine if the presentation is valid.
5.3. Credential Endorsement
Some holders may request a counter signature on an existing
credential.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
This can help convince a verifier who is not familiar with a given
issuer.
5.4. Presentation Notarization
Some holders may request a receipt from a notary when making
presentations.
This can help them prove that a notary, or intermediary offering
notarization had accepted a presentaton in the past.
6. Credential Formats
A credential format combines a well known and popular serialization,
such as JSON or CBOR, with a well known and popular securing
capability, such as JOSE and COSE.
Different serializations offer benefits over each other, but some
terminology is so consistently needed, that we see the same concepts
emerging in each content type specific securing specifications.
A good example is iss and sub which are popular in both JWT and CWT
claims, and express the identifier of the issuer and the subject.
Another is alg which expresses the cryptographic suite associated
with providing the unforgable property of a credential.
Another is nbf which expresses a time at which the statements made by
the issuer become authoriative for the subject.
Another is exp which expresses a time at which the statements made by
the issuer cease being auuthoritative for the subject.
Another is cnf which is a popular way to enable a holder to prove
possession of a public key identity.
Registries such as https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/cwt.xhtml and
https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml
over the ability for issuers, holders and verifiers to have unambious
and well understood terminology, but they cannot scale to express all
the possible statements about the possible subjects, in all the
possible industry veriticals and contexts.
Several competing solutions to this problem have emerged over time:
1. collision-resistant-names
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
In JSON, it is often recommended to prefix private claim names (names
that are not registered), for example:
{
"iss": "joe",
"exp": 1300819380,
"http://example.com/is_root":true
}
Figure 1: Example Collision-Resistant Name
In this scenario, since "is_root" is a private claim, and there is a
risk that it might not be interpretted consistently, or that there
might be collisions, since it is not registered, it is prefixed with
a URL.
1. embedding type information
The JWT BCP recomments to use explict typing to avoid similar looking
tokens from being confused, which could lead to faults in
verification or processing. See [RFC8725] section on explicit
typing.
{
"typ": "application/cool+jwt",
"cty": "application/cool",
"iss": "joe",
"exp": 1300819380,
"http://example.com/is_root":true
}
Figure 2: Example Explict Typing
1. embedding schema references
A schema language can help provide a clear, unambigious name for
certain shapes of data, or certain properties of data.
In JSON, this can be accomplished with JSON Schema, or JSON-LD:
{
"@context": "https://ontology.provider.example/v4346",
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"$id": "https://example.com/product.schema.json",
"iss": "joe",
"exp": 1300819380,
"http://example.com/is_root":true
}
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
Figure 3: Example Embedded Schema
Another solution is to leverage knowledge about the protocol to
reduce the need to communicate redundant information, for example, if
unicorn-protocol only uses JWT or only uses CWT, then signaling that
a token is of these types is unnecessary.
If the protocol grows to support new types in the future, a protocol
specific parameter can be used remove ambiguity, or common solutions
such as media types can be used to distinguish different kinds of
statements and secure envelopes.
6.1. CBOR Web Tokens
CBOR Web Tokens are defined in [RFC8392] and extended to support
selective disclosure in [I-D.prorock-cose-sd-cwt].
6.2. JSON Web Tokens
JSON Web Tokens are defined in [RFC7519] and extended to support
selective disclosure in [I-D.ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt].
6.3. CBOR Web Proofs
CBOR Web Proofs are defined in [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-proof] and
extended to support credentials in this specification.
6.4. JSON Web Proofs
JSON Web Proofs are defined in [I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-proof] and
extended to support credentials in this specification.
6.5. Transparency Tokens
Transparency Tokens build on lessons learned from deploying JWTs,
CWTs and attribute certificates.
6.5.1. Opaque Payloads
A major structural difference between transparency tokens and
previous token formats is the opacity of statements (the use of
opaque payloads).
Opaque payloads allow for arbitrary content to be easily integrated
in statements, which enables issuers and verifiers to keep using
serializations they are familar with, instead of mapping them to a
new claims structure.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
For example, XML files can be signed and exchanged using JWS or COSE
Sign 1 envelopes.
Because transparency tokens secure payloads that are not required to
be JSON objects or CBOR Maps, it is best to think of them as a new
kind of token.
Because the payload is opaque, it is common to play all the statement
metadata in the protected header.
In cases where selective disclosure or zero knowledge proofs need to
be applied, this specification extends the related work to enable
these capabilies over protected header metadata.
6.5.2. Detached Payloads
Transparency Token also recommend support for detached payloads, this
allows for easier integration with protocols that already transport
well known content types, such as HTTP or file systems that support
directory and file structures such as UNIX.
6.5.3. Redundant Claims
In some cases, a JWT or CWT claim might be present in both the
protected header and the payload. This can lead to protocol
confusion vulnerabilities. The typ parameter MUST be used to
distiniguish such tokens from similar looking tokens.
6.5.4. Key Discovery
Editors note: consider moving out of scope.
As a general rule, any well defined typ values SHOULD describe the
available key discovery mechanisms.
As a best practice the protected header should be the only location a
verifier needs to look for hints related to discovering verification
or decryption keys.
The following fields are commonly used to discovery verification
material: iss, kid, jwk, cnf.
6.5.5. Mutable Claims
The unprotected header provides a useful extension point, but
requires careful consideration, due to the lack of built in integrity
checking.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
Common uses for the unprotected header include:
* adding counter signatures
* adding transparency receipts
* disclosing redacted commitments
* providing proofs of knowledge
6.5.6. Entity Identifiers
JOSE and COSE have claims that are need to be text, but could be
strings or URIs.
Transparency tokens do not require these fields to be URIs.
As a general preference, these fields should be a small as possible,
and avoid transmitting information that is redundant to either:
1. the protocol specification (https can be ommmited when its known
to be required...)
2. other protected claims (kid and sub can be relative to iss, if
your typ says so...)
6.5.7. Trusted Hardware
Application developers need the ability to communciate the assurances
associated with a harware and software platform such as iOS and
Android, so that issuers can have confidence in the key material that
digital credentials will be bound too.
In order to accomplish this, the app developer needs both RATS
Evidence and a RATS Endorsement.
By presenting both evidence and endorsement associated with a private
key to an issuer, the issuer can be convinced that the digital
credential store has the necessary security properties to hold high
value credentials.
6.5.8. Architectural Alignment
Transparency Tokens require some consistency in functionality between
JOSE and COSE.
Editors note: consider focusing only on COSE.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
In order to enable similar experience, while leveraging existing
RFCs, the following structural changes and recommendations have been
made.
In cases where a break in conventions needs to be made, Transparency
Tokens prioritize CBOR / COSE over JSON / JOSE.
6.5.8.1. Unprotected headers
JOSE Compact and JSON serializations have been extended to support an
unprotected header.
6.5.8.2. Claims in headers
In JOSE, JWT claims go directly in the protected header.
{
"alg": "ES384",
"iss": "vendor.example",
"sub": "service.example"
}
Figure 4: Example JOSE Claims in Headers
In COSE, CWT claims go in the CWT Claims map, which is placed inside
the protected header.
{
1: -35, / Algorithm /
13: { / CWT Claims /
1: vendor.example, / Issuer /
2: service.example, / Subject /
},
}
Figure 5: Example COSE Claims in Headers
6.5.8.3. Fully Specified Algorithms
Parametric algorithms MUST NOT be used.
Algorithms MUST exist in both JOSE and COSE registries, and have the
same security properties to be suitable for Transparency Tokens.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
7. Credential Forms
In order to be a well recognized digital credential, there must be a
specification defining the privacy and security properties of the
format.
The must be a registered media type which distinguishes the format
from similar formats, for example:
application/sd-jwt is different than application/jwt.
There must be at least one way of extending the well known
terminology associated with the credential format, to support
industry use cases.
The core operations of issuance, presentation and verification must
be defined in a specification with privacy and security
considerations.
There must be clear definitions of the forms of credentials supported
by the format, and the privacy and security considerations associated
with each form.
7.1. Issued Credential
This form is produced by an issuer and delivered to a holder.
7.2. Presented Credential
This form is prepared by a holder and delivered to a verifier.
In the simple case of credentials, this form is indistinguishable
from the issued credential.
In more privacy preserving forms, this from reveals a subset of the
information commited to by the issuer, and possibly hides the
identity of the subject in the process.
8. Privacy Considerations
TODO Privacy
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
8.1. Collection limitation of attributes by Verifiers
## Holder consent for sending credential proofs to verifiers ##
Unlinkability of credential proofs between Verifiers ##
Untrackability of a credential proof by an Issuer ## Holder
observability of both issued credentials and credential proofs ##
Issuer anonymity among a set of Issuers
9. Security Considerations
TODO Security
9.1. Binding of an issued credential to the correct owner
## Verification by a Holder that an issued credential matches with an
expected object structure ## Verification by a Verifier that a
credential proof matches with a supported object structure ## Binding
of a credential proof to the correct owner ## Detection of collusion
attacks between individuals ## Detection of the freshness or of the
validity of a credential proof by a Verifier ## Binding of a
credential proof to the intended verifier ## Prevention of the
forwarding of a credential proof by a verifier to another Verifier
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers]
Looker, T. and M. B. Jones, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims
in COSE Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-10, 29 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-
cwt-claims-in-headers-10>.
[I-D.ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs]
Steele, O., Birkholz, H., Delignat-Lavaud, A., and C.
Fournet, "Concise Encoding of Signed Merkle Tree Proofs",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cose-merkle-
tree-proofs-03, 11 December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-
merkle-tree-proofs-03>.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
[I-D.ietf-cose-typ-header-parameter]
Jones, M. B. and O. Steele, "COSE "typ" (type) Header
Parameter", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
cose-typ-header-parameter-02, 8 December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-
typ-header-parameter-02>.
[I-D.ietf-jose-json-web-proof]
Miller, J., Waite, D., and M. B. Jones, "JSON Web Proof",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-jose-json-
web-proof-02, 21 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jose-
json-web-proof-02>.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc]
Terbu, O. and D. Fett, "SD-JWT-based Verifiable
Credentials (SD-JWT VC)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-01, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-
sd-jwt-vc-01>.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt]
Fett, D., Yasuda, K., and B. Campbell, "Selective
Disclosure for JWTs (SD-JWT)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-07, 11
December 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-07>.
[I-D.ietf-privacypass-architecture]
Davidson, A., Iyengar, J., and C. A. Wood, "The Privacy
Pass Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-privacypass-architecture-16, 25 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
privacypass-architecture-16>.
[I-D.prorock-cose-sd-cwt]
Prorock, M. and O. Steele, "Selective Disclosure CWTs (SD-
CWT)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-prorock-
cose-sd-cwt-01, 31 August 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-prorock-cose-
sd-cwt-01>.
[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>.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
[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>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4949>.
[RFC5755] Farrell, S., Housley, R., and S. Turner, "An Internet
Attribute Certificate Profile for Authorization",
RFC 5755, DOI 10.17487/RFC5755, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5755>.
[RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5785, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5785>.
[RFC8725] Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best
Current Practices", BCP 225, RFC 8725,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8725, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8725>.
[RFC9449] Fett, D., Campbell, B., Bradley, J., Lodderstedt, T.,
Jones, M., and D. Waite, "OAuth 2.0 Demonstrating Proof of
Possession (DPoP)", RFC 9449, DOI 10.17487/RFC9449,
September 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9449>.
Appendix A. Examples
These examples are "JOSE-like", because thats easier to generate than
"COSE-like", however, they are designed to be easily translated to
COSE.
Editors note: There are currently no examples using BBS Blind
Signatures, but we plan to add some when its easy to do so.
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
A.1. Presented Token with Receipts
A.1.1. Protected Header
{
"alg": "ES384",
"b64": false,
"crit": [
"b64"
],
"kid": "https://subject.example/subjects/6320cb92-fffe-4538-8c82-2ad3b6e7fbf8#QtCd_YvNG8IkhRwQUH3wNqScXzKvRyI0SPjuEy8Ms1A",
"jwt_claims": {
"_sd_hash_alg": "sha-256",
"_sd_hash": "d_4N34CMEwjuBSKEFFk7GyfKQS_GPgCj_Mo2KWdOFUU",
"iat": 1700518433,
"aud": "https://verifier.example/transactions/b9a87c99-1fc3-4292-a324-756d680fa4cf",
"nonce": "860fc8e5-1ed9-4f25-92ad-964c4197df15"
}
}
A.1.2. Unprotected Header
{
"issued_token": "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.._hmFSFDpUpUsOYeF3O0o-buB6-R_2cuMu85p6NQtK3uQ8UsHolx_icHEgpDbgKv-FomxVUoCqs0GfUVmUwraor_tDEwmdteP7u2L9YpfTp95XlGWhLRMqyMMUzT563Ib~e30",
"issued_disclosures": [],
"receipts": [
"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..vq1LVcsS5Uf9W4TQOXPgy2X-j8n0Gbc5jf2ZI-hlcdNHpwtZ60hYbUwa5qBCfktjVBumqXi6qgkrfLmC8uO9_RRxoPYLB-nA5-Ip5xYzjM9hQ-_bVb0c2voAfj73HM8k~eyJwcm9vZnMiOnsiaW5jbHVzaW9uIjpbIlcxMCJdfX0"
]
}
A.1.3. JSON
{
"protected": "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",
"unprotected": {
"issued_token": "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.._hmFSFDpUpUsOYeF3O0o-buB6-R_2cuMu85p6NQtK3uQ8UsHolx_icHEgpDbgKv-FomxVUoCqs0GfUVmUwraor_tDEwmdteP7u2L9YpfTp95XlGWhLRMqyMMUzT563Ib~e30",
"issued_disclosures": [],
"receipts": [
"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..vq1LVcsS5Uf9W4TQOXPgy2X-j8n0Gbc5jf2ZI-hlcdNHpwtZ60hYbUwa5qBCfktjVBumqXi6qgkrfLmC8uO9_RRxoPYLB-nA5-Ip5xYzjM9hQ-_bVb0c2voAfj73HM8k~eyJwcm9vZnMiOnsiaW5jbHVzaW9uIjpbIlcxMCJdfX0"
]
},
"payload": null,
"signature": "3VQlvmoSwm4VYielECL38_RqkKI41XL-eS4etFpRgWUxL4UpcGE_jSEaLh4Aou0syF5Kto3F7An1QSjE6Jz3_GhmhyZvYxKiIyb8HAcuI_L4KHGs1riPSk9NO9r279i3"
}
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
A.1.4. Compact
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..3VQlvmoSwm4VYielECL38_RqkKI41XL-eS4etFpRgWUxL4UpcGE_jSEaLh4Aou0syF5Kto3F7An1QSjE6Jz3_GhmhyZvYxKiIyb8HAcuI_L4KHGs1riPSk9NO9r279i3~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
A.2. Issued Token
A.2.1. Protected Header
{
"alg": "ES384",
"b64": false,
"crit": [
"b64"
],
"kid": "https://issuer.example/issuers/4fd94f63-4e8d-4ba0-8b08-496c6087acf0#ZoTnc8qt31MLZMgTwrBufMlXIzA7Pk_h_Jl16c_nfwc",
"typ": "application/cool+jose",
"cty": "text/plain; charset=utf-8",
"jwt_claims": {
"cnf": {
"kid": "https://subject.example/subjects/6320cb92-fffe-4538-8c82-2ad3b6e7fbf8#QtCd_YvNG8IkhRwQUH3wNqScXzKvRyI0SPjuEy8Ms1A"
},
"iat": 1700518433,
"_sd_hash_alg": "sha-256",
"iss": "https://issuer.example/issuers/4fd94f63-4e8d-4ba0-8b08-496c6087acf0",
"sub": "https://subject.example/subjects/6320cb92-fffe-4538-8c82-2ad3b6e7fbf8"
}
}
A.2.2. Unprotected Header
{}
A.2.3. JSON
{
"protected": "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",
"unprotected": {},
"payload": null,
"signature": "_hmFSFDpUpUsOYeF3O0o-buB6-R_2cuMu85p6NQtK3uQ8UsHolx_icHEgpDbgKv-FomxVUoCqs0GfUVmUwraor_tDEwmdteP7u2L9YpfTp95XlGWhLRMqyMMUzT563Ib"
}
A.2.4. Compact
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..3VQlvmoSwm4VYielECL38_RqkKI41XL-eS4etFpRgWUxL4UpcGE_jSEaLh4Aou0syF5Kto3F7An1QSjE6Jz3_GhmhyZvYxKiIyb8HAcuI_L4KHGs1riPSk9NO9r279i3~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
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft SpiceTT January 2024
Acknowledgments
The following individuals provided input into the final form of the
document:
* Ea-nāṣir
* Nanni
* Nis Jespersen
Author's Address
Orie Steele
Transmute
Email: orie@transmute.industries
Steele Expires 10 July 2024 [Page 29]
