Internet-Draft multicred template August 2020
Waite Expires 21 February 2021 [Page]
Workgroup:
None
Internet-Draft:
draft-template-credential-type-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Experimental
Expires:
Author:
D. Waite
Ping Identity

Multipass Credential Type Template

Abstract

User authentication and attributes are exchanged online today between organizations based on bilateral business arrangements, with user consent and privacy provided as desired by the organization(s) involved.

Multipass is a system intended for an organization to issue credentials unilaterally, where other organizations can evaluate credentials without having a relationship to the issuing party. This is accomplished by leveraging a software agent, which allows this exchange to be done in a manner that is able to respect user privacy and support informed decisions around disclosure.

This specification defines a credential type to DO STUFF.

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 21 February 2021.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Multipass describes a process for retrieving and handling a set of credentials from a single issuer, known as a Multipass Container. These containers are single use, cryptographically verifiable statements by a particular issuer, containing or referencing credentials of various types - representing user attributes, authentication, and authorization. Multipass also defines mechanisms to prove possession of a key associated with the container to the relying party, and for verifying the credentials were asserted by the issuer.

This specification describes the data expected in a request by a party for a particular type of credential (CREDENTIAL NAME), as well as the cryptographic format of the presentation of this credential back to the requesting party.

1.1. Notational Conventions

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. These words may also appear in this document in lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.

Certain security-related terms are to be understood in the sense defined in [SECURITY]. These terms may include, but are not limited to, "air gap", "anonymity", "assymmetric cryptography", "attribute", "authentication", "authorization", "certificate", "challenge-response", "credential", "data integrity", "domain", "domain name", "enclave", "encryption", "ephemeral key", "expire", "fresh", "identifier", "identity", "identity proofing", "integrity", "privacy", "private key", "proof-of-possession", "protocol", "public key", "repudiation", "sign", "signature", "single sign-on", "steganography", "trust", "validate", "validity period", "verify", and "zero-knowledge proof"

Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values are case sensitive.

This specification also leverages the terms and roles defined in [draft-waite-multipass-retrieval]

1.2. Credential Type

1.2.1. Overview

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

1.2.2. Security and Privacy

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

1.3. Credential Metadata

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

1.4. Holder Credential Request

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

1.5. Container Credential Data

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

1.6. Credential Presentation Request

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

1.7. Holder Presentation Processing

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

1.8. Credential Presentation Response

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

2. References

2.1. Normative References

[JSON]
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[JWA]
Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518, DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7518>.
[JWK]
Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517, DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>.
[JWT]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[OAUTH2]
Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[OAUTHMETA]
Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414, DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8414>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[SECURITY]
Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.

2.2. Informative References

[ANONCRED]
Camenisch, J. and A. Lysyanskaya, "An Efficient System for Non-trasferable Anonymous Credentials with Optional Anonymity Revocation", , <https://eprint.iacr.org/2001/019.pdf>.
[draft-waite-multipass-retrieval]
Waite, D. and J. Miller, "Multipass Container Retrieval", , <https://dwaite.github.io/multipass/>.
[JWTPOP]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)", RFC 7800, DOI 10.17487/RFC7800, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7800>.
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]
Cantor, S., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler, "Assertions and Protocol for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-core-2.0-os, , <http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-core-2.0-os.pdf>.
[OpenID.Core]
Sakimora, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0", , <https://openiD.net/specs/openiD-connect-core-1_0.html>.
[W3C.REC-vc-data-model-20191119]
Sporny, M., Noble, G., Longley, D., Burnett, D., and B. Zundel, "Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0", , <https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/REC-vc-data-model-20191119/>.

Author's Address

D. Waite
Ping Identity