Token Status List

1.1. Rationale

Revocation mechanisms are an essential part for most identity ecosystems. In the past, revocation of X.509 TLS certificates has been proven difficult. Traditional certificate revocation lists (CRLs) have limited scalability; Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) has additional privacy risks, since the client is leaking the requested website to a third party. OCSP stapling is addressing some of these problems at the cost of less up-to-date data. Modern approaches use accumulator-based revocation registries and Zero-Knowledge-Proofs to accommodate for this privacy gap, but face scalability issues again.¶

This specification seeks to find a balance between scalability, security, and privacy by minimizing the status information to mere bits (often a single bit) and compressing the resulting binary data. Thereby, a Status List may contain statuses of many thousands or millions Referenced Tokens while remaining as small as possible. Placing large amounts of Referenced Tokens into the same list also enables herd privacy relative to the Issuer.¶

This specification establishes the IANA "Status Mechanism Methods" registry for status mechanism and registers the members defined by this specification. Other specifications can register other members used for status retrieval.¶

1.2. Design Considerations

The decisions taken in this specification aim to achieve the following design goals:¶

• the specification shall favor a simple and easy to understand concept¶

• the specification shall be easy, fast and secure to implement in all major programming languages¶

• the specification shall be optimized to support the most common use cases and avoid unnecessary complexity of corner cases¶

• the Status List shall scale up to millions of tokens to support large scale government or enterprise use cases¶

• the Status List shall enable caching policies and offline support¶

• the specification shall support JSON and CBOR based tokens¶

• the specification shall not specify key resolution or trust frameworks¶

• the specification shall design an extension point to convey information about the status of a token that can be re-used by other mechanisms¶

4.1. Status List in JSON Format

This section defines the structure for a JSON-encoded Status List:¶

• status_list: REQUIRED. JSON Object that contains a Status List. The object contains exactly two claims:¶

  • bits: REQUIRED. JSON Integer specifying the number of bits per Referenced Token in the Status List (lst). The allowed values for bits are 1,2,4 and 8.¶

  • lst: REQUIRED. JSON String that contains the status values for all the Referenced Tokens it conveys statuses for. The value MUST be the base64url-encoded (as defined in Section 2 of [RFC7515]) Status List as specified in Section 4.¶

The following example illustrates the JSON representation of the Status List:¶

byte_array = [0xb9, 0xa3]
encoded:
{
  "bits": 1,
  "lst": "eNrbuRgAAhcBXQ"
}

4.2. Status List in CBOR Format

This section defines the structure for a CBOR-encoded Status List:¶

• The StatusList structure is a map (Major Type 5) and defines the following entries:¶

  • bits: REQUIRED. Unsigned int (Major Type 0) that contains the number of bits per Referenced Token in the Status List. The allowed values for bits are 1, 2, 4 and 8.¶

  • lst: REQUIRED. Byte string (Major Type 2) that contains the Status List as specified in Section 4.1.¶

The following example illustrates the CBOR representation of the Status List:¶

byte_array = [0xb9, 0xa3]
encoded:
a2646269747301636c73744a78dadbb918000217015d

The following is the CBOR diagnostic output of the example above:¶

a2                              # map(2)
  64                            #   string(4)
    62697473                    #     "bits"
  01                            #   uint(1)
  63                            #   string(3)
    6c7374                      #     "lst"
  4a                            #   bytes(10)
    78dadbb918000217015d        #     "xÚÛ¹\x18\x00\x02\x17\x01]"

5.1. Status List Token in JWT Format

The Status List Token MUST be encoded as a "JSON Web Token (JWT)" according to [RFC7519].¶

The following content applies to the JWT Header:¶

• typ: REQUIRED. The JWT type MUST be statuslist+jwt.¶

The following content applies to the JWT Claims Set:¶

• iss: REQUIRED when also present in the Referenced Token. The iss (issuer) claim MUST specify a unique string identifier for the entity that issued the Status List Token. In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare issuer values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC3986]. The value MUST be equal to that of the iss claim contained within the Referenced Token.¶

• sub: REQUIRED. The sub (subject) claim MUST specify a unique string identifier for the Status List Token. The value MUST be equal to that of the uri claim contained in the status_list claim of the Referenced Token.¶

• iat: REQUIRED. The iat (issued at) claim MUST specify the time at which the Status List Token was issued.¶

• exp: OPTIONAL. The exp (expiration time) claim, if present, MUST specify the time at which the Status List Token is considered expired by its issuer.¶

• ttl: OPTIONAL. The ttl (time to live) claim, if present, MUST specify the maximum amount of time, in seconds, that the Status List Token can be cached by a consumer before a fresh copy SHOULD be retrieved. The value of the claim MUST be a positive number.¶

• status_list: REQUIRED. The status_list (status list) claim MUST specify the Status List conforming to the rules outlined in Section 4.1.¶

The following additional rules apply:¶

1. The JWT MAY contain other claims.¶

2. The JWT MUST be digitally signed using an asymmetric cryptographic algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject the JWT if it is using a Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject JWTs with an invalid signature.¶

3. Relying parties MUST reject JWTs that are not valid in all other respects per "JSON Web Token (JWT)" [RFC7519].¶

4. Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.¶

The following is a non-normative example for a Status List Token in JWT format:¶

{
  "alg": "ES256",
  "kid": "12",
  "typ": "statuslist+jwt"
}
.
{
  "exp": 2291720170,
  "iat": 1686920170,
  "iss": "https://example.com",
  "status_list": {
    "bits": 1,
    "lst": "eNrbuRgAAhcBXQ"
  },
  "sub": "https://example.com/statuslists/1"
}

5.2. Status List Token in CWT Format

The Status List Token MUST be encoded as a "CBOR Web Token (CWT)" according to [RFC8392].¶

The following content applies to the CWT protected header:¶

• 16 TBD (type): REQUIRED. The type of the CWT MUST be statuslist+cwt as defined in [CWT.typ].¶

The following content applies to the CWT Claims Set:¶

• 1 (issuer): REQUIRED. Same definition as iss claim in Section 5.1.¶

• 2 (subject): REQUIRED. Same definition as sub claim in Section 5.1.¶

• 6 (issued at): REQUIRED. Same definition as iat claim in Section 5.1.¶

• 4 (expiration time): OPTIONAL. Same definition as exp claim in Section 5.1.¶

• 65534 (status list): REQUIRED. The status list claim MUST specify the Status List conforming to the rules outlined in Section 4.2.¶

The following additional rules apply:¶

1. The CWT MAY contain other claims.¶

2. The CWT MUST be digitally signed using an asymmetric cryptographic algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject the CWT if it is using a Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. Relying parties MUST reject CWTs with an invalid signature.¶

3. Relying parties MUST reject CWTs that are not valid in all other respects per "CBOR Web Token (CWT)" [RFC8392].¶

4. Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.¶

The following is a non-normative example for a Status List Token in CWT format (not including the type header yet):¶

d28453a20126106e7374617475736c6973742b637774a1044231325860a502782168
747470733a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f7374617475736c697374732f310173
68747470733a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d061a648c5bea041a8898dfea19fffe
56a2646269747301636c73744a78dadbb918000217015d58400f2ca3772e10b09d5d
6ed56461f7cba1a816c6234072d1bb693db277048e5db5a4e64444492a9b781d6c7a
c9714db99cc7aadb3812ec90cab7794170bab5b473

The following is the CBOR diagnostic output of the example above:¶

d2                              # tag(18)
  84                            #   array(4)
    53                          #     bytes(19)
      a20126106e7374617475736c  #       "¢\x01&\x10nstatusl"
      6973742b637774            #       "ist+cwt"
    a1                          #     map(1)
      04                        #       uint(4)
      42                        #       bytes(2)
        3132                    #         "12"
    58 60                       #     bytes(96)
      a502782168747470733a2f2f  #       "¥\x02x!https://"
      6578616d706c652e636f6d2f  #       "example.com/"
      7374617475736c697374732f  #       "statuslists/"
      31017368747470733a2f2f65  #       "1\x01shttps://e"
      78616d706c652e636f6d061a  #       "xample.com\x06\x1a"
      648c3fca041a8898c3ca19ff  #       "d\x8c?Ê\x04\x1a\x88\x98ÃÊ\x19ÿ"
      fe56a2646269747301636c73  #       "þV¢dbits\x01cls"
      744a78dadbb918000217015d  #       "tJxÚÛ¹\x18\x00\x02\x17\x01]"
    58 40                       #     bytes(64)
      3fd60a6d10eb4b4131f1f6c1  #       "?Ö\x0am\x10ëKA1ñöÁ"
      2fb365ae27b969e8e8df0b4f  #       "/³e®'¹ièèß\x0bO"
      4029815b679cb1051c1c9eb3  #       "@)\x81[g\x9c±\x05\x1c\x1c\x9e³"
      6aa72f6f17bcfdb5ed443bdf  #       "j§/o\x17¼ýµíD;ß"
      c2339568ab42949169b413e7  #       "Â3\x95h«B\x94\x91i´\x13ç"
      02ae1e6a                  #       "\x02®\x1ej"

6.1. Status Claim

By including a "status" claim in a Referenced Token, the Issuer is referencing a mechanism to retrieve status information about this Referenced Token. The claim contains members used to reference to a status list as defined in this specification. Other members of the "status" object may be defined by other specifications. This is analogous to "cnf" claim in Section 3.1 of [RFC7800] in which different authenticity confirmation methods can be included.¶

6.2. Referenced Token in JWT Format

The Referenced Token MUST be encoded as a "JSON Web Token (JWT)" according to [RFC7519].¶

The following content applies to the JWT Claims Set:¶

• iss: REQUIRED when also present in the Status List Token. The iss (issuer) claim MUST specify a unique string identifier for the entity that issued the Referenced Token. In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, compliant applications MUST compare issuer values using the Simple String Comparison method defined in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC3986]. The value MUST be equal to that of the iss claim contained within the referenced Status List Token.¶

• status: REQUIRED. The status (status) claim MUST specify a JSON Object that contains at least one reference to a status mechanism.¶

  • status_list: REQUIRED when the status list mechanism defined in this specification is used. It contains a reference to a Status List or Status List Token. The object contains exactly two claims:¶

    • idx: REQUIRED. The idx (index) claim MUST specify an Integer that represents the index to check for status information in the Status List for the current Referenced Token. The value of idx MUST be a non-negative number, containing a value of zero or greater.¶

    • uri: REQUIRED. The uri (URI) claim MUST specify a String value that identifies the Status List or Status List Token containing the status information for the Referenced Token. The value of uri MUST be a URI conforming to [RFC3986].¶

Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.¶

The following is a non-normative example for a decoded header and payload of a Referenced Token:¶

{
  "alg": "ES256",
  "kid": "11"
}
.
{
  "iss": "https://example.com",
  "status": {
    "status_list": {
      "idx": 0,
      "uri": "https://example.com/statuslists/1"
    }
  }
}

6.3. Referenced Token in CWT Format

The Referenced Token MUST be encoded as a "COSE Web Token (CWT)" object according to [RFC8392].¶

The following content applies to the CWT Claims Set:¶

• 1 (issuer): REQUIRED. Same definition as iss claim in Section 6.2.¶

• 65535 (status): REQUIRED. The status claim is encoded as a Status CBOR structure and MUST include at least one data item that refers to a status mechanism. Each data item in the Status CBOR structure comprises a key-value pair, where the key must be a CBOR text string (Major Type 3) specifying the identifier of the status mechanism, and the corresponding value defines its contents. This specification defines the following data items:¶

  • status_list (status list): REQUIRED when the status list mechanism defined in this specification is used. It has the same definition as the status_list claim in Section 6.2 but MUST be encoded as a StatusListInfo CBOR structure with the following fields:¶

    • idx: REQUIRED. Same definition as idx claim in Section 6.2.¶

    • uri: REQUIRED. Same definition as uri claim in Section 6.2.¶

Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.¶

The following is a non-normative example for a decoded payload of a Referenced Token:¶

18(
    [
      / protected / << {
        / alg / 1: -7 / ES256 /
      } >>,
      / unprotected / {
        / kid / 4: h'3132' / '13' /
      },
      / payload / << {
        / iss    / 1: "https://example.com",
        / status / 65535: {
          "status_list": {
            "idx": "0",
            "uri": "https://example.com/statuslists/1"
          }
        }
      } >>,
      / signature / h'...'
    ]
  )

6.4. Referenced Token in other COSE/CBOR Format

The Referenced Token MUST be encoded as a COSE_Sign1 or COSE_Sign CBOR structure as defined in "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)" [RFC9052].¶

It is required to encode the status mechanisms referred to in the Referenced Token using the Status CBOR structure defined in Section 6.3.¶

It is RECOMMENDED to use status for the label of the field that contains the Status CBOR structure.¶

Application of additional restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the verifying party.¶

The following is a non-normative example for a decoded payload of a Referenced Token:¶

TBD: example¶

7.1. Status Types Values

A status describes the state, mode, condition or stage of an entity that is described by the Status List. Status Types MUST be numeric values between 0 and 255. Status types described by this specification comprise:¶

• 0x00 - "VALID" - The status of the Token is valid, correct or legal.¶

• 0x01 - "INVALID" - The status of the Token is revoked, annulled, taken back, recalled or cancelled. This state is irreversible.¶

• 0x02 - "SUSPENDED" - The status of the Token is temporarily invalid, hanging, debarred from privilege. This state is reversible.¶

The issuer of the Status List MUST choose an adequate bits (bit size) to be able to describe the required Status Types for the application.¶

The processing rules for JWT or CWT precede any evaluation of a Referenced Token's status. For example, if a token is evaluated as being expired through the "exp" (Expiration Time) but also has a status of 0x00 ("VALID"), the token is considered expired.¶

8.1. Status List Request

To obtain the Status List or Status List Token, the Relying Party MUST send a HTTP GET request to the Status List Endpoint. Communication with the Status List Endpoint MUST utilize TLS. Which version(s) should be implemented will vary over time. A TLS server certificate check MUST be performed as defined in Section 5 and 6 of [RFC6125].¶

The Relying Party SHOULD send the following Accept-Header to indicate the requested response type:¶

• "application/statuslist+json" for Status List in JSON format¶

• "application/statuslist+jwt" for Status List in JWT format¶

• "application/statuslist+cbor" for Status List in CBOR format¶

• "application/statuslist+cwt" for Status List in CWT format¶

If the Relying Party does not send an Accept Header, the response type is assumed to be known implicit or out-of-band.¶

8.2. Status List Response

In the successful response, the Status List Provider MUST use the following content-type:¶

• "application/statuslist+json" for Status List in JSON format¶

• "application/statuslist+jwt" for Status List in JWT format¶

• "application/statuslist+cbor" for Status List in CBOR format¶

• "application/statuslist+cwt" for Status List in CWT format¶

In the case of "application/statuslist+json", the response MUST be of type JSON and follow the rules of Section 4.1. In the case of "application/statuslist+jwt", the response MUST be of type JWT and follow the rules of Section 5.1. In the case of "application/statuslist+cbor", the response MUST be of type CBOR and follow the rules of Section 4.2. In the case of "application/statuslist+cwt", the response MUST be of type CWT and follow the rules of Section 5.2.¶

The HTTP response SHOULD use gzip Content-Encoding as defined in [RFC9110].¶

8.3. Caching

If caching is required (e.g., to enable the use of alternative mechanisms for hosting, like Content Delivery Networks), the control of the caching mechanism SHOULD be implemented using the standard HTTP Cache-Control as defined in [RFC9111].¶

8.4. Validation Rules

TBD¶

9.1. Status List Token with 2-Bit Status Values in JWT format

In this example, the Status List additionally includes the Status Type "SUSPENDED". As the Status Type value for "SUSPENDED" is 0x02 and does not fit into 1 bit, the "bits" is required to be 2.¶

This example Status List represents the status of 12 Referenced Tokens, requiring 24 bits (3 bytes) of status.¶

status[0] = 1
status[1] = 2
status[2] = 0
status[3] = 3
status[4] = 0
status[5] = 1
status[6] = 0
status[7] = 1
status[8] = 1
status[9] = 2
status[10] = 3
status[11] = 3

These bits are concatenated:¶

byte             0                  1                  2
bit       7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0    7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0    7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
values   |1|1|0|0|1|0|0|1|  |0|1|0|0|0|1|0|0|  |1|1|1|1|1|0|0|1|
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          \ / \ / \ / \ /    \ / \ / \ / \ /    \ / \ / \ / \ /
status     3   0   2   1      1   0   1   0      3   3   2   1
index      3   2   1   0      7   6   5   4      11  10  9   8
           \___________/      \___________/      \___________/
                0xC9               0x44               0xF9

Resulting in the byte array and compressed/base64url encoded status list:¶

byte_array = [0xc9, 0x44, 0xf9]
encoded:
{
  "bits": 2,
  "lst": "eNo76fITAAPfAgc"
}

10.1. Correct decoding and parsing of the encoded status list

TODO elaborate on risks of incorrect parsing/decoding leading to erroneous status data¶

10.2. Cached and Stale status lists

When consumers or verifiers of the Status List fetch the data, they need to be aware of its up-to-date status. The 'ttl' (time-to-live) claim in the Status List Token provides one mechanism for setting a maximum cache time for the fetched data. This property permits distribution of a status list to a CDN or other distribution mechanism while giving guidance to consumers of the status list on how often they need to fetch a fresh copy of the status list even if that status list is not expired.¶

10.3. Authorized access to the Status List

TODO elaborate on authorization mechanisms preventing misuse and profiling as described in privacy section¶

10.4. History

TODO elaborate on status list only providing the up-to date/latest status, no historical data, may be provided by the underlying hosting architecture¶

11.1. Limiting issuers observability of token verification

The main privacy consideration for a Status List, especially in the context of the Issuer-Holder-Verifier model [SD-JWT.VC], is to prevent the Issuer from tracking the usage of the Referenced Token when the status is being checked. If an Issuer offers status information by referencing a specific token, this would enable him to create a profile for the issued token by correlating the date and identity of Relying Parties, that are requesting the status.¶

The Status List approaches these privacy implications by integrating the status information of many Referenced Tokens into the same list. Therefore, the Issuer does not learn for which Referenced Token the Relying Party is requesting the Status List. The privacy of the Holder is protected by the anonymity within the set of Referenced Tokens in the Status List, also called herd privacy. This limits the possibilities of tracking by the Issuer.¶

The herd privacy is depending on the number of entities within the Status List called its size. A larger size results in better privacy but also impacts the performance as more data has to be transferred to read the Status List.¶

11.2. Malicious Issuers

A malicious Issuer could bypass the privacy benefits of the herd privacy by generating a unique Status List for every Referenced Token. By these means, he could maintain a mapping between Referenced Tokens and Status Lists and thus track the usage of Referenced Tokens by utilizing this mapping for the incoming requests. This malicious behaviour could be detected by Relying Parties that request large amounts of Referenced Tokens by comparing the number of different Status Lists and their sizes.¶

11.3. Unobservability of Relying Parties

Once the Relying Party receives the Referenced Token, this enables him to request the Status List to validate its status through the provided uri parameter and look up the corresponding index. However, the Relying Party may persistently store the uri and index of the Referenced Token to request the Status List again at a later time. By doing so regularly, the Relying Party may create a profile of the Referenced Token's validity status. This behaviour may be intended as a feature, e.g. for a KYC process that requires regular validity checks, but might also be abused in cases where this is not intended and unknown to the Holder, e.g. profiling the suspension of a driving license or checking the employment status of an employee credential.¶

This behaviour could be mitigated by: - adding authorization rules to the Status List, see Section 10.3. - regular re-issuance of the Referenced Token, see Section 12.1.¶

11.4. Unlinkability

Colluding Issuers and a Relying Parties have the possibility to link two transactions, as the tuple of uri and index inside the Referenced Token are unique and therefore traceable data. By comparing the status claims of received Referenced Tokens, two colluding Relying Parties could determine that they have interacted with the same user or an Issuer could trace the usage of its issued Referenced Token by colluding with various Relying Parties. It is therefore recommended to use Status Lists for Referenced Token formats that have similar unlinkability properties.¶

To avoid privacy risks for colluding Relying Parties, it is RECOMMENDED that Issuers use batch issuance to issue multiple tokens, see Section 12.1.¶

To avoid further correlatable information by the values of uri and index, Issuers are RECOMMENDED to:¶

• choose non-sequential, pseudo-random or random indices¶

• use decoy or dead entries to obfuscate the real number of Referenced Tokens within a Status List¶

• choose to deploy and utilize multiple Status Lists simultaneously¶

11.5. Third Party Hosting

TODO elaborate on increased privacy if the status list is hosted by a third party instead of the issuer reducing tracking possibilities TODO evaluate definition of Status List Provider? An entity that hosts the Status List as a resource for potential Relying Parties. The Status List Provider may be the issuer of the Status List but may also be outsourced to a trusted third party.¶

12.1. Token Lifecycle

The lifetime of a Status List (and the Status List Token) depends on the lifetime of its Referenced Tokens. Once all Referenced Tokens are expired, the Issuer may stop serving the Status List (and the Status List Token).¶

Referenced Tokens may be regularly re-issued to increase security or to mitigate linkability and prevent tracking by Relying Parties. In this case, every Referenced Token MUST have a fresh Status List entry.¶

Referenced Tokens may also be issued in batches, such that Holders can use individual tokens for every transaction. In this case, every Referenced Token MUST have a dedicated Status List entry. Revoking batch issued Referenced Tokens might reveal this correlation later on.¶

13.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registration

This specification requests registration of the following Claims in the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry [IANA.JWT] established by [RFC7519].¶

13.2. JWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry

This specification establishes the IANA "Status Mechanism Methods" registry for JWT "status" member values. The registry records the status mechanism method member and a reference to the specification that defines it.¶

13.3. CBOR Web Token Claims Registration

This specification requests registration of the following Claims in the IANA "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims" registry [IANA.CWT] established by [RFC8392].¶

13.4. CWT Status Mechanism Methods Registry

This specification establishes the IANA "Status Mechanism Methods" registry for CWT "status" member values. The registry records the status mechanism method member and a reference to the specification that defines it.¶

13.5. Media Type Registration

This section requests registration of the following media types [RFC2046] in the "Media Types" registry [IANA.MediaTypes] in the manner described in [RFC6838].¶

To indicate that the content is an JSON-based Status List:¶

• Type name: application¶

• Subtype name: statuslist+json¶

• Required parameters: n/a¶

• Optional parameters: n/a¶

• Encoding considerations: binary; A JSON-based Status List is a JSON Object.¶

• Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ]¶

• Interoperability considerations: n/a¶

• Published specification: [ this specification ]¶

• Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this specification ] for updated status information of tokens¶

• Fragment identifier considerations: n/a¶

• Additional information:¶

  • File extension(s): n/a¶

  • Macintosh file type code(s): n/a¶

• Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de¶

• Intended usage: COMMON¶

• Restrictions on usage: none¶

• Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de¶

• Change controller: IETF¶

• Provisional registration? No¶

To indicate that the content is an JWT-based Status List:¶

• Type name: application¶

• Subtype name: statuslist+jwt¶

• Required parameters: n/a¶

• Optional parameters: n/a¶

• Encoding considerations: binary; A JWT-based Status List is a JWT; JWT values are encoded as a series of base64url-encoded values (some of which may be the empty string) separated by period ('.') characters.¶

• Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ]¶

• Interoperability considerations: n/a¶

• Published specification: [ this specification ]¶

• Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this specification ] for updated status information of tokens¶

• Fragment identifier considerations: n/a¶

• Additional information:¶

  • File extension(s): n/a¶

  • Macintosh file type code(s): n/a¶

• Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de¶

• Intended usage: COMMON¶

• Restrictions on usage: none¶

• Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de¶

• Change controller: IETF¶

• Provisional registration? No¶

To indicate that the content is an CBOR-based Status List:¶

• Type name: application¶

• Subtype name: statuslist+cbor¶

• Required parameters: n/a¶

• Optional parameters: n/a¶

• Encoding considerations: binary; A CBOR-based Status List is a CBOR Object.¶

• Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ]¶

• Interoperability considerations: n/a¶

• Published specification: [ this specification ]¶

• Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this specification ] for updated status information of tokens¶

• Fragment identifier considerations: n/a¶

• Additional information:¶

  • File extension(s): n/a¶

  • Macintosh file type code(s): n/a¶

• Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de¶

• Intended usage: COMMON¶

• Restrictions on usage: none¶

• Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de¶

• Change controller: IETF¶

• Provisional registration? No¶

To indicate that the content is an CWT-based Status List:¶

• Type name: application¶

• Subtype name: statuslist+cwt¶

• Required parameters: n/a¶

• Optional parameters: n/a¶

• Encoding considerations: binary;¶

• Security considerations: See (#Security) of [ this specification ]¶

• Interoperability considerations: n/a¶

• Published specification: [ this specification ]¶

• Applications that use this media type: Applications using [ this specification ] for updated status information of tokens¶

• Fragment identifier considerations: n/a¶

• Additional information:¶

  • File extension(s): n/a¶

  • Macintosh file type code(s): n/a¶

• Person & email address to contact for further information: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de¶

• Intended usage: COMMON¶

• Restrictions on usage: none¶

• Author: Paul Bastian, paul.bastian@posteo.de¶

• Change controller: IETF¶

• Provisional registration? No¶