Network Working Group K. McGuinness Internet-Draft Independent Intended status: Standards Track 24 June 2026 Expires: 26 December 2026 Mission Lifecycle Signals for OAuth 2.0 draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-signals-latest Abstract The Mission Status and Lifecycle profile names event-driven propagation (Mission state changes reaching consumers over a Shared Signals or equivalent channel) as one way to bound revocation latency, but leaves the channel itself unspecified. This document specifies it: a profile of the OpenID Shared Signals Framework in which a Mission Issuer emits a Mission lifecycle-change Security Event Token when it commits a state transition, delivered push or poll, so a consumer learns of a revocation, expiry, or other transition without polling. It is OPTIONAL and builds on Mission- Bound Authorization for OAuth 2.0, the issuance profile; a deployment that does not adopt it is unaffected. 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://mcguinness.github.io/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission/draft- mcguinness-oauth-mission-signals.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- mcguinness-oauth-mission-signals/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/mcguinness/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission. 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 26 December 2026. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2026 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 2. Conventions and Terminology 3. Mission Lifecycle Event Stream 4. The mission.lifecycle-change Event 5. SET Protection 6. Consumer Behavior on Receipt 7. Relationship to Revocation Propagation 8. Authorization Server Metadata 9. Security Considerations 9.1. Forged or Replayed Events 9.2. Missed Events Are Not Fail-Open 9.3. General OAuth Security 10. Privacy Considerations 11. Conformance 12. IANA Considerations 12.1. Security Event Token Type 12.2. OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registration 13. References 13.1. Normative References 13.2. Informative References Acknowledgments Author's Address 1. Introduction Mission-Bound Authorization for OAuth 2.0 [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission] (the "issuance profile") gates derivation on Mission state and bounds outstanding self-contained tokens by their lifetime. The Mission Status and Lifecycle profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status] adds surfaces for observing and changing state, and points to event-driven propagation for deployments that need Mission state changes to reach consumers promptly, without each consumer polling. It does not define the channel. This document defines the channel. When a Mission Issuer commits a Mission lifecycle transition (a revocation, expiry, suspension, completion, or the approval event that activates a Mission), it emits a *Mission lifecycle-change Security Event Token* (Section 4) over a profile of the OpenID Shared Signals Framework [OIDC-SSF]: pushed to a consumer's receiver [RFC8935] or made available for the consumer to poll [RFC8936], as a Security Event Token (SET) [RFC8417]. A consumer that receives a non-active transition stops honoring the Mission (Section 6). A deployment offers this channel by publishing the event stream (Section 3); consumers discover it from mission_event_stream_endpoint (Section 8). This document is OPTIONAL. It defines no new Mission semantics: the Mission, its lifecycle states, and the mission claim are defined in [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission], and the lifecycle states this event reports are those of [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]. A deployment that does not stand up an event stream uses the polling surfaces of the Status profile instead and is unaffected by this document. 2. Conventions and 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. This document uses the terms defined in the issuance profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission] and the Status profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status], in particular Mission, Mission Issuer (Authorization Server, the Mission origin), mission_id, and the Mission lifecycle states. It additionally uses *Security Event Token (SET)* [RFC8417] and the *Shared Signals Framework (SSF)* [OIDC-SSF] transmitter, receiver, and stream terminology. A *consumer* here is an SSF receiver that relies on Mission state -- typically a Resource Server, or an Authorization Server acting on a Mission it did not issue. All JSON shown in this document is non-normative and illustrative; the member definitions in the surrounding text are authoritative. JWT and SET examples are shown as decoded JSON; on the wire the JWS Compact Serialization [RFC7515] applies. 3. Mission Lifecycle Event Stream This section is OPTIONAL. A Mission Issuer that does not emit lifecycle events, and a consumer that does not receive them, are unaffected; they rely on token lifetime and the polling surfaces of [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]. A Mission Issuer that emits lifecycle events publishes a Shared Signals Framework [OIDC-SSF] stream and advertises it in Authorization Server metadata (Section 8) as mission_event_stream_endpoint. The endpoint and its configuration follow [OIDC-SSF]; this document profiles only the event carried, its protection, and the consumer's duty on receipt. The stream MUST be served over TLS 1.2 or later (TLS 1.3 RECOMMENDED), following the recommendations of [RFC9325]. Delivery uses the Shared Signals Framework delivery methods, advertised in the SSF stream configuration's delivery_methods_supported [OIDC-SSF]: * push-based delivery, SET delivery method urn:ietf:rfc:8935 [RFC8935]: the Mission Issuer pushes SETs [RFC8417] to a consumer's registered receiver endpoint. * poll-based delivery, SET delivery method urn:ietf:rfc:8936 [RFC8936]: the Mission Issuer makes SETs available for the consumer to poll. A Mission Issuer that emits events MUST support at least one method, and a consumer discovers the supported methods from the SSF stream configuration rather than from a separate Authorization Server metadata member. The consumer's stream configuration declares the method it uses; the Mission Issuer MUST respect it and MUST NOT silently fall back to a less-timely method. 4. The mission.lifecycle-change Event A Mission Issuer emits a mission.lifecycle-change event, carried in the Security Event Token shape of the Shared Signals Framework [OIDC-SSF] and informed by the Continuous Access Evaluation Profile [OIDC-CAEP], when it commits any Mission lifecycle transition or the approval event that activates a Mission. The event type URI, defined in this document and described in Section 12, is: https://schemas.karlmcguinness.com/secevent/mission/lifecycle-change This URI is the registered event-type identifier; mission.lifecycle- change is the short name this document uses for it in prose. The event is carried as the event-type-keyed value of the events claim of a SET [RFC8417], alongside the SET's own iss, aud, iat, exp, and jti. Its claims are: * mission_id (string, required): the canonical mission_id ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]). * mission_origin (string, required): the Mission Issuer (origin) issuer URL. * state (string, required): the new lifecycle state. The value space is the Mission lifecycle state space defined by the issuance profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission] (active, revoked, expired), as extended by whichever lifecycle profiles a deployment also runs: suspended and completed ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]), superseded ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion]), and cascaded ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation]). Following the issuance profile's forward-compatibility rule, an event consumer MUST treat every value other than active as non- deriving, including a value it does not recognize. A Mission Issuer that runs a profile defining an additional state emits that state here on the corresponding transition (for example, superseded when a predecessor is superseded by an expansion successor). * prior_state (string, conditional): the state immediately before the transition, drawn from the same value space. REQUIRED on a transition emission; absent only on the approval-event emission, where there is no prior state. A supersede transition emits prior_state of active and state of superseded. * version (integer, required): a strictly monotonic per-Mission counter the Mission Issuer maintains and increments on each committed lifecycle transition (the approval-event emission is version 1), letting a consumer order events and detect gaps. This profile defines the counter here; it is not surfaced by the issuance or status profiles. * committed_at (string, required): an RFC 3339 [RFC3339] date-time at which the Mission Issuer committed the transition. * tenant (string, optional): the Mission's deployment tenant. This profile defines no tenant model and does not use it; it is present so the event type is shared, unchanged, with multi-tenant and cross-substrate deployments that do. * reason (string, optional): a human-readable reason, for audit. Example SET (decoded), for a revocation: { "iss": "https://as.example.com", "aud": "https://erp.example.com", "iat": 1797843200, "exp": 1797843500, "jti": "set_9Kp2vN7sR1tY8mZ3qX5b", "events": { "https://schemas.karlmcguinness.com/secevent/mission/lifecycle-change": { "mission_id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-", "mission_origin": "https://as.example.com", "prior_state": "active", "state": "revoked", "version": 2, "committed_at": "2026-11-02T09:06:40Z", "reason": "Quarterly reconcile completed early" } } } 5. SET Protection Each SET [RFC8417] is a JWS Compact Serialization [RFC7515] signed with a Mission Issuer key resolvable in the issuer's jwks_uri, with a typ of secevent+jwt and a kid identifying the signing key. A consumer MUST verify the signature against the Mission Issuer's published keys and MUST refuse a SET whose iss does not match the Mission Issuer it registered with. Because this profile is single- issuer, the SET iss equals the event's mission_origin; a consumer MAY treat a mismatch as a verification failure. (mission_origin is carried in the event for cross-substrate deployments where the two can differ.) The SET aud MUST be the receiving consumer's registered audience identifier; a consumer MUST refuse a SET whose aud is not its own. Each SET carries an exp; a consumer MUST reject an expired SET and MUST treat jti as a one-time identifier for at least the SET's validity window (iat to exp), rejecting a replayed jti within it. 6. Consumer Behavior on Receipt On receiving and verifying (Section 5) a mission.lifecycle-change event, a consumer MUST: * Stop honoring the affected Mission for any new consequential use when state is anything other than active: refuse to act on, and refuse to derive further authority from, tokens bound to that Mission ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]), to the extent of the consumer's enforcement role. * Resume honoring the Mission on a verified event whose state is active and whose version is greater than the last applied for that mission_id, subject to the same gating the issuance profile applies. This covers a reversible transition (for example a suspended Mission that is later resumed to active). * Apply the transition idempotently: a repeated or out-of-order event carrying a version not greater than the last applied for that mission_id MUST NOT regress the consumer's view of the state. * Acknowledge the event per the SSF delivery method in use. A consumer MUST NOT treat the event as authority to change Mission state at the Mission Issuer; the Mission Issuer is authoritative ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]). A consumer that believes the reported state is wrong re-checks through Mission Status rather than inventing a state. A consumer SHOULD treat a missed or delayed event as a freshness failure: if it has not received expected events within the Mission Issuer's advertised mission_max_stale_seconds ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]), it SHOULD fall back to polling Mission Status rather than continue on possibly stale state. 7. Relationship to Revocation Propagation This document is the event-driven mechanism the Status profile's revocation-propagation guidance points to ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]): a Mission Issuer that offers it emits mission.lifecycle-change events (Section 4) over the stream (Section 3), and consumers subscribe and apply Section 6. A deployment that offers event-driven propagation MUST advertise mission_event_stream_endpoint (Section 8) and support at least one SSF delivery method (Section 3), so consumers discover it. This document neither requires nor presumes event-driven propagation; a Mission Issuer MAY emit lifecycle events for audit or operational purposes independent of any consumer's enforcement posture. 8. Authorization Server Metadata A Mission Issuer that emits lifecycle events advertises the following in its Authorization Server metadata [RFC8414], in addition to the issuance-profile and Status-profile members it already publishes: mission_event_stream_endpoint: OPTIONAL. A string containing a URL. The Shared Signals Framework [OIDC-SSF] stream endpoint for Mission lifecycle events (Section 3). Present when the Mission Issuer emits events. The supported delivery methods are discovered from the SSF stream configuration's delivery_methods_supported, not from a separate metadata member. 9. Security Considerations The security considerations of the issuance profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission] and the Status profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status] apply. This section covers threats specific to event propagation. 9.1. Forged or Replayed Events A forged event could suppress a Mission (a spurious revoked) or, more dangerously, mask a revocation (a spurious active). SET signing (Section 5) binds each event to the Mission Issuer; a consumer MUST verify the signature, the iss, and its own aud, and MUST reject a replayed jti. The version ordering rule (Section 6) prevents an old active event from overriding a newer revoked one. 9.2. Missed Events Are Not Fail-Open Event delivery is best-effort; a consumer that treats "no event" as "still active" indefinitely defeats the purpose. A consumer MUST bound its reliance on event freshness and fall back to polling Mission Status (Section 6) so a dropped revocation event does not leave a Mission honored past the deployment's advertised staleness bound. 9.3. General OAuth Security This document inherits OAuth 2.0 Best Current Practice [RFC9700] for the OAuth surfaces it composes with; implementers MUST follow current OAuth security guidance. 10. Privacy Considerations A mission.lifecycle-change event discloses a Mission's identifier, state transitions, and timing to its receivers. A Mission Issuer MUST deliver events only to consumers authorized for the Mission and MUST scope each SET to a single consumer audience (Section 5), so a consumer never learns of Missions it is not party to. Event streams and their delivery logs record mission_id and consumer identity over time; deployments MUST treat them as Mission information-disclosure surfaces with the privacy posture of [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]. 11. Conformance This document is OPTIONAL. An implementation that claims it: * as a *Mission Issuer*, emits a signed mission.lifecycle-change SET (Section 4, Section 5) on every committed Mission lifecycle transition, supports at least one SSF delivery method (Section 3), and advertises mission_event_stream_endpoint (Section 8); * as a *consumer*, verifies and applies received events per Section 5 and Section 6. An implementation that supports neither role is still a conforming issuance profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]. 12. IANA Considerations 12.1. Security Event Token Type IANA is not requested to create a registry. This document defines the following Security Event Token (SET) [RFC8417] event type URI under the author-controlled schemas.karlmcguinness.com/secevent namespace: * https://schemas.karlmcguinness.com/secevent/mission/lifecycle- change: emitted on any Mission lifecycle transition or the approval-event emission from a Mission Issuer. Required claims: mission_id, mission_origin, state, version, committed_at. Conditional claim: prior_state (required on transition emissions, absent on the approval-event emission). Optional claims: tenant, reason. See Section 4 for the schema. This event type uses the OpenID Shared Signals Framework [OIDC-SSF] SET shape. The same event type URI is also referenced by the substrate-neutral Mission Authority Server work, which makes tenant a required claim; this profile makes tenant OPTIONAL because the OAuth profile has no tenant model. Because the URI is author-controlled and has no IANA registry or change controller to arbitrate a shared definition, this profile does not rely on any cross-specification guarantee about its required-claim set. It relies only on consumer robustness, which is sufficient on its own: a consumer MUST ignore members it does not understand and MUST NOT reject an event solely for a missing OPTIONAL member (notably tenant). A consumer built to this profile therefore interoperates with an emitter of either specification regardless of how the two reconcile, and a deployment that needs a binding shared definition should pursue a registered event type rather than depend on the author-controlled URI. 12.2. OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registration IANA is requested to register the following in the "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata" registry [RFC8414]. For each: Change Controller IETF; Reference this document, Section 8. * mission_event_stream_endpoint 13. References 13.1. Normative References [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission] McGuinness, K., "Mission-Bound Authorization for OAuth 2.0", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mcguinness- oauth-mission, 2026, . [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status] McGuinness, K., "Mission Status and Lifecycle for OAuth 2.0", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mcguinness- oauth-mission-status, 2026, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, . [RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May 2015, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8414] Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414, DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, June 2018, . [RFC8417] Hunt, P., Ed., Jones, M., Denniss, W., and M. Ansari, "Security Event Token (SET)", RFC 8417, DOI 10.17487/RFC8417, July 2018, . [RFC8935] Backman, A., Ed., Jones, M., Ed., Scurtescu, M., Ansari, M., and A. Nadalin, "Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP", RFC 8935, DOI 10.17487/RFC8935, November 2020, . [RFC8936] Backman, A., Ed., Jones, M., Ed., Scurtescu, M., Ansari, M., and A. Nadalin, "Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP", RFC 8936, DOI 10.17487/RFC8936, November 2020, . [RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November 2022, . 13.2. Informative References [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation] McGuinness, K., "Child Mission Delegation for OAuth 2.0", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mcguinness-oauth- mission-child-delegation, 2026, . [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion] McGuinness, K., "Mission Expansion for OAuth 2.0", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission- expansion, 2026, . [OIDC-CAEP] OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Continuous Access Evaluation Profile 1.0", 2025, . [OIDC-SSF] OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Shared Signals Framework Specification 1.0", 2025, . [RFC9700] Lodderstedt, T., Bradley, J., Labunets, A., and D. Fett, "Best Current Practice for OAuth 2.0 Security", BCP 240, RFC 9700, DOI 10.17487/RFC9700, January 2025, . Acknowledgments The author thanks the implementers and reviewers of the Mission-Bound Authorization work, and the OpenID Shared Signals and CAEP communities, for the foundations this profile builds on. Author's Address Karl McGuinness Independent Email: public@karlmcguinness.com