Internet-Draft OAuth Mission Signals July 2026
McGuinness Expires 8 January 2027 [Page]
Workgroup:
Web Authorization Protocol
Internet-Draft:
draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-signals-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Experimental
Expires:
Author:
K. McGuinness
Independent

Mission Lifecycle Signals for OAuth 2.0

Abstract

The Mission Status and Lifecycle profile names event-driven propagation (Mission state changes reaching consumers over a Shared Signals stream) 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 by push or poll, so a consumer learns of a revocation, expiry, or other transition promptly without polling Mission Status per Mission. 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/mission-bound-authorization/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/mission-bound-authorization.

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 8 January 2027.

Table of Contents

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 Mission Status per Mission. 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 9).

This document is OPTIONAL and experimental: adopt it for evaluation, not as a stable interface. Push delivery is a propagation latency optimization over correctly sized pull: a consumer that polls the Status profile's surfaces within the deployment's published staleness bound, and fails safe on the Mission's expires_at, already meets the suite's revocation-propagation model without this channel ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]). Deploy this profile where polling per Mission does not scale or the staleness bound must shrink below a practical polling interval.

This document defines no new Mission semantics: the Mission, its lifecycle states, and the mission claim are defined in [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]. The states this event reports are the issuance profile's lifecycle state space [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission] as extended by whichever lifecycle profiles the deployment runs ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status] and any companion profile it adopts). 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 (the Mission issuer: in this document's OAuth binding the Authorization Server; a standalone Mission Issuer, the Mission Authority Server [I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-authority-server], transmits these events with the same semantics), 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 9) 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 Transmitter Configuration Metadata's delivery_methods_supported [OIDC-SSF]:

A Mission Issuer that emits events MUST support at least one method, and a consumer discovers the supported methods from the SSF Transmitter Configuration Metadata rather than from a separate Authorization Server metadata member. The consumer's stream configuration declares, in its delivery object, the method it uses; the Mission Issuer MUST respect it and MUST NOT silently fall back to a less-timely method.

3.1. Stream Scoping

Streams are configured per [OIDC-SSF]. A receiver adds a Mission to its stream with the SSF add-subject operation, using the Mission subject identifier (Section 4). The transmitter MUST accept an add-subject only for a Mission the receiver is authorized for under deployment policy, for example a receiver whose audience is an audience of the Mission's authority. Absent explicit subjects, a deployment MAY provision an authorization-derived default stream (delivering the events for the Missions a receiver is authorized for) and MUST document that stream's scope.

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 13, is:

https://schemas.karlmcguinness.com/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 SET subject is the Mission, identified by a sub_id Subject Identifier [RFC9493] of format opaque whose id is the canonical mission_id ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]), carried per Shared Signals Framework [OIDC-SSF] conventions. A receiver adds a Mission to its stream using this same subject identifier (Section 3).

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, jti, and sub_id. Its claims are:

The expired event MAY be emitted lazily. Because expiry is driven by the clock reaching the Mission's expires_at rather than an explicit request, a Mission Issuer emits the expired event at or after the Mission's expires_at, when it observes the transition. A consumer does not depend on prompt emission: it already fails safe on the Mission's expires_at carried with cached Mission status ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]).

Example SET (decoded), for a revocation:

{
  "iss": "https://as.example.com",
  "aud": "https://erp.example.com",
  "iat": 1793609600,
  "jti": "set_9Kp2vN7sR1tY8mZ3qX5b",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "opaque",
    "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-"
  },
  "events": {
    "https://schemas.karlmcguinness.com/mission/lifecycle-change": {
      "mission": {
        "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-",
        "issuer": "https://as.example.com"
      },
      "prior_state": "active",
      "state": "revoked",
      "version": 2,
      "committed_at": "2026-11-02T09:06:40Z",
      "reason": "Quarterly reconcile completed early"
    }
  }
}

Example SET (decoded), for the approval event that activates the Mission (version 1, no prior_state):

{
  "iss": "https://as.example.com",
  "aud": "https://erp.example.com",
  "iat": 1793602800,
  "jti": "set_3Fw7bJ4nQ9xD2kM6vL1c",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "opaque",
    "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-"
  },
  "events": {
    "https://schemas.karlmcguinness.com/mission/lifecycle-change": {
      "mission": {
        "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-",
        "issuer": "https://as.example.com"
      },
      "state": "active",
      "version": 1,
      "committed_at": "2026-11-02T07:00:00Z"
    }
  }
}

Example SET (decoded), for a supersession, carrying successor:

{
  "iss": "https://as.example.com",
  "aud": "https://erp.example.com",
  "iat": 1793612400,
  "jti": "set_6Tn4rW8pB3zK7qC2mV5j",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "opaque",
    "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-"
  },
  "events": {
    "https://schemas.karlmcguinness.com/mission/lifecycle-change": {
      "mission": {
        "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-",
        "issuer": "https://as.example.com"
      },
      "prior_state": "active",
      "state": "superseded",
      "version": 2,
      "committed_at": "2026-11-02T09:40:00Z",
      "successor": "msn_2Yt7Qv9LqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9RfX"
    }
  }
}

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.issuer; a consumer MAY treat a mismatch as a verification failure. (mission.issuer 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. A consumer MUST treat jti as a one-time identifier and reject a replayed jti, tracking each jti for a deployment-defined replay window measured from the SET's iat. Following [RFC8417], this profile does not require an exp on the SET; a consumer MAY reject a SET whose iat is implausibly old.

6. Consumer Behavior on Receipt

On receiving and verifying (Section 5) a mission.lifecycle-change event, a consumer MUST:

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 anchors stream liveness to the Shared Signals Framework [OIDC-SSF] stream verification event. A consumer that cannot verify its stream, or that was down and may have missed events, SHOULD treat its cached Mission state as stale once it exceeds the Mission Issuer's advertised mission_max_stale_seconds ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]) and SHOULD fall back to the Mission Status operation 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 9) 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. Worked Example

A partner ERP (erp.partner.example.com) consumes Mission lifecycle signals so it can stop honoring a Mission promptly rather than wait out token lifetimes. alice cancels her Q3 reconciliation Mission. The Mission Issuer commits the revoked transition and pushes a SET to the consumer's receiver ([RFC8935]). Decoded SET:

{
  "iss": "https://as.example.com",
  "aud": "https://erp.partner.example.com",
  "iat": 1793610000,
  "jti": "set_5kQ8mP2vR9nT",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "opaque",
    "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-"
  },
  "events": {
    "https://schemas.karlmcguinness.com/mission/lifecycle-change": {
      "mission": {
        "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-",
        "issuer": "https://as.example.com"
      },
      "state": "revoked",
      "prior_state": "active",
      "version": 7,
      "committed_at": "2026-11-02T09:00:00Z",
      "reason": "user_cancelled"
    }
  }
}

The consumer verifies the SET signature, iss, aud, and jti, sees version 7 is newer than any state it holds, and records the Mission as revoked. Because revoked is non-active, the consumer stops relying on the Mission: the next attempt to use a token bound to msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9- is refused, seconds after the cancellation, well inside the token's remaining lifetime. Had a stale active event for an earlier version arrived afterward, the version counter would cause the consumer to ignore it rather than revive the Mission.

9. 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 Transmitter Configuration Metadata's delivery_methods_supported, not from a separate metadata member.

10. 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.

10.1. 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.

10.2. 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.

10.3. 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.

11. 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].

The OPTIONAL reason (Section 4) is useful operational context, but the reason for a transition can be more sensitive than the fact of it. Because each SET is audience-scoped to a single authorized consumer (Section 5), reason is disclosed only to a party already authorized for the Mission, not broadcast. Even so, a Mission Issuer SHOULD include in reason only what that consumer needs, keep sensitive specifics in its own audit log rather than in the event, and MAY omit reason entirely when even a minimal reason would disclose more than the consumer requires.

12. Conformance

This document is OPTIONAL. An implementation that claims it:

An implementation that supports neither role is still a conforming issuance profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission].

13. IANA Considerations

13.1. 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 namespace:

  • https://schemas.karlmcguinness.com/mission/lifecycle-change: emitted on any Mission lifecycle transition or the approval-event emission from a Mission Issuer. The SET subject is a sub_id Subject Identifier [RFC9493] of format opaque whose id is the mission_id, per [OIDC-SSF] conventions. Required event-body claims: mission (carrying id and issuer), state, version, committed_at. Conditional event-body claim: prior_state (required on transition emissions, absent on the approval-event emission). Optional event-body claims: tenant, reason, successor (successor present only on a superseded transition). See Section 4 for the schema.

This event type uses the OpenID Shared Signals Framework [OIDC-SSF] SET shape. The standalone Mission Issuer binding [I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-authority-server] emits this event type unchanged and imposes no tenant requirement; tenant remains OPTIONAL. A consumer MUST ignore members it does not understand and MUST NOT reject an event solely for a missing OPTIONAL member (notably tenant).

13.2. 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 9.

  • mission_event_stream_endpoint

14. References

14.1. Normative References

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]
McGuinness, K., "Mission-Bound Authorization for OAuth 2.0", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission.html>.
[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status]
McGuinness, K., "Mission Status and Lifecycle for OAuth 2.0", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status.html>.
[OIDC-SSF]
OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Shared Signals Framework Specification 1.0", , <https://openid.net/specs/openid-sharedsignals-framework-1_0.html>.
[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/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339]
Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339>.
[RFC7515]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7515>.
[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/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8414]
Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414, DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8414>.
[RFC8417]
Hunt, P., Ed., Jones, M., Denniss, W., and M. Ansari, "Security Event Token (SET)", RFC 8417, DOI 10.17487/RFC8417, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8417>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8935>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8936>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9325>.
[RFC9493]
Backman, A., Ed., Scurtescu, M., and P. Jain, "Subject Identifiers for Security Event Tokens", RFC 9493, DOI 10.17487/RFC9493, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9493>.

14.2. Informative References

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-authority-server]
McGuinness, K., "Mission Authority Server", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-authority-server.html>.
[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation]
McGuinness, K., "Mission Child Delegation for OAuth 2.0", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation.html>.
[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion]
McGuinness, K., "Mission Expansion for OAuth 2.0", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion.html>.
[OIDC-CAEP]
OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Continuous Access Evaluation Profile 1.0", , <https://openid.net/specs/openid-caep-1_0.html>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9700>.

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