Internet-Draft OAuth Mission Work Products August 2026
McGuinness Expires 22 February 2027 [Page]
Workgroup:
Web Authorization Protocol
Internet-Draft:
draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-work-products-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Experimental
Expires:
Author:
K. McGuinness
Independent

Mission Work Products

Abstract

Agents produce durable artifacts, files, messages, memory entries, queue events, packages, and directory names, that other agents and Missions later read. An artifact can carry knowledge across a boundary, but it must not carry authority across with it. This document defines, as an experimental companion to Mission-Bound Authorization for OAuth 2.0, how a work product records where it came from without becoming a grant. It states one invariant: no authority is acquired by information propagation alone. It defines a policy-free work-product provenance object that attributes an artifact to the approved work under which it came into existence, and a non-transitive Mission-to-Mission handoff rule: an artifact crossing into a receiving Mission is input, and the receiving Mission re-evaluates any proposed action under its own Authority Set. Provenance answers "under what approved work did this come into existence"; it never answers "what may the reader do."

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-work-products.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-work-products/.

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 22 February 2027.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Agentic work at machine speed produces and consumes shared artifacts across runtimes and Missions: a file written for a later step, a message posted to a channel, an entry added to shared memory, an event placed on a queue, a package published to a registry. Each artifact records what some earlier work discovered or decided. None of them is a credential, and none of them may act as one.

The family already enforces this discipline on the credential plane. A continuation handle grants nothing and is not a credential ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-continuation]); an Active Mission is not ambient standing authority, so each action is re-checked ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-security-model]); revocation is possession-independent, so holding a credential is not holding authority ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-architecture]). This document extends the same discipline to the artifact plane: an agent may inherit another agent's knowledge, and never inherits another agent's authority.

Its place in the family is the artifact-scoped companion to the execution-time-evidence continuity of Mission Continuation (Section 8). It defines no new token type, grant type, or endpoint. It defines one invariant (Section 5), a provenance object that attributes an artifact (Section 6), and the rule that makes the invariant hold when an artifact crosses between independent Missions (Section 7).

2. Status: An Experimental Extension

This document is optional and experimental: adopt it for evaluation, not as a stable interface. No Standards-Track document depends on it.

A Mission Issuer or deployment that does not implement this document is a fully conforming issuance-profile deployment ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]). Nothing here places a new requirement back on the issuance profile, and this document adds no constraint to the issuance profile's mission_resource_access. The provenance object and the handoff rule are companion mechanisms that a deployment adopts where its agents share durable work products.

3. Relationship to Other Profiles

This document depends normatively on the issuance profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission] and is not implementable alone. It uses Mission, Authority Set, approval event, active, derivation, and the subset rule as the issuance profile defines them.

The invariant of Section 5 is not a new axiom. It is the artifact-plane reading of a claim the issuance profile already makes on the credential plane: authority exists only by derivation for a Mission, so no possessed thing, credential or artifact, substitutes for the Mission's live gate. Alignment with a forthcoming issuance-profile Security Considerations statement of this property is anticipated; this document states the property for work products and imposes nothing new on the issuance profile.

Child delegation ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation]) is the legitimate authority path this document points to: where an agent needs authority to act on what it read, it obtains a Child Mission bounded by the parent under the subset rule, never authority read off the artifact. Cross-domain projection ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-cross-domain]) is contrasted in Section 7: it preserves the same Mission across a trust boundary, where this document governs handoffs between independent Missions. The architecture ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-architecture]) promotes the quarantine pattern to a normative cross-Mission handoff rule and hosts the conjunctive gating model this document extends. The security model ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-security-model]) catalogs the threat this rule addresses.

4. 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 Mission, Authority Set, approval event, active, derivation, and subset rule from [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]. It additionally defines:

Work Product:

A durable, shared artifact an agent produces under a Mission: a file, a message, a memory entry, a queue event, a package, a directory name, or another artifact a later agent or Mission can read.

Producing Mission:

The Mission under whose approved work a work product came into existence.

Receiving Mission:

A Mission whose agent reads a work product that a different Mission produced.

Work Product Provenance:

The object of Section 6 that attributes a work product to its Producing Mission. It is an attribution claim, never an authority claim.

5. The Work Product Invariant

This document states one invariant, in normative language so conformance to it is testable (Section 10):

The invariant extends the credential-plane claims of Section 3 to the artifact plane; it does not contradict or replace them. The provenance object of Section 6 makes an artifact's origin legible, and the handoff rule of Section 7 keeps that origin from becoming a grant.

6. Work Product Provenance

A work product MAY carry a Work Product Provenance object attributing it to the approved work under which it came into existence. The object is a JSON object [RFC8259] with these members and only these:

mission_id:

REQUIRED. The Producing Mission.

deployment_id:

REQUIRED. The Agent Deployment that produced the work product.

producer:

REQUIRED. The producing principal or agent under that Mission.

created_at:

REQUIRED. The production time, as an [RFC3339] date-time.

parent_artifact:

OPTIONAL. A back-reference to the work product this one derived from, forming a provenance chain.

Where a work product carries a Work Product Provenance object, that object MUST be attached by a trusted mediator acting for the Producing Mission, such as its Agent Deployment's execution environment or the Mission Issuer, from that mediator's own record of which Mission's approved work was executing when the artifact was produced. The producing agent MUST NOT self-author or self-assert its own Work Product Provenance: an agent attaching its own attribution could claim an origin under approved work it never executed, an authority-bearing forgery the custody boundary exists to prevent. This is a rule about who may write the object, not about what it contains: the object still carries only the five members above, and none of them is a permission.

The object is policy-free by construction: it carries no authority, no constraint, no classification, and no permission. Its sole function is to answer one question, "under what approved work did this information come into existence," and never the question "what may the reader do." A reader can therefore distinguish a provenance claim, "produced by an agent executing Mission M," from an authority claim, "Mission M authorized me to do what this proposes," which the object never makes.

The producer member names the producing Mission's principal or agent. This differs from the producer of an evidence record elsewhere in the suite, which is the principal or component that emitted the record, a Mission Issuer, a PDP, a PEP, or an executor ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-audit]). The two are distinct: this object attributes the work product to the Producing Mission, not to the component that emitted a record.

Work Product Provenance is attribution metadata carried with the work product, not one of the suite's evidence objects: it records where the artifact came from, not what was done. Where a deployment retains it, it is recorded as Mission evidence attributed to the Producing Mission, the producer of Mission evidence in the audit sense ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-audit]), and disclosed under the access rules for that deployment's Mission evidence. An implementation MAY realize it as a discriminated kind on a shared evidence structure; this document defines only the members above and requires no new media type.

7. Non-Transitive Mission-to-Mission Handoff

Attributing a work product does not authorize a reader to act on it. The rule that keeps the invariant of Section 5 holding when a work product crosses from its Producing Mission into an independent Receiving Mission is:

The handoff is non-transitive: authority earned by the Producing Mission does not accrue to the Receiving Mission because the two share an artifact. The Receiving Mission holds exactly the authority its own approval derived, and reading a work product neither widens that set nor substitutes for its live gate.

7.1. Contrast with Cross-Domain Projection

Cross-domain projection preserves the same Mission across a trust boundary: the projected credential carries a subset of one Mission's authority into another domain, and the work stays under that one Mission ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-cross-domain]). The handoff of this section is different in kind. It is between independent Missions, and the Receiving Mission re-evaluates under its own Authority Set rather than continuing the producer's. A work product is not a projection: it moves information, not the Mission.

8. Relationship to the Execution-Time Evidence Continuity

Mission Continuation keeps three continuities apart: identity continuity, authorization continuity, and execution-time evidence ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-continuation]). Work provenance is the artifact-scoped companion to the third, and does not rename it.

Execution-time evidence answers "what was done": it is action-scoped and recorded against the Mission at each continued hop. Work provenance answers "under what approved work did this artifact come into existence": it is artifact-scoped and attributed to the Producing Mission. The two sit beside each other. Evidence ties an action back to the Mission that took it; provenance ties an artifact back to the Mission that produced it. Neither answers what a reader of the artifact may do; that remains the Receiving Mission's Authority Set to decide (Section 7).

9. Work Product Binding

A work product MAY additionally carry a Work Product Binding: a signed object that proves a Work Product Provenance object (Section 6) describes one specific artifact and was attached by a trusted mediator, without making that provenance object authority-bearing. The binding is a distinct object beside the provenance object. It adds no member to the provenance object and does not modify it: that object still carries only the five members Section 6 defines. The binding names the provenance object and the artifact by digest, so binding one to the other changes neither.

The binding is OPTIONAL. Its absence means only that attribution integrity is unproven for an artifact; absence is never a signal that authority is present, nor that it is denied. What a reader may do remains the Receiving Mission's Authority Set to decide (Section 7).

9.1. Conceptual Model

The binding profiles the subject, digest, and predicate model of software supply-chain attestation, in-toto [IN-TOTO] and SLSA [SLSA], without adopting its serialization. The artifact is the subject, named by a content digest; the sealed provenance object is the predicate, named by its own digest and carried alongside; the trusted mediator is the attester. The envelope is the family's own JWS Compact Serialization [RFC7515] idiom, the same signed-JWT form the suite uses for signed Security Event Tokens and issuer-signed Mission records, rather than a supply-chain attestation format. A future translation shim that emits a byte-compatible in-toto or SLSA attestation for supply-chain tooling is possible but out of scope here (Section 9.5).

9.2. The Binding Object

A Work Product Binding is a JWT [RFC7519] in JWS Compact Serialization [RFC7515], signed by the trusted mediator that attached the provenance object, an Agent Deployment's execution environment (harness) or the Mission Issuer (issuer; Section 6), with that mediator's own signing key. The producing agent MUST NOT sign it: a binding an agent signs over its own work is the same self-authored, authority-bearing forgery the custody boundary of Section 6 prevents.

The protected header carries:

typ:

REQUIRED. mission-work-product-binding+jwt. Per [RFC7515] Section 4.1.9 the value omits the application/ prefix of the media type registered in Section 13. The distinct typ domain-separates the binding so a binding digest can never be read as an authority artifact: exact validation of the typ, with mutually exclusive validation rules for the artifact profiles, implements the substitution defense of [RFC8725], Sections 3.11 and 3.12.

alg:

REQUIRED. An asymmetric JWS algorithm. none MUST NOT be used.

kid:

REQUIRED. A key identifier that selects the signing mediator's key within the deployment's published key set. A relying party resolves it by the mediator's role, reusing the family's existing role-keyed resolution path ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-audit]): the Mission Issuer key through the Authorization Server metadata jwks_uri when role is issuer, and the harness signing key published in the deployment key set when role is harness. This document defines no new key-resolution path.

The JWS payload is a JSON object [RFC8259] carrying:

iss:

REQUIRED. The Mission Issuer or deployment URL under which the key set that publishes the signing mediator's key is discoverable. It is the stable, discoverable identifier of that published key material, not the mediator's own id. It binds the object to that deployment and is the iss used when recomputing provenance_digest below, so that digest reproduces from the recorded object.

mediator:

REQUIRED. The trusted mediator that attached the provenance object and signed this binding, as the id and role of the attacher of Section 6, role being harness (the Agent Deployment's execution environment) or issuer (the Mission Issuer). mediator.id MUST differ from the provenance object's producer; a binding whose mediator names the producing agent is that agent self-attaching under another name.

artifact_digest:

REQUIRED. The subject. sha-256: followed by the unpadded base64url encoding of the SHA-256 [RFC6234] digest of the artifact's octets. The octets are those the artifact is actually exchanged as: a file, a message, a memory entry, a queue event, or any other opaque content. How an artifact is serialized to those octets is the producer's concern; this document defines no artifact serialization and does not canonicalize the artifact. The producer and consumer MUST agree on the exact bytes so that both compute the same digest. It is a raw-octet digest under the issuance profile's commitment mechanisms, which this document imports normatively.

provenance_digest:

REQUIRED. The predicate anchor. It binds the sealed provenance object without modifying it. Compute it with the integrity-anchor construction of [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]: build the envelope

{
  "typ": "mission-work-product-provenance",
  "iss": "<the binding's iss>",
  "value": <the five-member provenance object>
}

where value is the provenance object of Section 6 unchanged; canonicalize the envelope with JCS [RFC8785]; compute SHA-256 [RFC6234] over the canonical bytes; and encode as sha-256: followed by the unpadded base64url of the digest. mission-work-product-provenance is a committed-object typ this document defines under the collision-resistant-name rule of [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]; that document defines no registry of such values and none is registered here. provenance_digest is an envelope anchor under the same commitment mechanisms.

The binding MAY carry other standard JWT [RFC7519] claims, such as iat; they do not affect either digest.

9.3. Verification

A receiver that holds the artifact, the five-member provenance object, and the binding verifies in this order:

  1. Reject the binding unless its protected typ is mission-work-product-binding+jwt.

  2. Resolve the kid in the key set discoverable at the binding's iss, by the mediator.role as above, and verify the JWS signature. Reject a binding signed with none or with a symmetric algorithm.

  3. Confirm the signer is a trusted mediator for this type: the mediator member MUST correspond to the key that produced the signature, its role MUST be harness or issuer, and mediator.id MUST differ from the provenance object's producer. Reject on any mismatch.

  4. Recompute artifact_digest over the received artifact octets and reject unless it matches. An unrecognized algorithm prefix is rejected under the imported unrecognized-prefix rule ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]), never treated as sha-256.

  5. Recompute provenance_digest over the JCS envelope of the received provenance object as above, using the binding's iss, and reject unless it matches. Apply the same unrecognized-prefix rule.

  6. A binding that verifies proves attribution integrity only. The Receiving Mission MUST STILL re-evaluate any proposed action under its own Authority Set (Section 7) before acting. A verified binding is a precondition to trusting the attribution, never an input to a permit decision.

Steps 4 and 5 together bind the attribution to the artifact: the artifact is fixed by artifact_digest, and the provenance object describing it is fixed by provenance_digest, so under the mediator's signature neither can be substituted for the other.

The binding is registrable Mission evidence under the audit profile's evidence-type catalog ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-audit]): the canonical bytes are the JWS Compact Serialization as issued, the payload-preimage-content-type is application/mission-work-product-binding+jwt, and the authoritative producer is the signing mediator, its key resolved as in Section 9.2. The protected typ names the same media type, prefix omitted ([RFC7515]).

9.4. Guardrails

  • The binding proves attribution integrity, never authority. A content digest narrows what a provenance object can be re-attached to; it does not widen what a reader may do. The invariant of Section 5, that information may propagate and authority may not, is unchanged: a verified binding is still gated by the Receiving Mission's Authority Set (Section 7) and is never a permit input.

  • The typ domain separation of Section 9.2 keeps a binding digest from ever being mistaken for an authority artifact.

  • The residual and out-of-scope items of Section 11 are unchanged. A binding fixes one artifact to one provenance object; it does not bound the emergent-authority-through-coordination aggregate, and it neither quarantines a work product nor blocks its consumers.

9.5. Out of Scope

This document binds one artifact to one sealed provenance object and stops there. The following are deliberately deferred:

  • A verifiable lineage chain, making parent_artifact (Section 6) a digest so a provenance chain is itself tamper-evident, is a further change to the sealed object and is left to a later pass.

  • A native in-toto or SLSA attestation output, a byte-compatible translation shim for supply-chain tooling, is future interoperability work; this document defines only the family's JWS binding.

10. Conformance

This section maps the invariant of Section 5 and the handoff rule of Section 7 to per-role requirements, so a deployment claiming this document is testable against them.

A mediator that attaches Work Product Provenance (an Agent Deployment's execution environment, or the Mission Issuer) MUST:

A producing agent MUST NOT self-author or self-assert its own Work Product Provenance (Section 6).

A Receiving Mission (its agent, harness, or PDP) MUST:

Any party needing authority over a work product's subject matter MUST obtain it through the authority plane, a Child Mission request or another authorized Mission transition, and MUST NOT derive it from a work product or its provenance (Section 7).

11. Security Considerations

The invariant of Section 5 is the security property this document provides: authority never rides a work product. The provenance object carries no authority by construction, and the handoff rule denies any transfer of the Producing Mission's authority through copying, referencing, embedding, or communicating an artifact. An agent that reads a work product and proposes an action is gated by the Receiving Mission's own Authority Set, so a work product cannot be used as a capability.

The trusted mediator that attaches Work Product Provenance is itself a residual this document does not close. A Work Product Binding's signature proves that the signing mediator's key bound the artifact and provenance bytes together (Section 9.3); it does not prove that the claimed production happened. A compromised harness-role mediator (Section 9.2) can attach and sign a Work Product Provenance object attributing a fabricated or malicious artifact to a legitimate active Mission, and the binding verifies exactly as a faithful one would. Detection is conditional, not assured. Where the binding is registered as Mission evidence ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-audit]) and a deployment separately retains independently produced Decision and Execution Evidence under its own declared correlation rule, that evidence can reveal a contradiction, or a missing event the rule expects, against the binding's claimed mission_id and created_at. This is not a general guarantee: Work Product Binding registration is optional (Section 9.3), runtime evidence registration is not universal, and a work product's creation need not correspond one-to-one to a consequential action with evidence of its own. Without an independent witness to production, a compromised mediator can produce a forgery no correlation rule catches. Transparency registration makes a false claim permanent and attributable once made; it does not make the claim detectable, and it does not make a dishonest mediator honest. Routing the mediator role through the Mission Issuer (Section 9.2) helps only where the issuer independently observed the production it signs for, a condition an issuer typically lacks for harness-executed work (Section 6). The harness profile's own compromise analysis states the same split between prevention and after-the-fact detectability for a compromised execution environment ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-harness]).

One residual is not closed by this document. Independent Missions, each acting within its own bounds, can communicate through shared state so that discoveries, credentials, techniques, or intermediate results persist across runtimes and Missions, and individually acceptable actions compose into behavior no single Mission authorized. The handoff rule prevents any one artifact from conferring authority; it does not by itself bound this aggregate composition through an unmanaged carrier. The security model records this as the emergent-authority-through- coordination threat ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-security-model]).

Bounding that aggregate is anticipated defense-in-depth, deferred to later companions and not specified here: an issuer-assigned or deployment-assigned classification of a shared-state effect; a communications and audience envelope for what an agent may write and who may read it; lineage-keyed aggregate bounds across a provenance chain; and quarantine of a work product with blocking of its consumers when the Producing Mission is compromised. This document specifies none of them now.

12. Privacy Considerations

Work Product Provenance attributes an artifact to a Mission and to a producing principal, so it can reveal the existence of a Mission and the identity of an actor to anyone who reads the artifact. A deployment attaches provenance only where attribution is warranted, keeps it to the five members this document defines, and discloses it under the same access rules as its other Mission evidence. The object is policy-free, so it never carries authority, constraint, or classification that could widen what a reader learns. This document adds no anonymous surface.

13. IANA Considerations

13.1. Media Type Registration

IANA is requested to register one media type per [RFC6838].

13.1.1. application/mission-work-product-binding+jwt

  • Type name: application

  • Subtype name: mission-work-product-binding+jwt

  • Required parameters: none

  • Optional parameters: none

  • Encoding considerations: binary; JWS Compact Serialization

  • Security considerations: see Section 11 and Section 9.4

  • Interoperability considerations: see this document

  • Published specification: this document

  • Applications that use this media type: Mission-Bound Authorization deployments that bind Work Product Provenance to an artifact

  • Fragment identifier considerations: not applicable

  • Additional information:

    • Deprecated alias names for this type: none

    • Magic number(s): none

    • File extension(s): none

    • Macintosh file type code(s): none

  • Person & email address to contact for further information: Karl McGuinness public@karlmcguinness.com

  • Intended usage: COMMON

  • Restrictions on usage: none

  • Author: IETF

  • Change controller: IETF

The committed-object typ value mission-work-product-provenance used to compute provenance_digest (Section 9.2) is not registered: the issuance profile specification defines no registry of such values and relies on the collision-resistant-name rule ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]). This document adds the informative in-toto [IN-TOTO] and SLSA [SLSA] references as the conceptual model for Section 9.

Acknowledgments

This document is part of the Mission-Bound Authorization for OAuth 2.0 set and defines the artifact-plane complement to the credential-plane invariants: information may propagate, and authority may not.

References

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>.
[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>.
[RFC6234]
Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6234>.
[RFC6838]
Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838>.
[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>.
[RFC7519]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8259]
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259>.
[RFC8785]
Rundgren, A., Jordan, B., and S. Erdtman, "JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS)", RFC 8785, DOI 10.17487/RFC8785, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785>.

Informative References

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-architecture]
McGuinness, K., "An Architecture for Mission-Bound Authorization", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-architecture.html>.
[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-audit]
McGuinness, K., "Mission Transparency: SCITT Registration of Mission Evidence", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-audit.html>.
[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-harness]
McGuinness, K., "Mission-Aware Agent Harnesses", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-harness.html>.
[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-security-model]
McGuinness, K., "Mission-Bound Authorization: Security Model and Trusted Base", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-security-model.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-continuation]
McGuinness, K., "Mission Continuation: Authorization Continuity for Mission-Bound Authorization", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-continuation.html>.
[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-cross-domain]
McGuinness, K., "Mission Cross-Domain Projection for OAuth 2.0", , <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-cross-domain.html>.
[IN-TOTO]
Cloud Native Computing Foundation, "in-toto: A Framework to Secure the Integrity of the Software Supply Chain", , <https://in-toto.io/>.
[RFC8725]
Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best Current Practices", BCP 225, RFC 8725, DOI 10.17487/RFC8725, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8725>.
[SLSA]
Open Source Security Foundation, "Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts (SLSA)", , <https://slsa.dev/spec/>.

Author's Address

Karl McGuinness
Independent