Mission Status and Lifecycle for OAuth 2.0

3.1. Request

The request is an HTTPS POST with an application/x-www-form-urlencoded body containing:¶

mission_id:

REQUIRED. A string. The canonical Mission Identifier, named per the issuance profile's external-surface convention ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]).¶

audience:

CONDITIONAL. A string. The audience identifier of the requesting consumer, or of another audience the Mission Issuer authorizes that consumer to request (below). An authorized non-RS consumer (for example an auditor or a cross-domain Resource AS) that needs only Mission state, not audience-scoped authority, MAY omit audience; the response is then state-only and carries no authorization_details (Section 3.4). A Resource Server resolving authority for a specific audience MUST send it.¶

nonce:

REQUIRED. A string. A client-generated nonce binding the response to this request. It MUST be unique per request within the response lifetime. A consumer MUST reject a response whose nonce does not equal the one it sent. This is a standard client challenge: echoing it in the signed response anti-replay-binds that response to this specific request.¶

A request's audience names the caller's own audience unless the Mission Issuer's configuration authorizes the caller for another. A consuming Authorization Server under the Mission Issuance Grant profile ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-issuance-grant]), for example, requests the projection for each resource it issues tokens for. The Mission Issuer MUST honor a request naming an audience other than the caller's own only where its configuration authorizes the authenticated caller for that audience, and MUST otherwise refuse it with the not-found response of Section 3.7. The response's aud is the requested audience (Section 3.4).¶

3.2. Authentication

The request MUST be authenticated. The AS MUST support at least one of the following mechanisms. The client MUST use exactly one of them per request:¶

1. mTLS client authentication [RFC8705]. The AS validates the client's X.509 certificate against its configured trust anchors and the client's registered tls_client_auth metadata.¶

2. Sender-constrained access token. The client presents a mission_status-scoped access token (see the authorization requirement below) in the Authorization header, sender-constrained either by DPoP [RFC9449] (the DPoP scheme with a DPoP proof header, the token's cnf.jkt matching the proof key thumbprint) or by mTLS [RFC8705] (a certificate-bound token, the Bearer scheme, whose cnf.x5t#S256 matches the presented client certificate). The token MUST be audience-restricted to this endpoint's protected-resource identifier (below).¶

3. Private-key-JWT client authentication [RFC7523]. The client presents client_assertion_type with the exact value urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer and a signed JWT as client_assertion. The assertion's aud MUST name the URL of the endpoint being invoked (the mission_status_endpoint for a Status request, the mission_lifecycle_endpoint for a Lifecycle request), not the token endpoint; the AS MUST reject an assertion whose aud names no such endpoint. The AS accepts only the JWS [RFC7515] algorithms it advertises for that endpoint (Section 8); none MUST NOT be used.¶

Plain Basic or POST client authentication MUST NOT be used for this endpoint. The AS MUST refuse a request not authenticated by one of the three mechanisms with unauthorized (HTTP 401). The mechanism is determined by wire evidence in order: a request presenting an access token in Authorization is mechanism 2, and any client certificate is then evaluated only as that token's mTLS sender constraint; otherwise a request presenting client_assertion is mechanism 3, and any client certificate is not treated as client authentication; otherwise a request presenting only a client certificate is mechanism 1. This order keeps "exactly one mechanism" satisfiable when mTLS terminates at the edge.¶

An authenticated caller MUST additionally carry an explicit read authorization: a mission_status scope on the presented access token, or a deployment-defined equivalent grant bound to the authenticated client. The mission_status scope authorizes the Mission Status read operation and mirrors the mission_lifecycle scope of the Mission Lifecycle endpoint (Section 5). The token-less path is preserved: a consumer that holds only a mission_id and authenticates directly as a client (mechanism 1 or 3) carries the deployment-defined equivalent grant, not a scope, and so resolves Mission state without holding an access token the AS issued. A caller carrying no such authorization is refused with the not-found response of Section 3.7 (Section 3.6).¶

A presented access token (mechanism 2) MUST be audience-restricted to this endpoint's protected-resource identifier: the resource value the AS publishes for this endpoint in its Protected Resource Metadata [RFC9728]. For these surfaces that identifier is the endpoint's own URL (the mission_status_endpoint or mission_lifecycle_endpoint), so the mechanism-2 access-token audience and the mechanism-3 private-key-JWT aud name the same value. The AS MUST reject a token whose audience does not name that identifier. This token audience is distinct from the request body's audience parameter (Section 3.1): the token audience authorizes the call at this endpoint, whereas the request audience carries no authentication weight and only selects the Resource-Server-specific authority projection the response returns (Section 3.4).¶

Which mechanisms and authorization this endpoint accepts are discoverable per endpoint, not inferred from the token endpoint's metadata. The AS advertises the methods this endpoint accepts in mission_status_endpoint_auth_methods_supported (Section 8).¶

For the sender-constrained access-token path, this endpoint is an OAuth protected resource: the AS publishes, in its Protected Resource Metadata for this resource [RFC9728], the resource identifier the token's audience MUST name, the mission_status scope it requires (scopes_supported), and the presentation and sender constraints it accepts (bearer_methods_supported, dpop_bound_access_tokens_required, tls_client_certificate_bound_access_tokens). For the retained direct-client-authentication path (mTLS [RFC8705] or private-key JWT [RFC7523]), the accepted methods and, for private_key_jwt, the accepted client-assertion signing algorithms are advertised for this endpoint (Section 8), not read from the token endpoint's token_endpoint_auth_methods_supported [RFC8414]. Both paths are therefore discoverable.¶

3.3. Worked Request Example

POST /as/mission/status HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: DPoP eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6...
DPoP: eyJ0eXAiOiJkcG9wK2p3dCIsImFsZyI6IkVTMjU2Iiwi...

mission_id=msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-
&audience=https%3A%2F%2Ferp.example.com
&nonce=nonce_K9pV4nT2sR7mB1xQ

3.4. Response

On success the AS returns a JWS Compact Serialization [RFC7515] signed with a key published in the AS's jwks_uri. The JWS header carries typ of mission-status-response+jwt and a kid identifying the signing key. Per [RFC7515] Section 4.1.9 the typ header omits the application/ prefix; the full media type application/mission-status-response+jwt (registered in Section 12) is used as the HTTP Content-Type. Exact validation of the protected typ value, together with mutually exclusive validation rules for the artifact profiles, implements the substitution defense of [RFC8725], Sections 3.11 and 3.12.¶

[RFC9701] signed introspection responses are scoped to token introspection and do not apply to a lookup keyed by mission_id; the dedicated Mission Status operation therefore uses a new media type and a JWS, not [RFC9701] (see Section 10.4). Implementations MUST NOT use [RFC9701] for the dedicated Mission Status operation.¶

The signed payload reports the Mission's current state and the audience-scoped evidence the consumer needs.¶

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/mission-status-response+jwt
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache

eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6InNhLWtleS0yMDI2LXEzIi...

Decoded JWS header:¶

{
  "alg": "ES256",
  "kid": "sa-key-2026-q3",
  "typ": "mission-status-response+jwt"
}

Decoded JWS payload:¶

{
  "iss": "https://as.example.com",
  "aud": "https://erp.example.com",
  "sub": "client_erp-recon-agent",
  "nonce": "nonce_K9pV4nT2sR7mB1xQ",
  "iat": 1793606400,
  "exp": 1793606460,
  "mission": {
    "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-",
    "issuer": "https://as.example.com",
    "authority_hash":
      "sha-256:l3KvZ4mP5x0wQrR6tY2nD9bM7sX1cF8gH2vJ4kE5pNQ",
    "state": "active",
    "version": 4,
    "expires_at":  "2026-12-31T23:59:59Z",
    "fresh_until": "2026-11-02T08:00:45Z"
  },
  "authorization_details": [
    { "type": "mission_resource_access",
      "resource": "https://erp.example.com",
      "actions": ["invoices.read", "journal-entries.write"] }
  ]
}

The members are:¶

• The signed JWT envelope iss, aud, sub, nonce, iat, exp. The aud is the response's audience binding and the nonce its request binding. When the request omitted audience (Section 3.1), the response is state-only and the AS MUST set aud to the authenticated requester's identifier, as the Lifecycle endpoint does (Section 5); the consumer's aud verification below then checks that identifier. exp bounds the validity of the signed response itself; how long the consumer MAY rely on the reported state is given separately by mission.fresh_until below.¶

• mission: the mission object, the same shape as the mission claim of [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission] (Section "The Mission Claim") with status members added. It carries:¶

  • id, issuer: the subject Mission's identifier and issuer.¶

  • authority_hash: OPTIONAL. The issuance profile's consent commitment over the Authority Set ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission], Section "Integrity Anchors"), disclosed at the AS's discretion to a caller it authorizes for audit or correlation use, on the same minimization footing as the issuance profile's introspection disclosure privilege ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission], Section "Caller Authorization and Minimization"). Not carried on the issuance profile's baseline mission claim.¶

  • state: the current Mission lifecycle state. The authoritative state space is the issuance profile's ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission], Section "Mission Lifecycle and Gating"): the issuance profile states active, revoked, expired, this profile's suspended and completed when the Mission Lifecycle endpoint (Section 5) is deployed, and any further state a companion profile defines and the deployment runs (for example superseded, defined by the Mission Expansion profile ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion]) for an expanded predecessor, or cascaded, defined by the Mission Child Delegation profile ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation]) for a cascade-terminated Child Mission). A consumer applies the issuance profile's forward-compatibility rule: only active permits reliance, and every other value, recognized or not, is non-active. This profile's reliance behavior does not depend on recognizing these companion-defined states; the fail-safe rule above governs.¶

  • expires_at: the point at which the Mission itself expires, the Mission record's expires_at ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]).¶

  • fresh_until: an RFC 3339 [RFC3339] date-time giving the point until which the consumer MAY rely on the reported state without re-checking, governing caching (Section 3.5). It is report-freshness metadata, carried in mission so it travels with state even on the introspection projection, which has no signed envelope to carry it (Section 4).¶

  • suspend_until, on_expiry: CONDITIONAL. Present only while the Mission is suspended under a deadline (Section 5): the RFC 3339 [RFC3339] deadline, and the transition (resume or revoke) the AS applies when it passes.¶

  • successor: OPTIONAL. A string, the successor mission_id. Present only when state is superseded, giving the successor that replaced this Mission, set atomically at supersession on the predecessor's record ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion]).¶

  • carried_to: CONDITIONAL string. A deployment implementing Child Mission Carryover MUST include the committed replacement Mission identifier when reporting the old child's cascaded state, and MUST omit it when no replacement was committed. It is same-issuer correlation, not authority ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation], Section "Carryover Evidence and Observation").¶

  • version: REQUIRED. The Mission's state version: a strictly monotonic per-Mission counter the Mission Issuer maintains, incremented on each committed lifecycle transition (the approval event is version 1) and each committed metadata-only change, current as of the reported state. It orders observations of one Mission across every surface: an event consumer that re-established state through this operation re-seats its gap detection on it (the last-applied Signals version becomes this value, [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-signals]), a lifecycle mutation can guard on it (Section 5.7), and a materialized policy view names the value it materialized ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-runtime]). Companion records carry this same counter under their own member names: mission_state_version in Decision Evidence ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-runtime-evidence]), prior_version and new_version in Containment Evidence ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-containment]), prior_version and current_version in a Discharge Result ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]), and expected_version on a lifecycle request (Section 5.7).¶

  • Extension members: a companion profile MAY add further members to this object. For example, the Status List companion adds a status_list reference where the deployment publishes a Mission Status List ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status-list]).¶

• authorization_details: the Authority Set entries of every AS-supported authorization_details type ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission], Section "Authorization Details Types") relevant to the requesting audience, audience relevance determined per each entry's own type specification (for the general-purpose mission_resource_access type, by its resource member, [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-resource-access]), carried at the top level as a sibling of mission (as on the token and in the introspection response). Entries addressed to other audiences MUST NOT be disclosed. When the request omits audience (Section 3.1), there is no requesting audience: the response is state-only and MUST NOT carry authorization_details.¶

A consumer MUST verify, before honoring a response:¶

1. the JWS header typ is mission-status-response+jwt;¶

2. the JWS header alg is one the AS advertises in mission_status_signing_alg_values_supported (Section 8), rejecting none and any algorithm not listed;¶

3. the JWS signature against a current jwks_uri entry for the issuer AS;¶

4. iss equals the expected AS issuer URL;¶

5. aud equals the audience the request named or, for a state-only response, the requester's identifier (Section 3.1);¶

6. sub equals the requesting client's identifier;¶

7. nonce equals the request's nonce;¶

8. mission.id equals the requested mission_id; and¶

9. iat is not in the future and exp is not in the past, with up to 30 seconds clock-skew tolerance.¶

3.5. Caching

Caching follows these rules:¶

• Cache key. Consumers SHOULD cache a response keyed on (mission_id, audience), or on (mission_id, requester identifier) for a state-only response, until mission.fresh_until.¶

• Hard stop. Consumers MUST NOT use a cached response after mission.fresh_until. In particular, a consumer MUST NOT extend reliance on a cached suspended (or any non-active) response beyond mission.fresh_until.¶

• Freshness cap. When the AS advertises mission_max_stale_seconds (Section 8), it MUST NOT set mission.fresh_until later than the response iat plus that value.¶

• Skew tolerance. When comparing the current time to mission.fresh_until, a consumer MAY allow up to 30 seconds of tolerance for the active state only, and no tolerance for any other state. The tolerance MUST NOT exceed the AS's advertised mission_max_stale_seconds (Section 8).¶

The freshness cap keeps report freshness within the deployment's advertised revocation-propagation tolerance. The skew tolerance is a clock-skew allowance on the reliance path, bounding the disagreement between the AS's and the consumer's clocks, not a property of state reversibility. The hard stop is absolute for non-active states because a suspended Mission may be resumed to active.¶

3.6. Anti-Oracle Property

A mission_id is never a bearer capability. The AS MUST authenticate the requester and authorize it for the requested mission_id and audience.¶

Unknown mission_id values and known-but-unauthorized references MUST produce indistinguishable responses (HTTP 404 with a generic not-found body; see Section 3.7). The AS MUST return an identical HTTP status code, response body, and headers for the two cases. The AS SHOULD NOT vary response timing in a way that distinguishes the two cases. It SHOULD mitigate timing side channels (for example by padding response time or by taking a uniform lookup path for both the unknown and the unauthorized case).¶

3.7. Error Responses

Mission Status outcomes are of two kinds. A success outcome is a found, visible, authorized Mission: the AS returns HTTP 200 with a signed Mission Status Response, and the outcome is described by mission.state in that response, not by a separate symbol. A wire error is a hard failure: the AS returns the matching HTTP status with a JSON object [RFC8259] body whose error member carries the symbol below.¶

Success outcomes (HTTP 200, signed Mission Status Response, described by mission.state):¶

This document uses "terminated" in prose for any terminal non-active state; it is not itself a mission.state value, and the terminal set is not closed. The terminal row above and the list that follows enumerate the companion-defined states this suite currently runs, for the reader's reference; a deployment reports whichever it runs, and a consumer's reliance decision never depends on recognizing them. The terminal states currently defined across this suite are revoked and expired ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]), completed (this document), superseded ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion]), and cascaded ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation]). The binding rule is the issuance profile's forward-compatibility rule: every value other than active is non-active, whether or not the consumer recognizes it.¶

Wire error codes (carried in the error member of a JSON body):¶

Note the distinction between the two access failures: unauthorized (401) means the request carried no valid authentication, whereas a request that is authenticated but not authorized for the referenced Mission returns not_found (404), never 401, so that an unauthorized reference is indistinguishable from an unknown one (Section 3.6). The error body is:¶

HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store

{
  "error": "not_found",
  "error_description":
    "Mission reference is not found or not visible.",
  "nonce": "nonce_K9pV4nT2sR7mB1xQ"
}

The body MUST contain error and error_description, and MUST additionally contain nonce when the request carried a well-formed nonce. A request whose nonce is absent or malformed is refused invalid_request with no nonce member echoed. The body MUST NOT contain any member that would let a caller distinguish unknown from unauthorized references. For rate_limited, the response SHOULD include a Retry-After header [RFC9110] and a retry_after body member in seconds.¶

The OAuth-shaped surfaces of this family, this Status and Lifecycle endpoint, Mission Management [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-management], and the Mission Authority Server's submission surface [I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-authority-server], share the error/error_description JSON body idiom for consistency with the OAuth-shaped APIs they compose with. Each surface's exact member requiredness is its own: here and in Mission Management, error_description and nonce are REQUIRED; the Mission Authority Server makes error_description OPTIONAL and adds the MAS-only error_reason.¶

The body is application/json with Cache-Control: no-store. error_description is diagnostic and is never authorization input. nonce correlates the response to the request in support of the signed-response and retry model of Section 5.7 and is not, by itself, replay protection, per the absent-or-malformed-nonce rule above. RFC 9457 [RFC9457] problem details is neither used on these surfaces nor disparaged: the AuthZEN profile [I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-authzen] carries it where that ecosystem does, and a future non-OAuth-shaped HTTP API in this family MAY choose it.¶

5.1. Operations

The endpoint accepts authenticated POST requests with a form-urlencoded body:¶

mission_id:

REQUIRED. A string. The canonical Mission Identifier, named per the issuance profile's external-surface convention ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]).¶

operation:

REQUIRED. A string. One of revoke, suspend, resume, complete, or a further value a companion profile registers as an extension operation on this endpoint, such as the Entry Discharge companion's discharge ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]).¶

reason:

OPTIONAL. A string. A human-readable reason recorded in audit, maximum 1024 characters. Not used by a companion-registered operation that records its own request members in audit, such as discharge ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]).¶

suspend_until:

OPTIONAL. An RFC 3339 [RFC3339] date-time. Valid only on the suspend operation. When present, it sets a deadline after which the AS applies on_expiry.¶

on_expiry:

CONDITIONAL. A string, one of resume or revoke. REQUIRED when suspend_until is present; otherwise MUST NOT be sent. It selects the transition the AS applies when suspend_until passes.¶

nonce:

REQUIRED. A string. A client-generated nonce.¶

A companion-registered extension operation, such as discharge, carries additional REQUIRED and OPTIONAL members of its own, defined completely by the companion that registers it ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]).¶

The base operations are:¶

• revoke: terminate the Mission; transition to revoked.¶

• suspend: pause the Mission; transition to suspended.¶

• resume: return a suspended Mission to active.¶

• complete: mark the Mission completed; transition to completed.¶

A companion profile MAY register a further operation value on this endpoint that changes no Mission-level state, provided it defines the value's request members, authorization, anti-oracle behavior, and result shape completely. The Entry Discharge companion registers discharge this way: it commits that a completion condition has fired, discharging a Mission-record entry, and is defined in full by that companion ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]).¶

A suspend MAY carry suspend_until with a REQUIRED on_expiry. When suspend_until passes, the AS MUST apply on_expiry (transition to active for resume, or to revoked for revoke) and emit the corresponding transition, without a further request. While the Mission is suspended under a deadline, both suspend_until and on_expiry surface in the signed Mission Status Response (Section 3.4) so a consumer sees the pending outcome.¶

5.2. Legal Transitions

An operation is legal only from the source states below. A terminal state (revoked, expired, completed, or the companion-defined superseded and cascaded) admits no transition. An operation whose resulting state equals the current state, terminal or not, is idempotent success (Section 5.7). This table governs Mission-level state; a companion-registered extension operation such as discharge produces no Mission-state transition and is not a row of it, following instead the entry-grain rules the Entry Discharge companion defines ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]).¶

resume is the sole exception: it is legal only from suspended (its resulting state, active, is also the baseline a Mission holds before any suspension), so resume on an active or terminal Mission is a conflict, not idempotent success.¶

complete is legal from suspended as well as active: completion is a monotonic narrowing to a terminal state and needs no derivation window, so a suspended Mission need not first be resumed to be completed.¶

Requests are adjudicated by the single rule of Section 5.7: an operation whose resulting state equals the Mission's current state is idempotent success, with the resume exception above. Any other operation not legal from the current state, including resume on a Mission that is not suspended, is refused as a conflict. A Mission that reaches its expires_at transitions to expired independently of this endpoint, from active or suspended.¶

5.3. Consolidated State Machine

This profile owns the extension of the issuance profile's lifecycle state space ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission], Section "Mission Lifecycle and Gating"). The table below is the authoritative view of that space: every state, every transition, and the source of the event that drives it.¶

Event sources are the lifecycle endpoint (an operation of Section 5), the expiry clock (a deadline reached without a request), and companion adjudication (a transition a companion profile commits). The lifecycle-endpoint rows are exactly the Mission-state-changing operations of Section 5.2; a companion-registered extension operation such as discharge ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]) is a lifecycle-endpoint operation that changes no Mission state and so is not a row of this table. Only active permits derivation; every other state is non-deriving.¶

revoke and the Mission's expires_at both apply in suspended as well as active, so a suspended Mission can still be terminated or expire. The superseded and cascaded rows are companion-defined and shown here for reference: superseded is committed by the expansion profile and requires an active predecessor ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion]); cascaded is committed by the child-delegation profile only when a parent reaches a terminal state. A suspended parent holds a dependent Child Mission non-active reversibly rather than driving it to cascaded ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation]). Neither companion state is produced by this profile's endpoint.¶

5.4. Authentication

The lifecycle endpoint uses the same authentication mechanisms as the Mission Status endpoint (Section 3.2): mTLS client authentication, a sender-constrained access token (DPoP- or mTLS-bound), or private-key JWT. Its discovery mirrors that endpoint: the accepted methods in mission_lifecycle_endpoint_auth_methods_supported and, for private_key_jwt, the accepted client-assertion algorithms in mission_lifecycle_endpoint_auth_signing_alg_values_supported (Section 8).¶

For the sender-constrained access-token path, this endpoint is an OAuth protected resource exactly as the Mission Status endpoint is: the AS publishes, in its Protected Resource Metadata for this resource [RFC9728], the resource identifier the token's audience MUST name and the scopes it requires (scopes_supported): mission_lifecycle for revoke, suspend, resume, and complete (Section 5), and, where the deployment adopts the Entry Discharge companion, mission_discharge as well ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]). A private-key JWT client_assertion MUST name the mission_lifecycle_endpoint URL in aud, and a presented access token MUST be audience-restricted to this endpoint's protected-resource identifier, exactly as at the Mission Status endpoint. Direct mTLS or private-key-JWT callers continue to use the deployment-defined equivalent grant, never a scope, exactly as a companion-registered extension operation such as discharge does ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]).¶

5.5. Authorization

This section governs revoke, suspend, resume, and complete; a companion-registered extension operation such as discharge has its own distinct authority model ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]), which a mission_lifecycle grant under this section MUST NOT imply.¶

The AS authorizes lifecycle operations against deployment policy. This document sets the minimum authorization semantics and leaves finer policy deployment-defined. Every authenticated caller, whatever its authentication mechanism (Section 3.2), MUST be governed by an explicit lifecycle authorization: a mission_lifecycle scope or a deployment-defined equivalent grant that names who may perform the transition. The AS MUST refuse a caller that carries no such authorization.¶

The acting party, and where the AS checks the lifecycle authorization, follow from the authentication case:¶

1. When an access token authenticates the call, the token identifies the parties per the issuance profile's access-token model ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]): for a delegated access token its sub denotes the resource owner (the represented party), matching the [RFC9068] access-token sub model; the calling party is identified by client_id ([RFC8693] Section 4.3); and, where a delegation chain is present, the immediate actor is identified by the act claim ([RFC8693], [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]). A DPoP [RFC9449] or mTLS [RFC8705] sender constraint binds the presenter to a key; it does not change what sub denotes. The acting party is the calling party so identified, and the presented token MUST carry the lifecycle authorization the AS checks against it.¶

2. When the caller authenticates directly as a client (mTLS client authentication [RFC8705] or private-key JWT [RFC7523]), the authenticated client is the acting party. The AS MUST check the deployment-defined lifecycle grant bound to that client.¶

In every case the AS MUST record the acting party and SHOULD reflect it in the signed response's audit surface: the response envelope's sub, distinct from any access token's sub, or a deployment-defined audit member of the Mission Status Response.¶

Which parties may perform which operation is deployment-defined. Typical deployments authorize revoke to the Mission's Subject or Approver and to administrators; suspend and resume to administrators; and complete to the requesting client or an administrator.¶

Because resume returns a suspended Mission to active and so undoes the containment a suspend established, a deployment SHOULD require a distinct or elevated authorization for resume, mirroring the treatment of bulk resume in Mission Management ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-management]).¶

The AS MUST refuse an unauthorized lifecycle request with the not-found response shape of Section 3.7, so the endpoint does not act as a Mission enumeration oracle.¶

5.6. Worked Examples

Revoke request:¶

POST /as/mission/lifecycle HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: DPoP eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6...
DPoP: eyJ0eXAiOiJkcG9wK2p3dCIsImFsZyI6IkVTMjU2Iiwi...

mission_id=msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-
&operation=revoke
&reason=Quarterly+reconcile+completed+early
&nonce=nonce_8Y3vN0sM6tP1xR9bQ5

Revoke success response: the AS returns the updated status as a signed Mission Status Response (Section 3.4). Because the Lifecycle request carries no audience, the response is state-only: the AS sets aud to the authenticated requester and omits authorization_details (a lifecycle confirmation reports state, not audience-scoped authority). Here the response envelope's sub, distinct from any access token's sub, carries the acting party: the calling client identified by client_id. The AS records that acting party and reflects it in this signed response as well as in its audit log.¶

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/mission-status-response+jwt
Cache-Control: no-store

eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6InNhLWtleS0yMDI2LXEzIi...

Decoded JWS payload:¶

{
  "iss": "https://as.example.com",
  "aud": "client_erp-recon-agent",
  "sub": "client_erp-recon-agent",
  "nonce": "nonce_8Y3vN0sM6tP1xR9bQ5",
  "iat": 1793609600,
  "exp": 1793609660,
  "mission": {
    "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-",
    "issuer": "https://as.example.com",
    "authority_hash":
      "sha-256:l3KvZ4mP5x0wQrR6tY2nD9bM7sX1cF8gH2vJ4kE5pNQ",
    "state": "revoked",
    "version": 7,
    "expires_at":  "2026-12-31T23:59:59Z",
    "fresh_until": "2026-11-02T08:54:05Z"
  }
}

The AS records the operation, actor, time, and any reason in its audit log; the response confirms the outcome through the updated state.¶

Suspend request with a deadline, here also carrying the OPTIONAL expected_version guard against deciding over stale state (Section 5.7):¶

POST /as/mission/lifecycle HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: DPoP eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6...
DPoP: eyJ0eXAiOiJkcG9wK2p3dCIsImFsZyI6IkVTMjU2Iiwi...

mission_id=msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-
&operation=suspend
&suspend_until=2026-11-09T08%3A15%3A00Z
&on_expiry=revoke
&expected_version=5
&reason=Pending+quarterly+access+review
&nonce=nonce_4Dq2mV8kX1sB7nR3tW

Suspend success response: the signed Mission Status Response reports suspended and surfaces the pending outcome, carrying suspend_until and on_expiry in mission alongside state. Decoded JWS payload:¶

{
  "iss": "https://as.example.com",
  "aud": "client_erp-recon-agent",
  "sub": "client_erp-recon-agent",
  "nonce": "nonce_4Dq2mV8kX1sB7nR3tW",
  "iat": 1793607600,
  "exp": 1793607660,
  "mission": {
    "id": "msn_8RfX2Lqv9TqMv4z7sA2bN1k0YpEdHc9-",
    "issuer": "https://as.example.com",
    "authority_hash":
      "sha-256:l3KvZ4mP5x0wQrR6tY2nD9bM7sX1cF8gH2vJ4kE5pNQ",
    "state": "suspended",
    "version": 6,
    "suspend_until": "2026-11-09T08:15:00Z",
    "on_expiry": "revoke",
    "expires_at":  "2026-12-31T23:59:59Z",
    "fresh_until": "2026-11-02T08:20:45Z"
  }
}

When suspend_until passes without a resume, the AS applies on_expiry and transitions the Mission to revoked without a further request.¶

5.7. Idempotency and Conflicts

The request nonce (Section 5, Operations) is the idempotency key: an opaque string of 1 to 255 characters. The AS treats an absent, empty, longer, or non-string nonce as malformed (invalid_request, with no nonce echoed).¶

The AS MUST deduplicate lifecycle requests by the triple (client, mission_id, nonce) for a bounded window. On a retransmit carrying a nonce already seen for that client and mission_id, together with a request byte-identical to the original, the AS MUST replay the original response rather than re-execute the operation. The same nonce paired with a request that is not byte-identical to the original MUST be refused invalid_request (Section 3.7); the AS MUST NOT answer it with the unrelated original response.¶

The window MUST be at least the validity span of the signed response the AS would replay (its iat to exp, Section 3.4), so any retransmit that could still present a live response is deduplicated. A deployment MAY use a longer window. This makes a retransmit safe against reordering: a delayed suspend retry that arrives after a resume is recognized as a duplicate and replays the original suspend response, so it cannot re-suspend an already-resumed Mission.¶

Deduplication guards a retransmitted request; it does not guard a valid request decided over stale state, a fresh suspend issued from a console that has not yet seen a newer resume. For that a lifecycle request MAY carry expected_version, the state version (Section 3.4) the caller last observed: when present, the AS MUST refuse the operation with HTTP 409 and error symbol stale_version, leaving the Mission unchanged, when the Mission's current state version differs. A deployment SHOULD require expected_version on the operations it classifies high-risk. The nonce remains the replay key; the two guards are independent, one against duplicate delivery, one against stale decisions.¶

Lifecycle operations that change Mission state follow one rule. An operation whose resulting state (Section 5.2) equals the Mission's current state is idempotent success, terminal or not: the AS returns the current Mission Status Response, with no state change and no event emitted. Any other operation not legal from the current state (for example suspend against a terminal state) is a conflict: the AS MUST refuse it with HTTP 409 and a JSON body whose error symbol is conflict, leaving the Mission state unchanged. A companion-registered extension operation that changes no Mission state, such as discharge, is not bound by this rule; its own idempotency and outcome vocabulary are defined by the companion that registers it, for discharge by the Entry Discharge companion ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]).¶

resume is the sole exception to the idempotent-success arm. It is legal only from suspended, and its resulting state active is also the baseline a Mission holds before any suspension, so resume on an active Mission (one never suspended, or already resumed) or on a terminal Mission is not idempotent success but a conflict.¶

One idempotent case carries metadata. A suspend against a suspended Mission whose suspend_until or on_expiry differ from the recorded values MUST update the recorded values, emitting the corresponding transition-metadata change and reporting the updated values in the response; silent acceptance without effect is not conforming.¶

5.8. Relationship to RFC 7009

A Mission revocation through this endpoint cascades to credentials derived from the Mission per the AS's advertised revocation propagation (Section 6). The AS MAY additionally invoke [RFC7009] token revocation for specific outstanding tokens when it knows their jti. [RFC7009] alone does NOT revoke a Mission; the lifecycle endpoint is the authoritative Mission state change.¶

5.9. Deferred Lifecycle Capabilities

This endpoint operates on one Mission at a time. Mission enumeration and bulk lifecycle operations for incident response, such as revoking every Mission for a compromised Subject, client, or tenant, are specified separately by Mission Management [I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-management]; this document does not require them.¶

The following capabilities remain deferred to future work:¶

• Approver transfer or re-anchoring, changing the party that anchors a Mission's consent, is not defined here.¶

• Administrative monotonic narrowing, such as shortening a Mission's expires_at, is not defined here.¶

6.1. Recommended Access-Token TTL

Where Mission revocation must take effect but only the baseline derivation-time check is in use, Mission-bound access tokens SHOULD use TTLs no longer than the declared mission_max_stale_seconds. Deployments where revocation propagates out of band (token introspection, per-request status checks, or the event stream) MAY use longer TTLs.¶

Sizing to the bound is itself a propagation mechanism: expiry performs the state check, and the consumer integrates nothing (the runtime profile names this token-lifetime freshness for the classes below its high-consequence floor). Introspection and per-request status checks tighten specific paths; they are upgrades, not prerequisites.¶

8.1. Worked Metadata Example

A discovery response from https://as.example.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server, showing the issuance profile members plus the extension members of this document:¶

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: max-age=3600

{
  "issuer": "https://as.example.com",
  "token_endpoint": "https://as.example.com/as/token",
  "introspection_endpoint":
    "https://as.example.com/as/introspect",
  "jwks_uri":
    "https://as.example.com/.well-known/jwks.json",
  "introspection_signing_alg_values_supported": ["ES256"],
  "mission_bound_authorization_supported": true,

  "mission_status_endpoint":
    "https://as.example.com/as/mission/status",
  "mission_status_endpoint_auth_methods_supported":
    ["tls_client_auth", "private_key_jwt", "access_token"],
  "mission_status_endpoint_auth_signing_alg_values_supported": ["ES256"],
  "mission_status_signing_alg_values_supported": ["ES256"],
  "mission_lifecycle_endpoint":
    "https://as.example.com/as/mission/lifecycle",
  "mission_lifecycle_endpoint_auth_methods_supported":
    ["tls_client_auth", "private_key_jwt", "access_token"],
  "mission_lifecycle_endpoint_auth_signing_alg_values_supported":
    ["ES256"],
  "mission_max_stale_seconds": 60
}

10.1. Mission Status Enumeration

Per the anti-oracle property (Section 3.6), the AS MUST NOT let a caller readily distinguish an unknown mission_id from a known-but-unauthorized one at the Status or Lifecycle endpoint. The error shape of Section 3.7 requires identical body content, identical HTTP status, and identical headers between the two cases, and the AS SHOULD additionally suppress timing side channels (for example by padding response time or by taking a uniform lookup path). An implementation that leaks the distinction exposes the Mission space to enumeration.¶

10.2. Mission Status Response Replay

A Mission Status Response is bound to (caller sub, audience, nonce, issuance time). Replay against a different caller or audience, or beyond mission.fresh_until, is detectable by signature verification and by verifying the bindings; a consumer MUST verify all the checks of Section 3.4 before honoring a response. A response cached and replayed by the same caller within mission.fresh_until is equivalent to a fresh response; a consumer MUST NOT use a cached response after mission.fresh_until, with the skew tolerance of Section 3.5.¶

10.3. Mission Status Denial of Service

The Mission Status operation is on the consumption path of every Mission-bound credential validation in deployments where consumers query Mission Status per request. The AS MUST implement per-consumer rate limiting (returning rate_limited, Section 3.7) and SHOULD encourage consumer-side caching (Section 3.5) to reduce traffic.¶

10.4. RFC 9701 vs. New Media Type

When the introspection projection is signed (Section 4), it uses [RFC9701], which is scoped to token introspection. The dedicated Mission Status operation uses a new media type (application/mission-status-response+jwt, Section 12) and a JWS [RFC7515], because [RFC9701] does not apply to a lookup keyed by mission_id. Implementations MUST NOT use [RFC9701] for the dedicated Mission Status operation, and MUST NOT accept an unsigned response from the dedicated Mission Status operation in place of the signed form it requires.¶

10.5. Signing-Key Retention for Audit

The AS signs Mission Status and Lifecycle responses with a key from its jwks_uri. The AS MUST keep the public JWK for every kid it has signed such a response under resolvable in its jwks_uri for at least the Mission record retention period, so an archived application/mission-status-response+jwt remains verifiable for audit and dispute. This is the issuance profile's retired-key rule ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]), with the record retention period as the bound. A key known or suspected compromised is the exception: the AS removes it, and the Mandate profile's compromise-time rule governs how artifacts signed under it are then classified.¶

10.6. 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.¶

11.1. Status and Lifecycle as Disclosure Surfaces

The Mission Status operation (Section 3) and the introspection projection (Section 4) disclose Mission state and the audience-scoped authorization_details to the authenticated, authorized requester, and MAY additionally disclose authority_hash to a requester authorized for it. A deployment MUST treat both as Mission information-disclosure surfaces with the same privacy posture, audience-filtering the disclosed authority so a consumer never sees entries addressed to audiences it is not authorized to request (Section 3.1, Section 3.4).¶

11.2. Status Audit Logging

The AS records Status and Lifecycle requests (containing mission_id, audience, caller, and timing) in audit logs. Deployments MUST treat these logs as PII sinks per the issuance profile's privacy considerations.¶

12.1. 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_status_endpoint¶

• mission_status_endpoint_auth_methods_supported¶

• mission_status_endpoint_auth_signing_alg_values_supported¶

• mission_status_signing_alg_values_supported¶

• mission_lifecycle_endpoint¶

• mission_lifecycle_endpoint_auth_methods_supported¶

• mission_lifecycle_endpoint_auth_signing_alg_values_supported¶

• mission_max_stale_seconds¶

12.2. Media Type Registration

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

12.3. Mission Lifecycle States Registrations

This document requests registration of two states in the issuance profile's Mission Lifecycle States registry ([I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]), under that registry's Specification Required policy:¶

12.4. Well-Known URI

This document registers no new Well-Known URI. The metadata members of Section 8 are added to the OAuth Authorization Server Metadata document at /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server [RFC8414].¶

Normative References

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission]

McGuinness, K., "Mission-Bound Authorization for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <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, March 1997, <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, July 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339>.

[RFC6838]

Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838>.

[RFC7009]

Lodderstedt, T., Ed., Dronia, S., and M. Scurtescu, "OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation", RFC 7009, DOI 10.17487/RFC7009, August 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7009>.

[RFC7515]

Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7515>.

[RFC7523]

Jones, M., Campbell, B., and C. Mortimore, "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants", RFC 7523, DOI 10.17487/RFC7523, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7523>.

[RFC7662]

Richer, J., Ed., "OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection", RFC 7662, DOI 10.17487/RFC7662, October 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7662>.

[RFC8174]

Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <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, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259>.

[RFC8414]

Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414, DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, June 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8414>.

[RFC8693]

Jones, M., Nadalin, A., Campbell, B., Ed., Bradley, J., and C. Mortimore, "OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange", RFC 8693, DOI 10.17487/RFC8693, January 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8693>.

[RFC8705]

Campbell, B., Bradley, J., Sakimura, N., and T. Lodderstedt, "OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens", RFC 8705, DOI 10.17487/RFC8705, February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8705>.

[RFC9068]

Bertocci, V., "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens", RFC 9068, DOI 10.17487/RFC9068, October 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9068>.

[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9325>.

[RFC9449]

Fett, D., Campbell, B., Bradley, J., Lodderstedt, T., Jones, M., and D. Waite, "OAuth 2.0 Demonstrating Proof of Possession (DPoP)", RFC 9449, DOI 10.17487/RFC9449, September 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9449>.

[RFC9701]

Lodderstedt, T., Ed. and V. Dzhuvinov, "JSON Web Token (JWT) Response for OAuth Token Introspection", RFC 9701, DOI 10.17487/RFC9701, January 2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9701>.

[RFC9728]

Jones, M.B., Hunt, P., and A. Parecki, "OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata", RFC 9728, DOI 10.17487/RFC9728, April 2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9728>.

Informative References

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-aauth]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Context Binding for AAuth", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-aauth.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-authority-server]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Authority Server", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-authority-server.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-authzen]

McGuinness, K., "Mission-Bound Runtime Enforcement: AuthZEN Profile", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-authzen.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-mandate]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Mandate", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-mandate.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-runtime]

McGuinness, K., "Mission-Bound Runtime Enforcement", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-runtime.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-mission-runtime-evidence]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Runtime Evidence", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-mission-runtime-evidence.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Child Delegation for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-child-delegation.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-containment]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Containment for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-containment.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-cross-domain]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Cross-Domain Projection for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-cross-domain.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Entry Discharge for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-discharge.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Expansion for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-expansion.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-issuance-grant]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Issuance Grant for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-issuance-grant.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-management]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Management for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-management.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-resource-access]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Resource Access Profile for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-resource-access.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-signals]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Lifecycle Signals for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-signals.html>.

[I-D.draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status-list]

McGuinness, K., "Mission Status List for OAuth 2.0", 2026, <https://mcguinness.github.io/mission-bound-authorization/draft-mcguinness-oauth-mission-status-list.html>.

[RFC8725]

Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best Current Practices", BCP 225, RFC 8725, DOI 10.17487/RFC8725, February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8725>.

[RFC9110]

Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

[RFC9457]

Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details for HTTP APIs", RFC 9457, DOI 10.17487/RFC9457, July 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457>.

[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9700>.