| Internet-Draft | Use Cases for SPICE | September 2024 |
| Prorock & Zundel | Expires 14 March 2025 | [Page] |
This document describes various use cases related to credential exchange in a three party model (issuer, holder, verifier). These use cases aid in the identification of which Secure Patterns for Internet CrEdentials (SPICE) are most in need of specification or detailed documentation.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://brentzundel.github.io/draft-ietf-spice-use-cases/draft-ietf-spice-use-cases.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spice-use-cases/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the Secure Patterns for Internet CrEdentials Working Group mailing list (mailto:spice@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spice/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spice/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/brentzundel/draft-ietf-spice-use-cases.¶
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 14 March 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
There is a need to more clearly document verifiable credentials - that is credentials that utilize the issuer, holder, and verifier (three party) model across various work IETF, ISO, W3C, and other SDOs. This need particularly arises in use cases for verifiable credentials that do not involve human-in-the-loop interactions, need strong identifiers for business entities, and for those that require CBOR encoding, and those that leverage the cryptographic agility properties of COSE. This document which covers multiple use cases for verifiable credentials will help inform both the required architecture and components, as well as to help frame needs for any clearly defined message formats and/or supporting mechanisms.¶
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.¶
Within SPICE there are a few common patterns that continually arise:¶
A need for selective disclosure with CBOR based verifiable credentials¶
Cryptographic agility support via COSE, including support for PQC, and to permit use of the same signature algorithms with both selective disclosure as well as fully disclosed credentials¶
Required strong and long lived identities that are correlated with public key material for verifiacation and permit binding to DNS, existing x509 certificates, as well as providing ready access to public keys for verification utilizing HTTP¶
There are several expanding use cases and common patterns that motivate the working group and broader community, including:¶
Use of microcredentials, particularly in education¶
Digitization of physical supply chain credentials in multiple jurisdictions¶
IoT, Control Systems, and Critical Infrastructure related Credentials¶
Credentials related to authenticity and provenance, especially of digital media¶
Offline exchange (in person) of credentials that may have been internet issued¶
Embedding of credentials in other data formats¶
Digital Wallet Initiatives¶
An "issuer", an entity (person, device, organization, or software agent) that constructs and secures digital credentials.¶
A "holder", an entity (person, device, organization, or software agent) that controls the disclosure of credentials.¶
A "verifier", an entity (person, device, organization, or software agent) that verifies and validates secured digital credentials.¶
Physical supply chain credentials create several unique scenarios and requirements for technical implementers. There is a strong movement towards digitiztion of physical supply chain data which is often exchanged in paper or scanned pdf form today using legacy approaches. Some steps have been taken towards digitatization of supply chain data in XML, however the steps have proved problematic over native binary formats due to the complexity, size, and volumes of transmission often involved.¶
Common use cases for physical supply chains include:¶
Regulatory data capture and exchange with governmental bodies¶
Requirements around capturing specific types of data including:¶
Providing the ability for 3rd parties to "certify" information about another actor in the supply chain. e.g. Vendor A is an approved supplier for Company X¶
Passing of data between multiple intermediaries, before being sent along to customs agencies or consignees.¶
Moving large amounts of signed data asyncronously, and bi-directionally over a network channel¶
Identifying actors in a supply chain and linking them with legal entity information¶
TODO Security¶
This document has no IANA actions.¶
TODO acknowledge.¶