Internet-Draft ATHM Privacy Pass Issuance and Authentic June 2025
Appleseed Expires 26 December 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-yun-privacypass-athm-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
J. Appleseed
Apple, Inc.

Anonymous Token with Hidden Metadata Privacy Pass Issuance and Authentication Protocols

Abstract

TODO Abstract

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://example.com/LATEST. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yun-privacypass-athm/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the PRIVACYPASS Privacy Pass mailing list (mailto:WG@example.com), which is archived at https://example.com/WG.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/USER/REPO.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 December 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

TODO Introduction

2. 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 Origin, Client, Issuer, and Token as defined in Section 2 of [ARCHITECTURE]. Moreover, the following additional terms are used throughout this document.

Unless otherwise specified, this document encodes protocol messages in TLS notation from Section 3 of [TLS13]. Moreover, all constants are in network byte order.

3. Protocol Overview

The issuance and redemption protocols defined in this document are built on an anonymous credential construction called ATHM, as specified in [ATHM-SPEC]. ATHM is a privately verifiable token with support for n private metadata buckets.

Unlike the core Privacy Pass token types specified in [ISSUANCE], ATHM tokens are not cryptographically bound to TokenChallenge messages; see [AUTHSCHEME] for details about how this binding typically works. Instead, with ATHM, Clients can request tokens from an Issuer without a preceding TokenChallenge, and present these tokens to the Origin during presentation. This interaction is shown below.

Origin Client Attester Issuer Attestation TokenRequest TokenResponse Request+Token
Figure 1: Issuance and Redemption Overview

Unlike the core Privacy Pass protocols, TokenChallenge values are not inputs to the issuance protocol or redemption protocols. As such, ATHM tokens require their own Token format, which is specified in Section 6.

ATHM is only compatible with deployment models where the Issuer and Origin are operated by the same entity (see Section 4 of [ARCHITECTURE]), as tokens produced from a credential are not publicly verifiable. The details of attestation are outside the scope of the issuance protocol; see Section 4 of [ARCHITECTURE] for information about how attestation can be implemented in each of the relevant deployment models.

4. Configuration

ATHM issuers are configured with key material used for issuance and credential verification. Concretely, Issuers run the KeyGen function from [ATHM-SPEC] to produce a secret and public key, denoted skI and pkI, respectively.

skI, pkI = KeyGen()

The Issuer Public Key ID, denoted issuer_key_id, is computed as the SHA-256 hash of the Issuer Public Key, i.e., issuer_key_id = SHA-256(SerialiePublicKey(pkI)).

5. Token Issuance Protocol

Issuers provide a Issuer Private and Public Key, denoted skI and pkI respectively, used to produce tokens as input to the protocol. See Section 4 for how these keys are generated.

Clients provide the following as input to the issuance protocol:

Given this configuration and these inputs, the two messages exchanged in this protocol to produce a credential are described below.

5.1. Client-to-Issuer Request

Given Issuer Public Key pkI, the Client first creates a token request message using the TokenRequest function from [ATHM-SPEC] as follows:

(context, request) = TokenRequest(pkI)

The Client then creates a TokenRequest structure as follows:

struct {
  uint16_t token_type = 0xC07E; /* Type ATHM(P-256) */
  uint8_t truncated_issuer_key_id;
  uint8_t encoded_request[Nrequest];
} TokenRequest;

The structure fields are defined as follows:

  • "token_type" is a 2-octet integer.

  • "truncated_issuer_key_id" is the least significant byte of the issuer_key_id, the Issuer Public Key ID corresponding to pkI, in network byte order (in other words, the last 8 bits of issuer_key_id). This value is truncated so that Issuers cannot use issuer_key_id as a way of uniquely identifying Clients; see Section 7 and referenced information for more details.

  • "encoded_request" is the Nrequest-octet request, computed as the serialization of the request value as defined in [ATHM-SPEC].

The Client then generates an HTTP POST request to send to the Issuer Request URL, with the TokenRequest as the content. The media type for this request is "application/private-token-request". An example request for the Issuer Request URL "https://issuer.example.net/request" is shown below.

[[QUESTION: Should we reuse the same content type for this request, or should we introduce a new content type?]]

POST /request HTTP/1.1
Host: issuer.example.net
Accept: application/private-token-response
Content-Type: application/private-token-request
Content-Length: <Length of TokenRequest>

<Bytes containing the TokenRequest>

5.2. Issuer-to-Client Request

Upon receipt of the request, the Issuer validates the following conditions:

  • The TokenRequest contains a supported token_type equal to value 0xC07E.

  • The TokenRequest.truncated_token_key_id corresponds to the truncated key ID of an Issuer Public Key, with corresponding secret key skI, owned by the Issuer.

  • The TokenRequest.encoded_request is of the correct size (Nrequest).

If any of these conditions is not met, the Issuer MUST return an HTTP 422 (Unprocessable Content) error to the client.

If these conditions are met, the Issuer then tries to deserialize TokenRequest.encoded_request according to [ATHM-SPEC], yielding request. If this fails, the Issuer MUST return an HTTP 422 (Unprocessable Content) error to the client. Otherwise, if the Issuer is willing to produce a token for the Client with a hidden metadata bucket, denoted hiddenMetadata, the Issuer completes the issuance flow by an issuance response as follows:

response = TokenResponse(skI, pkI, request, hiddenMetadata)

The Issuer then creates a TokenResponse structured as follows:

struct {
   uint8_t encoded_response[Nresponse];
} TokenResponse;

The structure fields are defined as follows:

  • "encoded_response" is the Nresponse-octet encoded issuance response message, computed as the serialization of response as specified in [ATHM-SPEC].

The Issuer generates an HTTP response with status code 200 whose content consists of TokenResponse, with the content type set as "application/private-token-response".

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/private-token-response
Content-Length: <Length of TokenResponse>

<Bytes containing the TokenResponse>

5.3. Token Finalization

Upon receipt, the Client handles the response and, if successful, deserializes the content values TokenResponse.encoded_response according to [ATHM-SPEC] yielding response. If deserialization fails, the Client aborts the protocol. Otherwise, the Client processes the response as follows:

token = FinalizeToken(context, pkI, request, response)

The Client then saves the resulting token structure for use with a future redemption.

6. Token Redemption Protocol

The token redemption protocol presents a Token to the Origin for redemption. This section describes how the Token values are encoded in the redemption protocol and then verified by the Origin.

6.1. Token Structure

struct {
    uint16_t token_type = 0xC07E; /* Type ATHM(P-256) */
    uint8_t issuer_key_id[Nid];
    uint8_t token[Ntoken];
} Token;

The structure fields are defined as follows:

  • "token_type" is a 2-octet integer, in network byte order, equal to 0xC7D3.

  • "issuer_key_id" is a Nid-octet identifier for the Issuer Public Key, computed as defined in Section 4.

  • "token" is a Ntoken-octet token, set to the serialized token value (see [ATHM-SPEC] for serialization details); see Section 6.2 for more information about how this field is used in verifying a token.

6.2. Token Verification

Verifying a Token requires invoking the VerifyToken function from [ATHM-SPEC] with input skI, pkI, and token in the following way:

hiddenMetadata = VerifyToken(skI, pkI, token)

This function will fail with an error if the token is invalid. Otherwise, it will return an integer value corresponding to the bucket bound to the token during issuance.

7. Security Considerations

TODO Security

8. IANA Considerations

This document updates the "Privacy Pass Token Type" Registry with the following entries.

9. Normative References

[ARCHITECTURE]
Davidson, A., Iyengar, J., and C. A. Wood, "The Privacy Pass Architecture", RFC 9576, DOI 10.17487/RFC9576, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9576>.
[ATHM-SPEC]
"*** BROKEN REFERENCE ***".
[AUTHSCHEME]
Pauly, T., Valdez, S., and C. A. Wood, "The Privacy Pass HTTP Authentication Scheme", RFC 9577, DOI 10.17487/RFC9577, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9577>.
[ISSUANCE]
Celi, S., Davidson, A., Valdez, S., and C. A. Wood, "Privacy Pass Issuance Protocols", RFC 9578, DOI 10.17487/RFC9578, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9578>.
[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>.
[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>.
[TLS13]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.

Author's Address

Johnny Appleseed
Apple, Inc.