Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
81 lines (52 loc) · 3.3 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

81 lines (52 loc) · 3.3 KB
Raw

Aries RFC 0183: Revocation Notification 1.0

  • Authors: [Keith Smith]
  • Status: PROPOSED
  • Since: 2019-08-12
  • Status Note: Initial proposal after discussion on rocketchat
  • Supersedes:
  • Start Date: 2018-08-12
  • Tags: feature, protocol

Summary

This RFC defines the message format which an issuer uses to notify a holder that a previously issued credential has been revoked.

Motivation

We need a standard protocol for an issuer to notify a holder that a previously issued credential has been revoked.

For example, suppose a passport agency revokes Alice's passport. The passport agency (an issuer) may want to notify Alice (a holder) that her passport has been revoked so that she knows that she will be unable to use her passport to travel.

Tutorial

The Revocation Notification protocol is a very simple protocol consisting of a single message:

  • Revoke - issuer to holder

This simple protocol allows an issuer to choose to notify a holder that a previously issued credential has been revoked.

It is the issuer's prerogative whether or not to notify the holder that a credential has been revoked.

Roles

There are two parties involved in a Revocation Notification: issuer and holder. The issuer sends the revoke message to the holder.

Messages

The revoke message sent by the issuer to the holder is as follows:

{
  "@type": "https://didcomm.org/revocation_notification/1.0/revoke",
  "@id": "<uuid-revocation-notification>",
  "credential_id": "<uuid-credential>",
  "comment": "Some comment"
}

Description of fields:

  • credential_id -- identifies the credential which is being revoked. This is the value as sent in the issue-credential message.
  • comment -- a field that provides some human readable information about the revocation notification. This is typically the reason for the revocation as deemed appropriate by the issuer.

Reference

Drawbacks

If we later added support for more general event subscription and notification message flows, this would be redundant.

Rationale and alternatives

  • Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs? It is simple.
  • What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them? A more general event subscription and notification mechanism was considered but chose to keep this simple for the same reasons that the basic message was kept simple.
  • What is the impact of not doing this? There is no standard way of sending a revocation notification which is a common scenario.

Prior art

Unresolved questions

Implementations

The following lists the implementations (if any) of this RFC. Please do a pull request to add your implementation. If the implementation is open source, include a link to the repo or to the implementation within the repo. Please be consistent in the "Name" field so that a mechanical processing of the RFCs can generate a list of all RFCs supported by an Aries implementation.

Name / Link Implementation Notes