| Internet-Draft | Web4 Claims and Verification | September 2026 |
| Jacobs | Expires 16 March 2027 | [Page] |
This document distinguishes claims, evidence, assessments, assertions, verification events, challenges, supersession, suspension, expiration, revocation, and receipts without standardizing private scoring internals.¶
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 16 March 2027.¶
Copyright (c) 2026 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.¶
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 defines distinctions and lifecycle rules for claims, evidence, assessments, assertions, verification events, challenges, supersession, suspension, expiration, revocation, and receipts.¶
A Claim is a proposition about a subject. Evidence supports or opposes a claim. An Assessment is an evaluation under policy. An Assertion is an accountable signed statement. A Verification Event records checks. A Receipt records that an event occurred.¶
Signed, verified, conformant, high assurance, and currently valid are distinct properties and MUST NOT be treated as synonyms.¶
A claim assertion MUST identify the claim, subject, issuer, claim type or proposition, issuance time, policy context, status mechanism, and proof.¶
{
"assertion_id": "urn:web4:claim:01JEXAMPLE",
"assertion_type": "claim",
"subject_id": "did:example:node-842",
"issuer_id": "did:example:issuer-1",
"claim_type": "urn:example:claim:operational-state",
"claim_value": "active",
"status_uri": "https://status.example/claims/01JEXAMPLE",
"proof": {
"type": "ExampleProof",
"verification_method": "did:example:issuer-1#key-1",
"value": "BASE64URL-SIGNATURE"
}
}¶
A verification event MUST identify the verifier, object checked, checks performed, policy, time, result, and proof. Success MUST NOT imply checks outside declared scope.¶
A challenge MUST identify the challenged assertion, challenger, grounds, issue time, evidence where permitted, status, and proof.¶
Correction MUST preserve the original and issue a linked replacement. Supersession MUST NOT erase historical status or receipts.¶
Suspension, expiration, and revocation are distinct. Verifiers MUST treat unresolved status as indeterminate.¶
Material transitions MUST be authorized, integrity-protected, and recorded by a receipt.¶
Conformance does not require publication of a trust vector, reputation function, confidence graph, scoring model, or protected assessment method.¶
Broader Web4 architectural work is described informatively in [I-D.reilly-web4]. Informative research materials MAY be published as versioned scholarly artifacts, including DOI-addressable records.¶
A research artifact is not required for conformance unless expressly incorporated as a Normative Reference by a named profile. Referencing or verifying an artifact does not establish the truth of its conclusions, regulatory approval, certification, security, legal compliance, or IETF endorsement.¶
A Conforming Implementation MUST NOT require access to KCoordinate, KQAS, or another protected internal assessment method unless a separate deployment agreement selects that implementation.¶
Implementations MUST authenticate issuers, validate proof integrity, check proof purpose, enforce temporal validity, and resolve current status before relying on an object.¶
Implementations MUST address identifier confusion, issuer impersonation, key compromise, algorithm downgrade, replay, stale status, unauthorized supersession, cross-policy confusion, canonicalization ambiguity, denial of service, and fail-open handling of indeterminate validity.¶
Evidence commitments can confirm correspondence with committed bytes but do not prove truth, completeness, legality, provenance, or fitness for purpose. Profiles SHOULD define privacy-preserving commitment procedures for low-entropy artifacts.¶
Proof verification establishes integrity and control of a verification method; it does not establish substantive truth.¶
Persistent identifiers, status queries, proofs, policy references, and linked receipts can enable correlation. Implementations MUST minimize disclosed data and SHOULD use unlinkable or pairwise identifiers where they satisfy policy.¶
Private evidence MAY remain undisclosed and be represented by a cryptographic commitment. Retention and erasure requirements MUST be specified by policy and account for applicable obligations.¶
This document requests no IANA actions.¶