Internet-Draft EP Evidence Records June 2026
Schrock Expires 30 December 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-schrock-ep-evidence-record-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Author:
I. Schrock
EMILIA Protocol, Inc.

Long-Term, Crypto-Agile Preservation of Authorization Evidence (EP-EVIDENCE-RECORD)

Abstract

Regulations increasingly require that records of who authorized a high-risk action be retained for years (e.g. five years under DORA, six under HIPAA and SEC 17a-4). Any fixed signature or hash algorithm used to protect such a record weakens over time; a receipt signed today with Ed25519 over SHA-256 may be cryptographically attackable before its retention period ends. This document defines EP-EVIDENCE-RECORD, an OPTIONAL profile that preserves the verifiability of EMILIA Protocol authorization receipts (and other artifacts) across algorithm aging, using a renewal chain in the style of the Evidence Record Syntax [RFC4998]. Each renewal time-attests the entire prior renewal under a fresh, stronger algorithm before the older one is broken, so an unbroken chain links the original artifact to the most recent renewal. The record is offline- verifiable, fail-closed, and maintained as cross-language conformance vectors that three independent implementations agree on.

Discussion

This document depends on [draft-schrock-ep-authorization-receipts] and uses its canonicalization and terminology without restating them.

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 30 December 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

An EMILIA Protocol (EP) authorization receipt [draft-schrock-ep-authorization-receipts] is offline-verifiable evidence that a named human authorized a specific high-risk action. Compliance regimes require such evidence to be retained for years. Over that horizon the cryptography protecting it ages: hash functions succumb to collision attacks, signature algorithms to advances including cryptanalytically relevant quantum computers. A receipt that verifies today may not verify, or may not be trustworthy, a decade from now under the algorithm it was sealed with.

This is a solved problem in long-term archiving: the Evidence Record Syntax [RFC4998] preserves data integrity across algorithm changes by periodically re-protecting the data, and the prior protection, under a newer algorithm before the old one is broken. EP-EVIDENCE-RECORD applies that idea to EP receipts with EP's own time-attestation primitive, so the result stays offline-verifiable with no new trust dependencies.

1.1. Scope and non-goals

EP-EVIDENCE-RECORD preserves the *verifiability over time* of an artifact it is given (typically an EP receipt, but any byte string by its hash). It does NOT establish that the artifact was correct, nor that a renewal actually occurred before the prior algorithm was broken in the wild -- that is an operational discipline (Section 6). It defines no new signature or hash algorithm; it composes existing ones over time.

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals.

Protected artifact
the byte string whose long-term verifiability is being preserved, referenced only by its hash (`protected_hash`).
Archive timestamp
one renewal: an EP time-attestation by an independent, key-pinned time authority over a stated `hashed` value.
Renewal chain
the ordered list of archive timestamps, each (after the first) covering the entire previous archive timestamp under a possibly stronger hash algorithm.

3. The renewal chain

{
  "@version": "EP-EVIDENCE-RECORD-v1",
  "protected_hash": "sha256:<hex>",
  "archive_timestamps": [
    { "time_attestation": { ... hashed = protected_hash ... } },
    { "time_attestation": { ... hashed = sha384(canon(prev)) ... } }
  ]
}

Because renewal i covers the whole of renewal i-1, an unbroken chain links the protected artifact to the most recent renewal even across a change of hash algorithm (e.g. SHA-256 then SHA-384). This is the Archive Timestamp Chain concept of [RFC4998], expressed with EP time-attestations. A new renewal is appended under a fresh, stronger algorithm whenever the current algorithm's margin is judged to be eroding, BEFORE it is broken.

4. Verification algorithm

A verifier MUST proceed fail-closed and return invalid on any failure:

  1. `version_ok` -- `@version` equals "EP-EVIDENCE-RECORD-v1".
  2. `protected_bound` (when the relying party supplies the artifact) -- `protected_hash` equals the hash the relying party independently computes over the artifact it holds.
  3. `chain_nonempty` -- at least one archive timestamp is present.
  4. `all_timestamps_valid` -- every renewal's EP time-attestation verifies under a pinned, independent time authority's key.
  5. `chain_linked` -- the first renewal covers `protected_hash`; each later renewal's attested `hashed` equals the algorithm-agile hash of the prior archive timestamp's canonical serialization.
  6. `monotonic_time` -- attested times strictly increase along the chain.

The record is valid iff all applicable checks pass. Verification requires no network and no live service.

5. Crypto-agility

Hash algorithms are carried as algorithm-tagged values (e.g. `sha256:`, `sha384:`, `sha512:`); supported renewal hashes are SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512, and the set is extensible as stronger functions are standardized. Each renewal's time-attestation MAY use a different signature algorithm from earlier renewals, including post-quantum signatures once profiled, so the chain migrates forward without invalidating earlier links. The verifier selects the hash function by the tag, not by assumption.

6. Security Considerations

The central operational requirement is timeliness: a renewal under a stronger algorithm MUST be appended while the current algorithm is still unbroken. The chain cannot prove this happened; deployments retain a renewal policy and monitoring as out-of-band discipline. A renewal added after the prior algorithm is already broken provides no additional assurance.

Trust derives from the pinned, independent time authorities across the chain. Using the same authority for every renewal concentrates trust; diversity of authorities strengthens the record. The profile preserves only *verifiability*, not *correctness* of the protected artifact.

The record is fail-closed: a missing renewal, a broken link, a non- monotonic time, or an unverifiable time-attestation yields invalid.

7. Relationship to Other Work

EP-EVIDENCE-RECORD adapts the Archive Timestamp Chain of [RFC4998] (Evidence Record Syntax) to EP's JSON/JCS evidence and EP time-attestations, keeping the result offline-verifiable. It composes with [draft-schrock-ep-authorization-receipts] (the typical protected artifact) and with [draft-schrock-ep-authorization-evidence-chain] (a chain may be preserved as the protected artifact). A renewal chain MAY additionally be registered with a transparency service such as SCITT [I-D.ietf-scitt-architecture] for third-party anchoring, but the profile does not require it.

8. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

9. Implementation Status

A reference verifier is maintained as open-source software in three independent implementations (JavaScript, Python, Go) that agree on a shared conformance vector set, exercised offline in continuous integration.

10. Normative References

[draft-schrock-ep-authorization-receipts]
Schrock, I., "Authorization Receipts for High-Risk Agent Actions (EP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-schrock-ep-authorization-receipts, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schrock-ep-authorization-receipts/>.
[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/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4998]
Gondrom, T., Brandner, R., and U. Pordesch, "Evidence Record Syntax (ERS)", RFC 4998, DOI 10.17487/RFC4998, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4998>.
[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/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8785]
Rundgren, A., Jordan, B., and S. Erdtman, "JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS)", RFC 8785, DOI 10.17487/RFC8785, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8785>.

11. Informative References

[draft-schrock-ep-authorization-evidence-chain]
Schrock, I., "Authorization Evidence Chains (EP-AEC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-schrock-ep-authorization-evidence-chain, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schrock-ep-authorization-evidence-chain/>.
[I-D.ietf-scitt-architecture]
IETF SCITT WG, "An Architecture for Trustworthy and Transparent Digital Supply Chains", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-scitt-architecture, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture/>.

Author's Address

Iman Schrock
EMILIA Protocol, Inc.
United States of America