<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
     docName="draft-schrock-ep-bounded-capability-receipts-01"
     category="exp" ipr="trust200902" submissionType="IETF"
     version="3" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="EP Bounded Capabilities">Bounded Capability Receipts and Durable Spend Control for Agent Actions</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-schrock-ep-bounded-capability-receipts-01"/>
    <author fullname="Iman Schrock">
      <organization>EMILIA Protocol, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal><country>US</country></postal>
        <email>team@emiliaprotocol.ai</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2026" month="August" day="3"/>
    <area>Security</area>
    <keyword>agent authorization</keyword>
    <keyword>capability</keyword>
    <keyword>spend control</keyword>
    <keyword>delegation</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>Agents sometimes need bounded authority to perform more than one
      consequential action without obtaining a new human approval for every
      operation. A signed token alone cannot enforce a shared budget across
      replicas, survive retries safely, or distinguish an operation that never
      crossed an effect boundary from one whose outcome is unknown.</t>
      <t>This document defines a bounded capability receipt and a durable
      reserve-execute-commit protocol. The receipt binds an issuance
      authorization, a closed action scope, a budget with explicit units, a
      holder proof, an expiry, and any parent capability. The state protocol
      atomically refuses overspend and replay, fences concurrent owners, and
      charges an indeterminate operation when an external effect may have
      occurred. Delegation transfers rather than copies authority: all direct
      child allocations are funded by committed parent operations before child
      registration, and their aggregate cannot exceed the parent balance
      within one authoritative atomic state domain. It also defines
      narrowing-only delegation and evidence interfaces. It does not make a
      bearer token into human approval, does not provide cross-domain or
      offline global double-spend prevention, and does not claim that an
      authorized action was safe, lawful, or successfully executed.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>A single-action authorization receipt is intentionally narrow: it
      records approval of one exact action and can be accepted at most once
      within its atomic consumption domain. Some agent
      deployments also need a different primitive. For example, an operator
      may authorize an agent to purchase a bounded class of supplies, subject
      to an aggregate monetary ceiling and an expiry, without asking a human
      to approve each conforming purchase.</t>
      <t>That primitive has two inseparable parts:</t>
      <ol spacing="normal">
        <li>a signed capability receipt that states the immutable authority
        boundary; and</li>
        <li>a shared, durable state machine that serializes reservations and
        committed consumption across retries, processes, replicas, and
        restarts.</li>
      </ol>
      <t>The signed object without the state machine is replayable budget
      metadata. The state machine without a signed, scoped grant has no
      portable statement of authority. This document specifies their
      composition.</t>

      <section anchor="requirements-language">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>
        <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all
        capitals, as shown here.</t>
        <t>BCP 14 is indexed by the RFC Editor at <xref target="BCP14"/>.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="scope">
        <name>Scope and Non-Goals</name>
        <t>This document defines issuance binding, action-scope evaluation,
        budget accounting, holder proof, durable reservation and commitment,
        and narrowing delegation. It does not define user authentication,
        human-approval presentation, general policy syntax, payment clearing,
        settlement, currency conversion, revocation distribution, or the
        external effect adapter.</t>
        <t>A capability receipt is machine authority evidence. It is not,
        merely by being signed, evidence that a human reviewed each later
        action. Deployments that require per-action human authorization
        continue to require a per-action authorization artifact.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="terminology">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <dl newline="false" spacing="normal">
        <dt>Issuance authorization:</dt>
        <dd>An independently verified authorization artifact for the exact
        act of creating a bounded capability.</dd>
        <dt>Capability receipt:</dt>
        <dd>The signed immutable grant defined by this document.</dd>
        <dt>Capability issuer:</dt>
        <dd>The principal whose pinned key signs a capability receipt.</dd>
        <dt>Holder proof:</dt>
        <dd>Proof that the requester controls the secret or key named by the
        capability receipt. Holder proof is not proof that a requested action
        is in scope.</dd>
        <dt>Scope verifier:</dt>
        <dd>A verifier for a named scope profile, selected and configured by
        the relying party.</dd>
        <dt>Capability store:</dt>
        <dd>The authoritative shared transactional state for registration,
        reservation, and committed consumption.</dd>
        <dt>Operation ID:</dt>
        <dd>A globally unique identifier for one attempted capability-funded
        operation within a capability-store domain.</dd>
        <dt>Reservation token:</dt>
        <dd>An unguessable owner-fencing value returned by a successful
        reservation and required for its commitment.</dd>
        <dt>Effect boundary:</dt>
        <dd>The point after which an external effect may have occurred and
        therefore budget cannot safely be restored merely because the caller
        did not receive a successful response.</dd>
        <dt>Indeterminate outcome:</dt>
        <dd>An operation for which the executor cannot prove that no effect
        occurred and cannot prove a successful expected effect.</dd>
      </dl>
    </section>

    <section anchor="trust-model">
      <name>Trust Model</name>
      <t>The relying party selects capability-issuer keys, accepted issuance
      authorization profiles, scope profiles, state-store domain, and local
      authorization policy. A key embedded in a presented capability receipt
      <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>, by itself, become a trust anchor. An empty trust
      configuration <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> fail closed.</t>
      <t>The capability store is trusted to serialize state transitions and
      retain committed operation records. The effect adapter is trusted to
      place the effect boundary correctly and to report outcomes honestly.
      This protocol makes those trust dependencies explicit; it does not
      remove them.</t>
      <t>All capability-store participants that can authorize a capability or
      allocate, register, reserve, commit, reconcile, suspend, revoke, or report
      any ancestor or descendant drawing on that capability's authority
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use one shared authoritative atomic state domain.
      Independent stores cannot prevent each other from accepting or
      reallocating the same remaining authority. Conservation claims in this
      document apply only inside that one domain.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="receipt">
      <name>The Bounded Capability Receipt</name>
      <t>The receipt is a JSON object serialized using the JSON
      Canonicalization Scheme (JCS) <xref target="RFC8785"/> before signing.
      The following is illustrative:</t>
      <sourcecode type="json"><![CDATA[
{
  "@version": "EP-BOUNDED-CAPABILITY-v1",
  "capability": {
    "capability_id": "cap_01J...",
    "issuer": "https://operator.example",
    "subject": "agent:procurement-7",
    "authorization": {
      "receipt_id": "rcpt_01J...",
      "receipt_digest": "sha256:4c..."
    },
    "scope": {
      "profile": "urn:emilia:scope:caid-set-v1",
      "value": {
        "caids": ["caid1:sha256:..."]
      },
      "digest": "sha256:8a..."
    },
    "budget": {
      "amount": 250000,
      "unit": "iso4217:USD",
      "scale": 2
    },
    "holder": {
      "method": "sha-256-preimage",
      "commitment": "sha256:91..."
    },
    "threshold": {"m": 2, "n": 3},
    "parent": null,
    "not_before": "2026-07-18T20:00:00Z",
    "expires_at": "2026-07-19T20:00:00Z"
  },
  "capability_signature": {
    "algorithm": "Ed25519",
    "public_key": "base64url...",
    "value": "base64url..."
  }
}
]]></sourcecode>

      <section anchor="required-fields">
        <name>Required Fields</name>
        <dl newline="false" spacing="normal">
          <dt><tt>@version</tt>:</dt>
          <dd><tt>EP-BOUNDED-CAPABILITY-v1</tt>.</dd>
          <dt><tt>capability_id</tt>:</dt>
          <dd>A globally unique, opaque identifier. Uniqueness is not used as
          a substitute for cryptographic binding.</dd>
          <dt><tt>issuer</tt>:</dt>
          <dd>The issuer identifier used to select a relying-party-pinned
          verification key.</dd>
          <dt><tt>subject</tt>:</dt>
          <dd>The intended holder or workload identifier. This identifier
          does not replace holder proof or live workload authentication.</dd>
          <dt><tt>authorization</tt>:</dt>
          <dd>The identifier and SHA-256 digest of the complete issuance
          authorization artifact. The digest <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> cover the
          exact bytes accepted by that artifact's native verifier.</dd>
          <dt><tt>scope</tt>:</dt>
          <dd>A named scope profile, its value, and the SHA-256 digest of the
          JCS serialization of <tt>profile</tt> and <tt>value</tt>.</dd>
          <dt><tt>budget</tt>:</dt>
          <dd>A non-negative integer amount no greater than
          9007199254740991, an explicit unit, and a decimal scale from 0
          through 18. For <tt>iso4217:USD</tt> with scale 2, an amount of
          250000 denotes USD 2500.00. Implementations <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>
          infer a scale from display conventions.</dd>
          <dt><tt>holder</tt>:</dt>
          <dd>A recognized holder-proof method and commitment.</dd>
          <dt><tt>threshold</tt>:</dt>
          <dd>Integers <tt>m</tt> and <tt>n</tt> satisfying
          1 &lt;= m &lt;= n &lt;= 255. This field describes custody of the
          holder credential; it does not assert approval by distinct humans.</dd>
          <dt><tt>parent</tt>:</dt>
          <dd><tt>null</tt> for a root capability. For a child capability,
          an object containing the parent capability ID, the digest of the
          complete signed parent receipt, and the identifier of an
          authenticated parent delegation operation. That operation
          <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> bind the child receipt digest and the delegated
          amount, unit, scale, scope, and validity interval. A parent
          identifier without digest-bound parent and delegation evidence is
          insufficient.</dd>
          <dt><tt>not_before</tt> and <tt>expires_at</tt>:</dt>
          <dd>UTC timestamps in Internet Date/Time format
          <xref target="RFC3339"/> using the canonical string form selected by
          the deployment profile. Expiry is exclusive. Numeric epochs,
          implementation-specific date strings, and values that do not
          round-trip to the canonical form <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be rejected.</dd>
        </dl>
      </section>

      <section anchor="signature-input">
        <name>Signature Input and Receipt Digest</name>
        <t>The issuer signature input is the JCS serialization of the object
        containing exactly <tt>@version</tt> and <tt>capability</tt>. The
        signature algorithm for this version is Ed25519
        <xref target="RFC8032"/>. The receipt digest is:</t>
        <sourcecode type="text"><![CDATA[
SHA-256(JCS({
  "@version": receipt["@version"],
  "capability": receipt.capability,
  "capability_signature": receipt.capability_signature
}))
]]></sourcecode>
        <t>The issuance authorization is bound by both its identifier and
        digest. Binding only a caller-selected receipt identifier is
        insufficient because two different artifacts can carry the same
        identifier.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="verification">
        <name>Receipt Verification</name>
        <t>A verifier <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> perform all of the following and
        fail closed on any error:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal">
          <li>apply bounded parsing and reject duplicate JSON member names,
          unknown critical versions, malformed encodings, and out-of-range
          values;</li>
          <li>select the issuer key from relying-party configuration, not from
          the presented object alone;</li>
          <li>verify the issuer signature over the exact signature input;</li>
          <li>natively verify the issuance authorization under its own pinned
          trust inputs and compare both receipt identifier and digest;</li>
          <li>verify that the authorized action is issuance of this exact
          capability object, or of a digest that commits to it;</li>
          <li>verify the scope digest and require a recognized,
          relying-party-enabled scope profile;</li>
          <li>verify the validity interval and, for a child, resolve and
          verify the digest-bound parent lineage to a root capability or a
          locally trusted, previously validated lineage checkpoint. Reject an
          unresolved, truncated, reordered, or substituted link; a repeated
          capability ID or receipt digest; the leaf appearing among its
          ancestors; or a path exceeding deployment policy. At every hop,
          verify that the child amount does not exceed the authenticated
          delegated amount, unit and scale are unchanged, validity is
          contained by the parent, and scope is no broader than the parent
          scope; and</li>
          <li>compute the capability receipt digest used for store
          registration.</li>
        </ol>
        <t>Receipt verification returns <tt>VERIFIED</tt>. It does not return
        <tt>AUTHORIZED</tt>, prove remaining budget, or prove that a proposed
        operation is in scope.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="issuance">
      <name>Issuance Authorization</name>
      <t>The issuance authorization <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> authorize the act of
      creating the capability, including the immutable digest of its subject,
      scope, budget, holder commitment, parent, and validity interval. It
      <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be reused as though it were a per-operation
      authorization for later spends.</t>
      <t>When the issuance artifact is an EMILIA Authorization Receipt, its
      exact action is capability issuance and its one-time consumption occurs
      when the capability is registered. Later capability-funded operations
      are governed by this document's scope and durable state protocol.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="scope-evaluation">
      <name>Action Scope</name>
      <t>Before reserving budget, the enforcement point <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
      compute the proposed material action independently of presenter-supplied
      labels and invoke the pinned verifier for <tt>scope.profile</tt>. A
      missing profile, unknown action representation, lossy mapping, or
      indeterminate comparison <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> refuse.</t>
      <t>The mandatory-to-implement
      <tt>urn:emilia:scope:caid-set-v1</tt> profile contains a non-empty,
      duplicate-free array of Canonical Action IDentifiers. It matches only
      exact identifier equality. Possession of a CAID authorizes nothing
      outside this verified capability context.</t>
      <t>Application profiles can define closed constraints over typed action
      fields. Such a profile <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> specify canonicalization,
      comparison, unknown-field handling, numerical units, and an algorithm
      for proving that a delegated scope is no broader than its parent.
      Profiles that cannot decide either action membership or attenuation
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> return <tt>INDETERMINATE</tt>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="holder-proof">
      <name>Holder Proof and Threshold Custody</name>
      <t>The mandatory-to-implement holder method is
      <tt>sha-256-preimage</tt>. The holder presents exactly 32 bytes over a
      confidential, integrity-protected channel, and the enforcement point
      compares <tt>SHA-256(preimage)</tt> with the signed commitment using a
      constant-time comparison. The preimage <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be
      logged, stored with the receipt, or included in portable evidence.</t>
      <t>The preimage may be divided using a threshold secret-sharing scheme
      before presentation. Share format, participant authentication,
      confidentiality, recovery, and distribution are outside this document.
      Reconstructing <tt>m</tt> shares proves control of the holder secret; it
      does not prove that <tt>m</tt> distinct humans reviewed or approved the
      action. Human multi-party approval requires a protocol such as
      <xref target="EP-QUORUM"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="registration">
      <name>Registration</name>
      <t>After receipt verification and one-time consumption of the issuance
      authorization, the issuer registers the capability in the authoritative
      store. Registration <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> atomically create immutable
      fields for capability ID, receipt digest, unit, scale, total budget,
      scope digest, validity interval, and parent. It
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> initialize <tt>consumed</tt> and
      <tt>reserved</tt> to zero.</t>
      <t>A second registration of the same capability ID
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> succeed only when every immutable field and receipt
      digest is identical. Any mismatch is a collision and
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> refuse.</t>
      <t>Mutable counters in a presented receipt are not authoritative.
      Remaining budget is computed only from the shared store:</t>
      <sourcecode type="text"><![CDATA[
remaining = total - consumed - reserved
]]></sourcecode>
      <t>The authoritative state <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> maintain the invariant
      <tt>reserved + consumed &lt;= total</tt> for every capability. For a
      parent capability, each registered child allocation
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be covered by one or more distinct terminal
      <tt>delegated</tt> operation committed against that parent before child
      registration. The aggregate amount of registered direct children
      <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> exceed the amount committed by those distinct
      parent delegation operations, and each operation identifier
      <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> fund more than one child receipt digest.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="state-machine">
      <name>Reserve, Execute, and Commit</name>
      <section anchor="reserve">
        <name>Reserve</name>
        <t>A reservation request contains the capability ID, capability
        receipt digest, globally unique operation ID, the immutable canonical
        exercise-action digest and CAID where used, positive integer amount,
        unit, scale, and authenticated holder proof. The same immutable action
        snapshot <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be used for scope evaluation,
        authorization, reservation accounting, and the effect callback; a
        mutable caller object <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> cross those boundaries.
        In one serializable transaction, or while holding an equivalent row
        lock, the store <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal">
          <li>load the registered capability and compare the receipt digest;</li>
          <li>reject an unknown, not-yet-valid, expired, or revoked capability;</li>
          <li>reject a unit or scale mismatch;</li>
          <li>reject any already-seen operation ID, regardless of its previous
          capability or outcome;</li>
          <li>verify that the amount is positive and no greater than
          <tt>total - consumed - reserved</tt>;</li>
          <li>increase <tt>reserved</tt> by the amount; and</li>
          <li>create an operation in state <tt>reserved</tt> with an
          unguessable reservation token, exercise-action digest, and amount,
          and return that token only to the owner.</li>
        </ol>
        <t>Scope evaluation and local authorization policy
        <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> succeed before the effect adapter is entered.
        Deployments <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> perform them before reserving to
        reduce abandoned reservations.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="execute">
        <name>Effect Boundary</name>
        <t>The enforcement point enters the effect adapter only after a
        successful reservation. It <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> expose an alternate
        path to the same effect that bypasses capability enforcement when the
        action requires this profile.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="commit">
        <name>Commit</name>
        <t>A commit request contains the operation ID, reservation token, and
        one of three outcomes: <tt>executed</tt>, <tt>indeterminate</tt>, or
        <tt>delegated</tt>. In one atomic transaction, the store
        <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> verify ownership and reserved state, decrease
        <tt>reserved</tt>, increase <tt>consumed</tt> by the same amount, and
        make the operation terminal.</t>
        <t>A repeated commit, wrong reservation token, or commit against a
        non-reserved operation <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> refuse. A caller timeout
        does not justify retrying with a new operation ID; the caller
        <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> query the original operation or reconcile it.</t>
        <t>If the executor cannot prove that the effect boundary was not
        crossed, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> commit
        <tt>indeterminate</tt> and charge the budget. Availability loss is
        safer than allowing the same authority to be spent again after an
        unobserved external effect.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="reconciliation">
        <name>Crash Recovery and Reconciliation</name>
        <t>Reservations survive process and replica failure. A deployment
        <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> define a reconciler for non-terminal operations.
        The reconciler may commit <tt>executed</tt> only with authenticated
        effect evidence. It may restore budget only when it can prove the
        effect boundary was never crossed. In every other case it
        <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> commit <tt>indeterminate</tt>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="delegation">
      <name>Narrowing Delegation</name>
      <t>A child capability <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> outlive its parent,
      exceed the authenticated amount delegated from the parent, change unit
      or scale, or broaden the parent's scope. Its delegation chain
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be bounded by deployment policy and
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include the parent receipt digest.</t>
      <t>Before registering a child, the verifier <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
      validate complete digest-linked ancestry to a trusted root within the
      configured depth bound, or enforce equivalent authenticated parent-edge
      constraints in one authoritative store. The verified lineage
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> form a simple path. The verifier
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject a repeated capability identifier or receipt
      digest, a missing or inconsistent parent, a substituted or reordered
      edge, or a chain whose trusted root cannot be established. A cycle,
      truncated lineage, or over-depth chain <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> fail closed.
      Per-receipt identifier uniqueness or a self-declared list of ancestors
      does not establish graph-wide acyclicity. An implementation
      <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> infer acyclicity merely because its ordinary
      issuance path constructs children from known parents; verification
      applies the same check to imported and reconstructed chains.</t>
      <t>Creating a child is itself a parent-funded operation. Before
      registering the child, the issuer <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reserve the
      delegated amount from the parent and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> commit that
      exact reservation once with outcome <tt>delegated</tt>. The
      authenticated terminal operation record <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> bind the
      exact child receipt digest, delegated
      amount, unit, scale, scope, and validity interval before the child is
      registered; otherwise a valid parent spend could be paired with a
      different child. A shared store
      <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> perform parent commitment and child registration
      atomically. If that is impossible and child registration fails after
      the parent is committed, the parent budget remains consumed and the
      orphaned delegation <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be retained for reconciliation.
      The system <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> silently refund it.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="evidence">
      <name>Evidence and Decision Vocabulary</name>
      <t>A capability receipt can be <tt>VERIFIED</tt>. A scope verifier can
      return the profile-local result <tt>IN_SCOPE</tt>,
      <tt>OUT_OF_SCOPE</tt>, or <tt>INDETERMINATE</tt>. This containment
      result is not the architecture's <tt>MATCH</tt> state, which is reserved
      for correlation of exact material actions. A relying-party evidence
      requirement can be <tt>SATISFIED</tt>. Successful local policy and an
      atomic reservation together can establish <tt>AUTHORIZED</tt> for one
      exercise. Separately authenticated effect evidence can establish
      <tt>EXECUTED</tt>. No earlier state implies a later one.</t>
      <t>Portable evidence for a capability-funded operation
      <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> include the capability receipt digest, issuance
      authorization digest, scope profile and digest, operation ID, the exact
      exercise action digest and CAID where used, amount, unit, scale,
      reservation timestamp, terminal outcome, and any authenticated effect
      statement. The integrity-protected operation record
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> bind the exercise action and the capability receipt
      digest. Holder secrets and reservation tokens <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be
      included.</t>
      <t>An Authorization Evidence Chain may carry that operation record as a
      native component whose verifier recursively verifies the capability
      receipt, issuance authorization, scope result, and operation-record
      integrity. The static grant is not a same-action component for every
      later exercise. Evidence satisfaction does not query or reserve current
      budget; that state transition remains at the enforcement point.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="failure-codes">
      <name>Failure Codes</name>
      <t>Implementations <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> expose stable,
      non-authorizing failure codes including:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li><tt>capability_untrusted_issuer</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_authorization_mismatch</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_scope_mismatch</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_scope_indeterminate</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_holder_proof_invalid</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_not_active</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_expired</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_revoked</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_budget_exceeded</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_delegation_lineage_invalid</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_delegation_not_narrowed</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_operation_replay</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_reservation_owner_mismatch</tt></li>
        <li><tt>capability_commit_indeterminate</tt></li>
      </ul>
      <t>A failure code is diagnostic output, not an authorization artifact.
      Responses <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> avoid revealing secret, budget, or scope
      details to an unauthenticated caller.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="conformance">
      <name>Conformance</name>
      <t>A conforming implementation <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> pass positive and
      adversarial vectors for receipt canonicalization and signature,
      authorization-digest substitution, untrusted issuer, unknown scope
      profile, action mismatch, holder-proof failure, duplicate registration,
      concurrent overspend, operation replay, wrong reservation token,
      double commit, expiry, a cycle spread across separately signed receipts,
      repeated ancestors, leaf-as-ancestor, missing or truncated lineage,
      reordered or substituted parent links, parent-receipt and
      delegation-operation substitution, a single-hop child exceeding the
      authenticated delegated amount, unit or scale changes, scope or validity
      widening at every hop, over-depth chains, parent over-allocation, crash
      recovery, and indeterminate-effect charging.</t>
      <t>The parent-over-allocation case <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include at least
      three sibling child-creation attempts whose individually valid amounts
      collectively exceed the parent's available balance, with concurrent
      reservation ordering chosen by the implementation. At most a
      balance-preserving subset may commit. The case <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> also
      cover one operation identifier presented for two different child receipt
      digests and an orphaned child-registration failure after parent
      commitment. The former refuses as operation replay; the latter leaves
      the committed parent amount consumed pending reconciliation.</t>
      <t>A wire-format implementation that does not implement one shared
      atomic store is a receipt verifier, not a conforming spend-control
      implementation. A store implementation that accepts a capability without
      pinned issuer verification, issuance authorization, and scope matching
      is not conforming.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="relationship">
      <name>Relationship to Other Work</name>
      <t>Rich Authorization Requests <xref target="RFC9396"/> carries
      fine-grained authorization details but deliberately leaves comparison
      semantics for arbitrary detail types to their specifications. This
      document defines an executor-side durable spend state machine and
      requires a named closed scope profile.</t>
      <t>OAuth Transaction Tokens <xref target="TXN-TOKENS"/> propagate
      transaction-specific authorization context through a call chain.
      Bounded Capability Receipts instead address an aggregate budget shared
      across multiple operations and the reserve/commit boundary at the
      executor. A deployment can use both.</t>
      <t>The Delegation Receipt Protocol <xref target="DRP"/> records
      delegation and narrowing. This document requires narrowing for child
      capabilities and additionally accounts delegated budget as a terminal
      parent spend.</t>
      <t>OAuth Attenuating Tokens for Agentic AI
      <xref target="ATTENUATING"/> describes constrained, attenuable agent
      tokens. This document's distinct contribution is not the existence of
      constrained tokens; it is the composition of a signed grant with shared
      reservation ownership, committed budget accounting, and conservative
      treatment of indeterminate external effects.</t>
      <t>The Agent Identity Protocol <xref target="AIP"/> defines per-token
      budget ceilings and explicitly assigns cumulative spending enforcement
      to the orchestration runtime. A bounded capability budget is instead a
      balance-valued authority in one authoritative store: reservation and
      consumption reduce the amount available to every sibling allocation in
      that domain.</t>
      <t>PEDIGREE <xref target="PEDIGREE"/> defines cryptographic delegation,
      mandate narrowing, and an operator-controlled ceiling. This document
      preserves that identity and policy role and addresses the adjacent
      runtime question of how one parent balance funds multiple children
      without multiplying aggregate authority.</t>
      <t>The Credential Broker for Agents <xref target="CB4A"/> defines proxy
      and short-lived-token delivery patterns that keep long-lived provider
      credentials away from agents. A deployment can use such a broker as the
      credential-owning effect adapter after this protocol grants one valid
      reservation; this document does not duplicate credential brokering.</t>
      <t>Condition-Bounded Credentials <xref target="CBC"/> binds workload-key
      use to live, verifier-appraised conditions. That property composes with
      holder proof and provider entry, especially for stable attestable
      workloads. It does not replace aggregate balance accounting, and this
      document does not extend its hardware assumptions to hardware-less or
      cross-domain swarms.</t>
      <t>The affine Token Budgets work <xref target="TOKEN-BUDGETS"/> studies
      LLM cost overruns and uses Rust ownership to prevent cloning and
      use-after-delegation in one process. It is adjacent prior art. This
      document instead binds human- or policy-authorized consequential
      authority, exact exercise actions, durable provider-entry reservations,
      and conservative post-entry uncertainty across a transactional runtime.
      It does not claim that balance-valued budgets or affine ownership were
      invented here.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="security">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t><strong>Identifier substitution.</strong> Capability signatures bind
      the full issuance authorization digest, not only an identifier. Scope,
      budget units, parent, holder commitment, and validity are all inside the
      issuer signature.</t>
      <t><strong>State forks.</strong> Two stores accepting the same
      capability lineage can each spend or delegate its full budget. Global
      offline or cross-domain double-spend prevention is therefore not
      provided. Deployments that cannot name one authoritative atomic state
      domain for a capability and every authority-bearing ancestor and
      descendant <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> claim aggregate sibling conservation
      or an enforced aggregate budget.</t>
      <t><strong>Crash ambiguity.</strong> Restoring budget after a timeout can
      authorize duplicate external effects. Once the effect boundary may have
      been crossed, uncertainty is charged as <tt>indeterminate</tt>.</t>
      <t><strong>Bearer and share theft.</strong> A raw holder secret or enough
      unauthenticated shares can authorize possession. Secret shares require
      confidential distribution, authenticated participants, compromise
      response, and rate limiting. Threshold custody is not human quorum.</t>
      <t><strong>Revocation.</strong> Expiry and exhausted budget are not
      revocation. A deployment that requires early invalidation
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> consult a separately authenticated revocation or
      status source before reservation and define its freshness policy.</t>
      <t><strong>Units and arithmetic.</strong> All accounting uses integers
      with signed unit and scale. Floating-point arithmetic, implicit currency
      conversion, and caller-selected rounding <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> occur
      in the authoritative budget path.</t>
      <t><strong>Database authority.</strong> The capability tables contain
      authorization state. Deployments <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> restrict writes to
      the enforcement service, use least-privilege credentials, protect
      backups, and audit administrative changes.</t>
      <t><strong>Delegation lineage.</strong> Local uniqueness checks over one
      presented receipt do not establish graph-wide acyclicity or complete
      ancestry. Separately presented receipts can omit links, substitute a
      parent operation, or form a cycle unless each parent edge is
      authenticated and resolved by digest, or an authoritative store
      enforces equivalent edge constraints. Implementations
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> fail closed on incomplete, cyclic, substituted, or
      non-narrowing lineage. Verifiers apply the complete traversal and
      refusal rules in <xref target="delegation"/> to imported chains and
      chains reconstructed from storage.</t>
      <t><strong>Semantic limits.</strong> A valid capability does not prove
      that an action is safe, lawful, beneficial, or correctly executed.
      Local policy and domain controls remain necessary.</t>
      <t><strong>Cryptographic scope.</strong> This version uses SHA-256 and
      Ed25519. It does not provide a post-quantum signature profile or a
      zero-knowledge receipt. Algorithm agility and long-term preservation are
      separate concerns.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="privacy">
      <name>Privacy Considerations</name>
      <t>Capability receipts and operation records can reveal spending limits,
      organizational roles, intended action classes, counterparties, and
      timing. Profiles <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> minimize identifiers, separate
      portable evidence from operational secrets, and define retention and
      access controls. Hashing a low-entropy scope or identifier does not make
      it confidential.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="implementation">
      <name>Implementation Status</name>
      <t>The Apache-2.0 TypeScript reference implementation includes a
      signed pre-standard capability envelope, holder-secret commitment,
      optional threshold secret reconstruction, and a durable PostgreSQL
      reservation and commitment store. Its issuer-controlled delegation API,
      when used with one shared capability store, reserves and commits a child
      amount from the immediate parent before registering the child.
      The store has adversarial tests for overspend, replay, ownership fencing,
      expiry, terminal commitment, concurrent N-sibling aggregate
      over-allocation, one operation identifier paired with different child
      digests, orphaned registration after parent commitment, and an explicit
      two-store state-fork counterexample. These are same-team implementation
      and regression results, not independent implementation or production
      deployment evidence.</t>
      <t>The prototype wire format predates this document and does not yet
      implement all mandatory fields in this version, including full issuance
      authorization digest binding, an explicit action-scope profile, and
      explicit budget unit scale, digest-linked parent lineage, authenticated
      parent-delegation binding, <tt>not_before</tt>, and complete ingest-time
      cycle validation. It is therefore implementation experience, not a claim
      of conformance. There is no independent implementation, interoperability
      event, production transaction history, post-quantum profile, or
      zero-knowledge implementation.</t>
      <t>The reference implementation does reject repeated delegation identifiers,
      repeated parent capability identifiers, a leaf named as its own parent,
      and increasing amounts within the delegation chain presented at mint or
      verification time. Those checks provide local simple-path and monotonic
      amount enforcement. They do not discover omitted parents or establish the
      digest-linked, graph-wide lineage required by <xref target="delegation"/>,
      so they do not close the remaining conformance gap.</t>
      <t>The public repository also contains a CI-gated TLA+ model of
      capability registration, reservation, commitment, revocation,
      delegation, replay refusal, parent-funded child registration, and
      aggregate sibling conservation. The checked configuration contains one
      root, three possible children, three delegation operation identifiers,
      bounded amounts, bounded depth, and a bounded clock. Exact state and
      obligation counts are emitted by the governed proof-status artifact.
      This is bounded evidence about the model, not a refinement proof of the
      TypeScript, SQL, transaction adapter, cryptography, lineage verification,
      or complete protocol defined here. A separate repository witness module
      contains five reachability checks but is not executed by the CI workflow
      and is not represented as proving every assertion non-vacuous. The model
      obtains delegation acyclicity through its construction rules; arbitrary
      implementation inputs still require the explicit runtime traversal and
      refusal rules in <xref target="delegation"/>.</t>
      <t>The main branch also runs a fixed-seed adversarial harness in
      per-push CI over the actual JavaScript in-memory capability and
      consumption stores. It includes a true-concurrency
      <tt>Promise.all</tt> race target and a deliberately non-atomic
      comparison store that demonstrates the race detector can expose
      over-commitment. Additional targets exercise accounting and ownership
      invariants at whole-method boundaries. This is regression evidence for
      those in-process stores, not complete protocol conformance: it does not
      fuzz the PostgreSQL capability transaction path, the atomic handshake
      RPC, replica or connection failures, and no deeper nightly sweep is
      scheduled.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="changes-since-00">
      <name>Changes Since -00</name>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>Extended the mandatory atomic state domain from participants
        authorizing one identifier to the full authority-bearing capability
        lineage.</li>
        <li>Made parent reservation and exactly-once commitment before child
        registration explicitly normative.</li>
        <li>Stated aggregate direct-sibling conservation and injective
        operation-to-child binding in one place.</li>
        <li>Defined the concurrent N-sibling, replay-with-different-child,
        orphaned-registration, and cross-domain state-fork cases.</li>
        <li>Added precise relationships to AIP, PEDIGREE, CB4A,
        Condition-Bounded Credentials, and affine token-budget work without
        changing the receipt wire format or failure-code vocabulary.</li>
      </ul>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document has no IANA actions. A future revision may request a
      media type and registries for receipt versions, scope profiles, holder
      methods, and failure codes after implementation experience stabilizes
      the protocol.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="BCP14" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14">
          <front>
            <title>Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author><organization>Internet Engineering Task Force</organization></author>
            <date year="2017"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        </reference>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3339.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8032.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8785.xml"/>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9396.xml"/>
        <reference anchor="EP-QUORUM" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schrock-ep-quorum/">
          <front>
            <title>Multi-Party Authorization (Quorum) for the EMILIA Protocol</title>
            <author fullname="Iman Schrock"/>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="TXN-TOKENS" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens/">
          <front>
            <title>Transaction Tokens</title>
            <author fullname="George Fletcher"/>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="DRP" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nelson-agent-delegation-receipts/">
          <front>
            <title>Delegation Receipt Protocol</title>
            <author fullname="Andrew Nelson"/>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="ATTENUATING" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-niyikiza-oauth-attenuating-agent-tokens/">
          <front>
            <title>OAuth Attenuating Tokens for Agentic AI</title>
            <author fullname="Eric Niyikiza"/>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="AIP" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-prakash-aip/">
          <front>
            <title>Agent Identity Protocol (AIP): Verifiable Delegation for AI Agent Systems</title>
            <author fullname="Sunil Prakash"/>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="PEDIGREE" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rampalli-pedigree/">
          <front>
            <title>PEDIGREE: Verifiable Delegation Identity for Agentic AI Systems</title>
            <author fullname="Karthik Rampalli"/>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="CB4A" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hartman-credential-broker-4-agents/">
          <front>
            <title>Credential Broker for Agents (CB4A)</title>
            <author fullname="Kenneth G. Hartman"/>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="CBC" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-winmagic-wimse-condition-bounded-credentials/">
          <front>
            <title>Condition-Bounded Credentials for Workload and Agent Identity: Non-Exfiltratable Keys and Validity by Presence</title>
            <author fullname="Thi Nguyen Huu"/>
            <author fullname="Sergei Nikitin"/>
            <author fullname="John O'Leary"/>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="TOKEN-BUDGETS" target="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.04056">
          <front>
            <title>Token Budgets: An Empirical Catalog of 63 LLM-Agent Budget-Overrun Incidents, with an Affine-Typed Rust Mitigation as a Case Study</title>
            <author fullname="Sajjad Khan"/>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="arXiv" value="2606.04056"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
