OAuth 2.1 Government Content Access Control

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 19 June 2026.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2025 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.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Governments increasingly require online services to restrict access to certain categories of content based on the age or legal status of users. Existing approaches frequently rely on disclosure of personal data, third-party identity providers, or proprietary mechanisms that enable tracking across services.¶

This document specifies *OAuth 2.1 Government Content Access Control (GCAC)*, an OAuth 2.1 profile in which a government-operated authorization server evaluates user eligibility for regulated content categories and issues privacy-preserving attestations to relying parties. GCAC is designed to answer narrowly scoped regulatory questions (e.g., whether a user may access a category of content) while minimizing data disclosure and preventing correlation across services.¶

GCAC is not an identity system and MUST NOT be used for authentication, user login, or personalization.¶

2. Conventions and Definitions

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.¶

The following additional terms are used: - *Government Content Control Authority (GCCA)*: - A government-operated OAuth Authorization Server responsible for identity verification, age evaluation, and policy enforcement. - *Relying Party (RP)*: - An OAuth client requesting eligibility decisions for regulated content. - *Scope*: - A government-defined content access category (e.g., pornography, social_media, gambling, alcohol, firearms, vpn, proxy). - *Person Key*: - A government-internal, pseudonymous identifier derived from a national identity record and never exposed outside the GCCA. - *Site Token*: - An RP-scoped, non-reversible token representing a government eligibility attestation.¶

3. Goals and Non-Goals

4. Architecture Overview

GCCA uses the OAuth 2.1 Authorization Code flow with mandatory security extensions and additional semantic constraints.¶

User → Relying Party → Government Content Control Authority ↑ ↓ └────
OAuth 2.1 ───────┘

The GCCA operates as a constrained OAuth Authorization Server, and the RP operates as a confidential OAuth client.¶

5. Scope Model

6. Client Registration

Relying parties MUST register with the GCCA prior to using GCAC.¶

During registration, the RP MUST provide: - Legal entity identification - Intended use and justification for requested scopes - One or more redirect URIs - A client authentication method (mutual TLS or private_key_jwt)¶

The GCCA MAY restrict which scopes an RP is authorized to request.¶

7. Protocol Flow

json { "site_token": "opaque_string", "scope_results": {
"pornography": true, "social_media": false }, "expires_at":
"timestamp" }

8. Token Derivation

The GCCA MUST derive an internal person key as follows:¶

person_key = HMAC(master_secret_key, national_person_id)

The site token MUST be derived deterministically:

site_token = HMAC(person_key, client_id)

The person key and national identifiers MUST NOT be exposed outside the GCCA.¶

9. Re-Verification

Relying parties MUST provide a user-accessible mechanism to re- initiate the GCAC flow. Re-verification MUST follow the same protocol as the initial authorization.¶

10. Security Considerations

GCAC relies on OAuth 2.1 security best practices, including authorization code flow, PKCE, redirect URI allowlists, and strong client authentication. Leaked client identifiers alone do not enable token issuance. Tokens are RP-scoped and non-transferable, preventing cross-service correlation and replay attacks.¶

11. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.¶

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge ongoing discussions within the OAuth and digital privacy communities that informed the design principles of this specification.¶

Author's Address