| Internet-Draft | software-status-wellknown | April 2026 |
| McConnell | Expires 24 October 2026 | [Page] |
This document defines a Well-Known URI [RFC8615] at which software
vendors and open-source maintainers may publish machine-readable lifecycle
status information for their products. A JSON resource retrieved from
/.well-known/software-status.json allows consumers — including security
tools, software composition analysis (SCA) platforms, vulnerability scanners,
and system administrators — to programmatically determine whether a specific
version of a software product is actively supported, in long-term support
(LTS), under security-only maintenance, or at end-of-life (EOL).¶
This document also describes, in Appendix A, a companion convention for
open-source projects hosted on version-control platforms to publish equivalent
information within the repository at .github/software-status.json.¶
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 24 October 2026.¶
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.¶
Software products have defined lifecycles. Vendors release versions, provide security patches and bug fixes for a period, and eventually discontinue support. When support ends, no further patches are issued — including patches for newly discovered security vulnerabilities. End-of-life (EOL) software represents a significant and persistent risk in organizational environments, as it may remain deployed indefinitely after its support window closes.¶
Determining whether a specific version of software is currently supported requires manual research: locating the vendor's lifecycle policy page, interpreting its contents, and correlating the installed version against published support dates. This process is not standardized, not machine- readable, and not reliable at scale. Many vendors do not publish structured lifecycle data at all. Security tools that attempt to automate EOL detection must resort to web scraping, curated third-party databases, or inference — all of which introduce latency, inaccuracy, and maintenance burden.¶
This document proposes a simple, low-overhead mechanism for software vendors and maintainers to publish authoritative lifecycle data in a machine-readable format at a predictable location, using the Well-Known URI mechanism defined in [RFC8615].¶
The design goals are:¶
Authoritative: lifecycle data is published directly by the party that controls the software's support policy — the vendor or maintainer.¶
Machine-readable: a single, well-defined JSON format that any consuming tool can parse without scraping or inference.¶
Low barrier: adding a static JSON file to an existing web presence requires minimal effort and no new infrastructure.¶
Incrementally deployable: absence of the resource (HTTP 404) is a well-defined signal. Tools can fall back to existing methods when the resource is not present.¶
Composable: the same schema is used for both the Well-Known URI (Appendix A describes the version-control companion) so tools that understand one format understand both.¶
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 terms are used in this document:¶
Software product: A discrete, identifiable unit of software that has a defined vendor or maintainer and a versioned release history.¶
Version series: A major or minor version designation under which multiple patch releases may be issued (e.g., "3.2" covering 3.2.0, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, etc.).¶
End-of-life (EOL): A state in which a vendor or maintainer has permanently ceased issuing any updates, including security patches, for a given version series.¶
Long-Term Support (LTS): A designated version series for which the vendor or maintainer commits to an extended support window, typically longer than the standard release lifecycle.¶
Consuming tool: Any software system that retrieves and processes a
software-status.json resource, including security scanners, SCA tools,
package managers, and monitoring systems.¶
A software vendor or maintainer that wishes to publish lifecycle status
information for software associated with a domain SHOULD publish a
software-status.json resource at the Well-Known URI:¶
https://example.com/.well-known/software-status.json¶
The resource MUST be served over HTTPS. HTTP retrieval MAY be supported for compatibility but consuming tools SHOULD prefer HTTPS and SHOULD warn or fail if only HTTP is available.¶
The resource MUST be served with a Content-Type of application/json.¶
If no lifecycle information is available or the vendor has not adopted this convention, the server SHOULD return HTTP 404. Consuming tools MUST treat a 404 response as "no declaration available" and fall back to other methods. Consuming tools MUST NOT treat a 404 as evidence that the software is end-of-life.¶
The resource SHOULD include standard HTTP caching headers. A max-age of
604800 (seven days) is RECOMMENDED for resources that are infrequently
updated. Consuming tools SHOULD respect Cache-Control and Expires
headers.¶
In the absence of explicit caching headers, consuming tools SHOULD cache a successfully retrieved resource for no fewer than 24 hours and no more than 30 days.¶
The software-status.json resource is a JSON object ([RFC8259]) with
the following structure.¶
The root object MUST contain the following fields:¶
schema_version (string, REQUIRED):"1.0".
Consuming tools that encounter an unrecognized schema version SHOULD
process fields they recognize and ignore fields they do not.¶
name (string, REQUIRED):vendor (string, REQUIRED):versions (array, REQUIRED):The root object MAY contain the following fields:¶
specification (string):"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcconnell-software-status-wellknown/").
This field is self-documenting: it allows a human or tool encountering
an unfamiliar software-status.json resource to locate the governing
specification without prior knowledge.¶
homepage (string):source (string):package_identifiers (object):release_cycle_url (string):last_updated (string):"2026-04-14"). Consuming tools MAY use this field to
decide whether to re-fetch the resource regardless of caching policy.¶
Each object in the versions array represents one version series and MUST
contain the following fields:¶
version (string, REQUIRED):"3.2"), a major version with wildcard ("2.x"), a named track
("LTS 22.04"), or any string that meaningfully identifies the series
to the vendor's users.¶
status (string, REQUIRED):Each version entry MAY contain the following fields:¶
release_date (string):support_ends (string or null):null indicates no currently planned end date.
SHOULD be present for all version series where a planned end date is
known.¶
eol_date (string):support_ends records a future one.
SHOULD be present when status is "eol" and the date is known.¶
lts (boolean):true if this version series is designated as Long-Term Support.
Defaults to false if absent.¶
notes (string):The status field MUST be one of the following values:¶
"active":"lts":"security-only":"eol":"unmaintained":Additional status values MAY be defined in future revisions of this
document. Consuming tools that encounter an unrecognized status value
SHOULD treat it as equivalent to "unknown" and note the unrecognized
value in any user-facing output.¶
The optional package_identifiers object maps package ecosystem names
to the string identifier used in that ecosystem. Known ecosystem names
include, but are not limited to:¶
| Key | Ecosystem | Example value |
|---|---|---|
pypi
|
Python Package Index |
"requests"
|
npm
|
npm registry |
"express"
|
rubygems
|
RubyGems |
"rails"
|
cargo
|
crates.io |
"tokio"
|
nuget
|
NuGet |
"Newtonsoft.Json"
|
maven
|
Maven Central |
"org.apache:commons"
|
apt
|
Debian/Ubuntu APT |
"openssl"
|
brew
|
Homebrew |
"openssl"
|
docker
|
Docker Hub |
"library/nginx"
|
github
|
GitHub repository |
"owner/repo"
|
A value of null for a given key indicates the software is not
distributed through that ecosystem.¶
To retrieve lifecycle status for software associated with a known domain, a consuming tool SHOULD:¶
https://{domain}/.well-known/software-status.json¶
Accept: application/json header¶
When matching an installed version against the versions array, consuming
tools SHOULD use the following logic:¶
version field¶
3.2.7 matches a version series of 3.2¶
3.2.7 matches
3.x¶
When multiple entries match, consuming tools SHOULD prefer the most specific match (exact > prefix > major-version).¶
When a consuming tool has lifecycle data for a product from multiple
sources (e.g., a third-party database and a software-status.json
resource), data retrieved from software-status.json SHOULD be treated
as authoritative and given precedence, as it represents a declaration
by the party responsible for the software's support policy.¶
The software-status.json resource is served over HTTPS and inherits
the authenticity guarantees of the TLS connection. A consuming tool
that retrieves the resource over HTTPS from the vendor's canonical domain
can be reasonably confident that the content reflects the vendor's intent.¶
Consuming tools MUST NOT retrieve this resource over plain HTTP and treat it as authoritative. Consuming tools SHOULD validate that the hostname of the retrieval URI matches the domain associated with the software in question.¶
A consuming tool that retrieves software-status.json resources at scale
SHOULD implement rate limiting, caching, and exponential backoff to avoid
placing undue load on vendor infrastructure.¶
This mechanism relies on vendors publishing accurate information. A vendor
could theoretically publish a software-status.json that misrepresents
the support status of a product — for example, declaring an EOL product
as "active" to discourage users from migrating. Consuming tools SHOULD
note the source of lifecycle determinations in user-facing output so that
users can evaluate the claim in context.¶
Consuming tools that maintain independent lifecycle databases MAY flag
discrepancies between their own records and a vendor-published
software-status.json for human review.¶
Retrieving software-status.json from a vendor's domain may reveal to
that vendor that a consuming tool is checking lifecycle status, potentially
disclosing information about what software is deployed in an organization.
Consuming tools operating in sensitive environments SHOULD consider
whether direct retrieval is appropriate or whether a privacy-preserving
intermediary (such as a shared cache or mirroring service) should be used.¶
IANA is requested to register the following Well-Known URI in the "Well-Known URIs" registry established by [RFC8615]:¶
{
"schema_version": "1.0",
"specification": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcconnell-software-status-wellknown/",
"name": "ExampleDB",
"vendor": "Example Software Inc.",
"versions": [
{
"version": "5.0",
"status": "active",
"support_ends": null
}
]
}
¶
{
"schema_version": "1.0",
"name": "ExampleDB",
"vendor": "Example Software Inc.",
"homepage": "https://example.com/db",
"package_identifiers": {
"apt": "exampledb-server",
"docker": "exampleinc/exampledb"
},
"versions": [
{
"version": "5.0",
"release_date": "2025-03-01",
"status": "active",
"support_ends": null,
"lts": false
},
{
"version": "4.2",
"release_date": "2023-06-15",
"status": "lts",
"support_ends": "2027-06-15",
"lts": true,
"notes": "LTS release — security and critical bug fixes through June 2027"
},
{
"version": "4.0",
"release_date": "2022-01-10",
"status": "security-only",
"support_ends": "2026-01-10",
"lts": false
},
{
"version": "3.x",
"release_date": "2019-04-01",
"status": "eol",
"eol_date": "2024-04-01",
"support_ends": "2024-04-01",
"lts": false
}
],
"release_cycle_url": "https://example.com/support-policy",
"last_updated": "2026-04-14"
}
¶
This appendix describes a companion convention for software projects hosted on version-control platforms (such as GitHub, GitLab, or Gitea). This convention is informative and does not define a standards-track mechanism; it is documented here because it uses the same schema as the Well-Known URI defined in this document and is intended to be consumed by the same tools.¶
Many software projects are distributed as source code and do not have a corresponding web domain from which a Well-Known URI could be served. Open-source libraries, developer tools, and components published to package registries often have a repository URL as their primary identity, not a product domain.¶
For these projects, a file committed to a predictable location within the repository serves the same purpose as the Well-Known URI.¶
The resource SHOULD be placed at:¶
{repository-root}/.github/software-status.json
¶
The .github/ directory is an established convention on major version-
control platforms for repository-level metadata. This location is
intentionally analogous to .github/SECURITY.md, .github/FUNDING.yml,
and similar files.¶
Consuming tools that resolve a software package to a GitHub-hosted repository SHOULD check for the presence of this file at the raw content URL:¶
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/{owner}/{repo}/HEAD/.github/software-status.json
¶
A 404 response MUST be treated as "no declaration available". A 200 response with valid JSON MUST be processed according to the schema defined in Section 4.¶
The .github/software-status.json resource uses the same JSON schema
as defined in Section 4, with one addition:
the source field at the root object SHOULD be set to the canonical
repository URI.¶
When a project has both a Well-Known URI resource and a repository-hosted resource, consuming tools SHOULD prefer the Well-Known URI, as it is served from infrastructure explicitly controlled by the vendor and subject to the HTTPS authenticity guarantees described in Section 6.¶
{
"schema_version": "1.0",
"name": "example-lib",
"vendor": "Example Org",
"source": "https://github.com/example/example-lib",
"package_identifiers": {
"pypi": "example-lib",
"npm": null
},
"versions": [
{
"version": "2.0",
"release_date": "2025-01-01",
"status": "active",
"support_ends": null
},
{
"version": "1.x",
"release_date": "2022-06-01",
"status": "eol",
"eol_date": "2025-06-01"
}
],
"last_updated": "2026-04-14"
}
¶
The author thanks the maintainers of endoflife.date for their sustained effort in curating software lifecycle data, which demonstrated both the value of this information and the limitations of a purely centralized approach. The design of this proposal was informed by operational experience building S3C-Tool (https://askmcconnell.com/s3c/), a software supply chain security tool that performs EOL assessment at scale.¶