Skip to content

Evidence for AI operations

No English page yet. Showing the Japanese source.

Back to the entrance

OAuth/OIDC × Agent

用語・参照用語・参照公式仕様のみ公式仕様のみ鮮度未確認鮮度を確定できない

記事状態: 公開 · 最終確認: 未確認

要点

「OAuth 2.0は限定的なHTTPリソースアクセスの委任、OIDCはOAuth上でEnd-Userの認証結果とclaimsを扱うidentity layerである。Agent運用では、human/workload/service identity、resource/audience、scope、delegation chain、tool action、approvalを別々に結び付ける必要があり、OAuth/OIDCの成功だけではagentの権限・意図・安全な実行を証明しない。」

現在の判断

  • ESTABLISHED [S1 support]: OAuth 2.0 is an authorization framework in which a third-party application can obtain limited access to an HTTP service. It is about access delegation, not a complete statement that the caller is a human, agent, or trusted workload.
  • ESTABLISHED [S2 support]: OIDC Core is an identity layer on OAuth 2.0. It enables a client to verify the End-User identity based on authorization-server authentication and obtain claims; the introduction explicitly notes that OAuth 2.0 alone does not define standard end-user identity information.
  • ESTABLISHED [S3+S4 support]: RFC 9700 describes binding authorization codes to the client/device context and identifies PKCE as a countermeasure; RFC 7636 defines the authorization-code interception threat and PKCE technique. RFC 9700 also requires risk-based refresh-token decisions and scope/resource binding when refresh tokens are issued.
  • INFERENCE [S1-S4]: Applying these standards to an agent architecture requires an explicit mapping between human identity, workload/service identity, delegated authority, resource/audience, scopes, agent run, and tool action. The base sources do not, by themselves, define an agent's intent, autonomy, chain of delegation, or business approval semantics.

どこまで当てはまるか

identity / governance / security / interoperability / Enterprise AI Core / provider mapping

詳しく理解する

なぜ重要か

Agent systems mix human login, delegated user access, workload identity, and service-to-service calls. Future updates must not call authentication, authorization, identity claims, and delegated agent authority the same thing.

対象範囲と前提

identity / governance / security / interoperability / Enterprise AI Core / provider mapping

検討ポイント

What do OAuth 2.0, OIDC Core, RFC 9700, and PKCE establish for access and end-user identity, and what agent-specific identity/delegation questions remain open?

EVIDENCE TABLE

[S1] SOURCE_CLASS: standards_track_rfc | EXACT_TITLE: RFC 6749 - The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor; Dick Hardt (editor) | CANONICAL_URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749.html | PUBLICATION_UPDATE_ACCESS: October 2012; accessed 2026-09-14 00:10 JST | VERSION_RELEASE_TAG: RFC 6749 | SUPPORTING_LOCATOR: abstract and authorization framework sections describing a third-party application obtaining limited access to an HTTP service | EVIDENCE_LABEL: VERIFIED_SPEC | RELATION: support for OAuth authorization framework; limit because OAuth does not itself provide an end-user identity profile. [S2] SOURCE_CLASS: identity_standard | EXACT_TITLE: OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating errata set 2 | AUTHOR_ORG: OpenID Foundation | CANONICAL_URL: https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html | PUBLICATION_UPDATE_ACCESS: current errata-set-2 page; accessed 2026-09-14 00:10 JST | VERSION_RELEASE_TAG: OpenID Connect Core 1.0 errata set 2 | SUPPORTING_LOCATOR: abstract lines 16-18; introduction lines 212-217; claims section lines 1548-1566 in the recorded web capture | EVIDENCE_LABEL: VERIFIED_SPEC | RELATION: support for identity layer, authentication, and claims; limit for the distinction from access authorization. [S3] SOURCE_CLASS: best_current_practice_rfc | EXACT_TITLE: RFC 9700 - Best Current Practice for OAuth 2.0 Security | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor | CANONICAL_URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9700.html | PUBLICATION_UPDATE_ACCESS: 2025-01; accessed 2026-09-14 00:10 JST | VERSION_RELEASE_TAG: RFC 9700 | SUPPORTING_LOCATOR: authorization-code binding and PKCE lines 576-586; refresh-token protection lines 774-790 | EVIDENCE_LABEL: VERIFIED_SPEC | RELATION: support for current security recommendations; limit because BCP recommendations require deployment enforcement. [S4] SOURCE_CLASS: standards_track_rfc | EXACT_TITLE: RFC 7636 - Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor; Nat Sakimura et al. | CANONICAL_URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7636.html | PUBLICATION_UPDATE_ACCESS: September 2015; accessed 2026-09-14 00:10 JST | VERSION_RELEASE_TAG: RFC 7636 | SUPPORTING_LOCATOR: abstract lines 9-17 and introduction lines 108-113 describing authorization-code interception and PKCE mitigation | EVIDENCE_LABEL: VERIFIED_SPEC | RELATION: support for PKCE threat/countermeasure; limit because PKCE does not solve all token/delegation problems.

利用できる条件

issuer/discovery and TLS; client registration/type; authorization-code flow; PKCE enforcement; redirect URI; state/nonce; token issuer/audience/resource; scopes and consent; access/refresh lifetime and rotation/revocation; OIDC claims and verification; workload/service identity; token exchange/delegation profile; tenant/admin policy; region/plan; secret/key storage; audit and attribution.

実装・運用

Evidence-only desk research. No authorization request, token exchange, login, service-account operation, or authenticated tenant action was performed.

確認・評価方法

No identity-provider interoperability, PKCE negative test, token replay, scope/audience, delegation-chain, revocation, or audit-attribution benchmark was run.

セキュリティとプライバシー

Verify issuer, signature, nonce/state, PKCE, audience/resource, scope, expiry, revocation/rotation, and tenant binding before tool execution. Never place tokens in prompts or ordinary logs. Audit should link subject/client/workload/agent-run/delegation-chain/tool-action/approval; base RFCs do not guarantee that linkage. Cost/operability includes authorization round trips, token refresh, introspection/revocation, key rotation, policy evaluation, and human approval; not measured.

PRIMARY SOURCE RECORD

MCP dated specification and release boundary; A2A latest plus v0.3.0 fixed specification and author repository; AG-UI official docs/events draft and repository; OpenAPI 3.1.0 and OpenAI function-calling docs; CloudEvents v1.0.2 core/binding; OAuth RFC 6749, OIDC Core 1.0 errata set 2, RFC 9700, and RFC 7636. Canonical URLs and locators are recorded per packet.

CLAIM SEPARATION

Six EA_IDs each have independent exact topic, evidence table, findings, limits/counterevidence/failure envelope, gates, implementation state, benchmark boundary, security/cost/operability notes, safe wording, handoff, unknowns, and stop condition. Shared sources are not treated as shared claims.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Official specifications establish the documented contract at the recorded version/access boundary. They do not prove a particular plan, region, tenant, implementation, conformance, quality, security posture, business outcome, or SLO. LIVE_SIDE_EFFECTS: 0

確認できていること

  • ESTABLISHED [S1 support]: OAuth 2.0 is an authorization framework in which a third-party application can obtain limited access to an HTTP service. It is about access delegation, not a complete statement that the caller is a human, agent, or trusted workload.

  • ESTABLISHED [S2 support]: OIDC Core is an identity layer on OAuth 2.0. It enables a client to verify the End-User identity based on authorization-server authentication and obtain claims; the introduction explicitly notes that OAuth 2.0 alone does not define standard end-user identity information.

  • ESTABLISHED [S3+S4 support]: RFC 9700 describes binding authorization codes to the client/device context and identifies PKCE as a countermeasure; RFC 7636 defines the authorization-code interception threat and PKCE technique. RFC 9700 also requires risk-based refresh-token decisions and scope/resource binding when refresh tokens are issued.

  • INFERENCE [S1-S4]: Applying these standards to an agent architecture requires an explicit mapping between human identity, workload/service identity, delegated authority, resource/audience, scopes, agent run, and tool action. The base sources do not, by themselves, define an agent's intent, autonomy, chain of delegation, or business approval semantics.

よくある失敗・反証

  • OAuth/OIDC success does not prove least privilege, user intent, agent identity, tool authorization, correct audience, tenant isolation, or safe downstream action. Bearer/refresh-token leakage, confused deputy, over-broad scope, issuer mix-up, redirect/PKCE errors, stale claims, replay, token exchange, and service-account misuse remain deployment risks. RFC 9700 is a BCP, not an automatically enforced control. No provider or tenant implementation was tested.

  • Do not treat OAuth as identity, OIDC as authorization, a valid token as proof of user intent, or a successful login as proof of agent/tool authority. Do not claim RFC 9700/PKCE enforcement without testing the actual authorization server configuration. UNIT_CLOSE_STATUS: INDIVIDUAL_BOUNDED_CLOSE / EVIDENCE_RECORDED / UNKNOWN_PRESERVED

    ===== RUN CLOSE / HANDOFF ===== INDIVIDUAL_PACKET_COUNT: 6/6 (EA-157..EA-162)

実務での使い方

  • issuer/discovery and TLS; client registration/type; authorization-code flow; PKCE enforcement; redirect URI; state/nonce; token issuer/audience/resource; scopes and consent; access/refresh lifetime and rotation/revocation; OIDC claims and verification; workload/service identity; token exchange/delegation profile; tenant/admin policy; region/plan; secret/key storage; audit and attribution.

  • Evidence-only desk research. No authorization request, token exchange, login, service-account operation, or authenticated tenant action was performed.

  • No identity-provider interoperability, PKCE negative test, token replay, scope/audience, delegation-chain, revocation, or audit-attribution benchmark was run.

  • Verify issuer, signature, nonce/state, PKCE, audience/resource, scope, expiry, revocation/rotation, and tenant binding before tool execution. Never place tokens in prompts or ordinary logs. Audit should link subject/client/workload/agent-run/delegation-chain/tool-action/approval; base RFCs do not guarantee that linkage. Cost/operability includes authorization round trips, token refresh, introspection/revocation, key rotation, policy evaluation, and human approval; not measured.

  • Future update Work should pin RFC/OIDC references and build a provider-neutral identity TEST_PROFILE: authorization-code+PKCE, state/nonce, audience/resource restriction, least-privilege scopes, token expiry/rotation/revocation, delegated human-to-agent-to-tool attribution, confused-deputy negative case, service identity, tenant offboarding, and audit readback. Add provider-specific availability only after current docs and non-authenticated documentation are re-checked.

  • Six EA_IDs each have independent exact topic, evidence table, findings, limits/counterevidence/failure envelope, gates, implementation state, benchmark boundary, security/cost/operability notes, safe wording, handoff, unknowns, and stop condition. Shared sources are not treated as shared claims.

まだ確認できていないこと

  • EA-162-UNKNOWN-01

    agent identity/delegation standard; token-exchange and resource-indicator profile for agents; non-human identity semantics; provider/tenant scope mapping; card/run/tool attribution; dynamic registration; sender-constrained tokens; revocation propagation; incident rates; audit/cost/SLO.

  • EA-162-UNKNOWN-CURRENTNESS

    外部根拠の再確認日がcanonical body/control-planeで確定していないため、currentnessはUNKNOWNとして保持する。日付を推測補完しない。

根拠資料

出典ID・検証情報・機械可読データ

根拠の種類と情報の鮮度は、ラベルとアイコンで確認できます。

記事ID
EA-162
最終確認日
—
提供元・モデル・プラン・利用環境
—
対象地域
—
元資料の全文と収録照合記録
WHY_THIS_MATTERS_TO_UPDATE

Agent systems mix human login, delegated user access, workload identity, and service-to-service calls. Future updates must not call authentication, authorization, identity claims, and delegated agent authority the same thing.

SCOPE_ROUTING

identity / governance / security / interoperability / Enterprise AI Core / provider mapping

CLAIM_OR_RESEARCH_QUESTION

What do OAuth 2.0, OIDC Core, RFC 9700, and PKCE establish for access and end-user identity, and what agent-specific identity/delegation questions remain open?

EVIDENCE_TABLE

[S1] SOURCE_CLASS: standards_track_rfc | EXACT_TITLE: RFC 6749 - The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor; Dick Hardt (editor) | CANONICAL_URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749.html | PUBLICATION_UPDATE_ACCESS: October 2012; accessed 2026-09-14 00:10 JST | VERSION_RELEASE_TAG: RFC 6749 | SUPPORTING_LOCATOR: abstract and authorization framework sections describing a third-party application obtaining limited access to an HTTP service | EVIDENCE_LABEL: VERIFIED_SPEC | RELATION: support for OAuth authorization framework; limit because OAuth does not itself provide an end-user identity profile. [S2] SOURCE_CLASS: identity_standard | EXACT_TITLE: OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating errata set 2 | AUTHOR_ORG: OpenID Foundation | CANONICAL_URL: https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html | PUBLICATION_UPDATE_ACCESS: current errata-set-2 page; accessed 2026-09-14 00:10 JST | VERSION_RELEASE_TAG: OpenID Connect Core 1.0 errata set 2 | SUPPORTING_LOCATOR: abstract lines 16-18; introduction lines 212-217; claims section lines 1548-1566 in the recorded web capture | EVIDENCE_LABEL: VERIFIED_SPEC | RELATION: support for identity layer, authentication, and claims; limit for the distinction from access authorization. [S3] SOURCE_CLASS: best_current_practice_rfc | EXACT_TITLE: RFC 9700 - Best Current Practice for OAuth 2.0 Security | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor | CANONICAL_URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9700.html | PUBLICATION_UPDATE_ACCESS: 2025-01; accessed 2026-09-14 00:10 JST | VERSION_RELEASE_TAG: RFC 9700 | SUPPORTING_LOCATOR: authorization-code binding and PKCE lines 576-586; refresh-token protection lines 774-790 | EVIDENCE_LABEL: VERIFIED_SPEC | RELATION: support for current security recommendations; limit because BCP recommendations require deployment enforcement. [S4] SOURCE_CLASS: standards_track_rfc | EXACT_TITLE: RFC 7636 - Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor; Nat Sakimura et al. | CANONICAL_URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7636.html | PUBLICATION_UPDATE_ACCESS: September 2015; accessed 2026-09-14 00:10 JST | VERSION_RELEASE_TAG: RFC 7636 | SUPPORTING_LOCATOR: abstract lines 9-17 and introduction lines 108-113 describing authorization-code interception and PKCE mitigation | EVIDENCE_LABEL: VERIFIED_SPEC | RELATION: support for PKCE threat/countermeasure; limit because PKCE does not solve all token/delegation problems.

FINDINGS
  • ESTABLISHED [S1 support]: OAuth 2.0 is an authorization framework in which a third-party application can obtain limited access to an HTTP service. It is about access delegation, not a complete statement that the caller is a human, agent, or trusted workload.
  • ESTABLISHED [S2 support]: OIDC Core is an identity layer on OAuth 2.0. It enables a client to verify the End-User identity based on authorization-server authentication and obtain claims; the introduction explicitly notes that OAuth 2.0 alone does not define standard end-user identity information.
  • ESTABLISHED [S3+S4 support]: RFC 9700 describes binding authorization codes to the client/device context and identifies PKCE as a countermeasure; RFC 7636 defines the authorization-code interception threat and PKCE technique. RFC 9700 also requires risk-based refresh-token decisions and scope/resource binding when refresh tokens are issued.
  • INFERENCE [S1-S4]: Applying these standards to an agent architecture requires an explicit mapping between human identity, workload/service identity, delegated authority, resource/audience, scopes, agent run, and tool action. The base sources do not, by themselves, define an agent's intent, autonomy, chain of delegation, or business approval semantics.
LIMITS / COUNTEREVIDENCE / FAILURE ENVELOPE

OAuth/OIDC success does not prove least privilege, user intent, agent identity, tool authorization, correct audience, tenant isolation, or safe downstream action. Bearer/refresh-token leakage, confused deputy, over-broad scope, issuer mix-up, redirect/PKCE errors, stale claims, replay, token exchange, and service-account misuse remain deployment risks. RFC 9700 is a BCP, not an automatically enforced control. No provider or tenant implementation was tested.

AVAILABILITY_GATES

issuer/discovery and TLS; client registration/type; authorization-code flow; PKCE enforcement; redirect URI; state/nonce; token issuer/audience/resource; scopes and consent; access/refresh lifetime and rotation/revocation; OIDC claims and verification; workload/service identity; token exchange/delegation profile; tenant/admin policy; region/plan; secret/key storage; audit and attribution.

IMPLEMENTATION_STATE

Evidence-only desk research. No authorization request, token exchange, login, service-account operation, or authenticated tenant action was performed.

BENCHMARK_OR_EVAL

No identity-provider interoperability, PKCE negative test, token replay, scope/audience, delegation-chain, revocation, or audit-attribution benchmark was run.

SECURITY / PRIVACY / AUDIT / COST / OPERABILITY

Verify issuer, signature, nonce/state, PKCE, audience/resource, scope, expiry, revocation/rotation, and tenant binding before tool execution. Never place tokens in prompts or ordinary logs. Audit should link subject/client/workload/agent-run/delegation-chain/tool-action/approval; base RFCs do not guarantee that linkage. Cost/operability includes authorization round trips, token refresh, introspection/revocation, key rotation, policy evaluation, and human approval; not measured.

SAFE_WORDING_FOR_FUTURE_BOOK

「OAuth 2.0は限定的なHTTPリソースアクセスの委任、OIDCはOAuth上でEnd-Userの認証結果とclaimsを扱うidentity layerである。Agent運用では、human/workload/service identity、resource/audience、scope、delegation chain、tool action、approvalを別々に結び付ける必要があり、OAuth/OIDCの成功だけではagentの権限・意図・安全な実行を証明しない。」

UPDATE_WORK_HANDOFF

Future update Work should pin RFC/OIDC references and build a provider-neutral identity TEST_PROFILE: authorization-code+PKCE, state/nonce, audience/resource restriction, least-privilege scopes, token expiry/rotation/revocation, delegated human-to-agent-to-tool attribution, confused-deputy negative case, service identity, tenant offboarding, and audit readback. Add provider-specific availability only after current docs and non-authenticated documentation are re-checked.

OPEN_UNKNOWN

agent identity/delegation standard; token-exchange and resource-indicator profile for agents; non-human identity semantics; provider/tenant scope mapping; card/run/tool attribution; dynamic registration; sender-constrained tokens; revocation propagation; incident rates; audit/cost/SLO.

STOP_CONDITION

Do not treat OAuth as identity, OIDC as authorization, a valid token as proof of user intent, or a successful login as proof of agent/tool authority. Do not claim RFC 9700/PKCE enforcement without testing the actual authorization server configuration. UNIT_CLOSE_STATUS: INDIVIDUAL_BOUNDED_CLOSE / EVIDENCE_RECORDED / UNKNOWN_PRESERVED

===== RUN CLOSE / HANDOFF ===== INDIVIDUAL_PACKET_COUNT: 6/6 (EA-157..EA-162)

PRIMARY_SOURCE_RECORD

MCP dated specification and release boundary; A2A latest plus v0.3.0 fixed specification and author repository; AG-UI official docs/events draft and repository; OpenAPI 3.1.0 and OpenAI function-calling docs; CloudEvents v1.0.2 core/binding; OAuth RFC 6749, OIDC Core 1.0 errata set 2, RFC 9700, and RFC 7636. Canonical URLs and locators are recorded per packet.

CLAIM_SEPARATION

Six EA_IDs each have independent exact topic, evidence table, findings, limits/counterevidence/failure envelope, gates, implementation state, benchmark boundary, security/cost/operability notes, safe wording, handoff, unknowns, and stop condition. Shared sources are not treated as shared claims.

EVIDENCE_BOUNDARY

Official specifications establish the documented contract at the recorded version/access boundary. They do not prove a particular plan, region, tenant, implementation, conformance, quality, security posture, business outcome, or SLO. LIVE_SIDE_EFFECTS: 0

  • EVD-EA-162-URL-36F1B4622524研究資料研究資料根拠の出所: SOURCE_PACKET_REFERENCE

    The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor; Dick Hardt (editor) | CANONICAL_URL:

    裏付ける内容
    —
    確認日
    —
    出典・実験ID
    SRC-EA-162-URL-36F1B4622524
    検証箇所
    EVIDENCE_TABLE · - The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor; Dick Hardt (editor) | CANONICAL_URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749.html
    適用範囲
    EVIDENCE_TABLE
    出典・来歴
    SOURCE_PACKET_REFERENCE_PROJECTED
    限界
    元の監査済み資料に記載された参照先です。URLの復元は、資料の最新性や全主張の支持を新たに検証したことを意味しません。
  • EVD-EA-162-URL-CFD2790A544C研究資料研究資料根拠の出所: SOURCE_PACKET_REFERENCE

    [S2] SOURCE_CLASS: identity_standard | EXACT_TITLE: OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating errata set 2 | AUTHOR_ORG: OpenID Foundation | CANONICAL_URL:

    裏付ける内容
    —
    確認日
    —
    出典・実験ID
    SRC-EA-162-URL-CFD2790A544C
    検証箇所
    EVIDENCE_TABLE · S2 · [S2] SOURCE_CLASS: identity_standard | EXACT_TITLE: OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating errata set 2 | AUTHOR_ORG: OpenID Foundation | CANONICAL_URL: https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html
    適用範囲
    EVIDENCE_TABLE
    出典・来歴
    SOURCE_PACKET_REFERENCE_PROJECTED
    限界
    元の監査済み資料に記載された参照先です。URLの復元は、資料の最新性や全主張の支持を新たに検証したことを意味しません。
  • EVD-EA-162-URL-4E6D674BF887研究資料研究資料根拠の出所: SOURCE_PACKET_REFERENCE

    Best Current Practice for OAuth 2.0 Security | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor | CANONICAL_URL:

    裏付ける内容
    —
    確認日
    —
    出典・実験ID
    SRC-EA-162-URL-4E6D674BF887
    検証箇所
    EVIDENCE_TABLE · - Best Current Practice for OAuth 2.0 Security | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor | CANONICAL_URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9700.html
    適用範囲
    EVIDENCE_TABLE
    出典・来歴
    SOURCE_PACKET_REFERENCE_PROJECTED
    限界
    元の監査済み資料に記載された参照先です。URLの復元は、資料の最新性や全主張の支持を新たに検証したことを意味しません。
  • EVD-EA-162-URL-CB6A61ADD96B研究資料研究資料根拠の出所: SOURCE_PACKET_REFERENCE

    Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor; Nat Sakimura et al. | CANONICAL_URL:

    裏付ける内容
    —
    確認日
    —
    出典・実験ID
    SRC-EA-162-URL-CB6A61ADD96B
    検証箇所
    EVIDENCE_TABLE · - Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients | AUTHOR_ORG: IETF / RFC Editor; Nat Sakimura et al. | CANONICAL_URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7636.html
    適用範囲
    EVIDENCE_TABLE
    出典・来歴
    SOURCE_PACKET_REFERENCE_PROJECTED
    限界
    元の監査済み資料に記載された参照先です。URLの復元は、資料の最新性や全主張の支持を新たに検証したことを意味しません。
  • EA-162-R11-RESEARCH研究資料研究資料根拠の出所: AUDITED_CANONICAL_RESEARCH_PACKET

    EA-162 監査済みresearch / canonical revision binding

    裏付ける内容
    1. ESTABLISHED [S1 support]: OAuth 2.0 is an authorization framework in which a third-party application can obtain limited access to an HTTP service. It is about access delegation, not a complete statement that the caller is a human, agent, or trusted workload. 2. ESTABLISHED [S2 support]: OIDC Core is an identity layer on OAuth 2.0. It enables a client to verify the End-User identity based on authorization-server authentication and obtain claims; the introduction explicitly notes that OAuth 2.0 alone does not define standard end-user identity information. 3. ESTABLISHED [S3+S4 support]: RFC 9700 describes binding authorization codes to the client/device context and identifies PKCE as a countermeasure; RFC 7636 defines the authorization-code interception threat and PKCE technique. RFC 9700 also requires risk-based refresh-token decisions and scope/resource binding when refresh tokens are issued. 4. INFERENCE [S1-S4]: Applying these standards to an agent architecture requires an explicit mapping between human identity, workload/service identity, delegated authority, resource/audience, scopes, agent run, and tool action. The base sources do not, by themselves, define an agent's intent, autonomy, chain of delegation, or business approval semantics.
    確認日
    —
    出典・実験ID
    COMM-047-EA0162
    検証箇所
    COMM-047-EA0162 · EA-162-R5-LEGACY-MIGRATION-20261008-R1 · content/staging/EA-162.md
    適用範囲
    監査済みEA本文・canonical revision・既存Source Graph relationの範囲。欠損currentnessは推測で閉じない。
    出典・来歴
    AUDIT_PASS_CANONICAL_BINDING
    限界
    canonical監査・revision bindingの存在を示す。外部ソースcurrentnessが本文またはcontrol-planeで確定していない場合は、currentnessをUNKNOWNのまま保持する。
  • EA-162-R11-WEB-READBACK実装資料実装資料根拠の出所: IMPLEMENTATION_READBACK

    EA-162 Web body identity / canonical readback

    裏付ける内容
    canonical staging bodyのSHA-256一致とR9 canonical ledger readbackをProduction projectionの入力として検証する。
    確認日
    —
    出典・実験ID
    WEBBODY-EA0162-R8-74EAD847
    検証箇所
    WEBBODY-EA0162-R8-74EAD847 · content/staging/EA-162.md · EA-162-R5-LEGACY-MIGRATION-20261008-R1
    適用範囲
    R9/R10 canonical readback後のProduction生成時body identity。
    出典・来歴
    CANONICAL_READBACK_BODY_HASH_MATCH
    限界
    body identity/readbackは本文claim自体の真偽や外部ソースの最新性を追加保証しない。
出典ID
COMM-047-EA0162, SRC-EA-162-URL-36F1B4622524, SRC-EA-162-URL-CFD2790A544C, SRC-EA-162-URL-4E6D674BF887, SRC-EA-162-URL-CB6A61ADD96B, WEBBODY-EA0162-R8-74EAD847
追跡中のUNKNOWN ID
EA-162-UNKNOWN-01, EA-162-UNKNOWN-CURRENTNESS
再確認のきっかけ
canonical revision/publication state change · body artifact hash change · source currentness change · new contradiction or implementation readback

機械検査: 通過 — Automated validation does not guarantee accuracy or authorize execution.

    同じ記事IDの機械可読データです。