You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Status List: file_path is currently required, requiring an additional service/volume mount to serve the list #3084
The status_list plugin requires file_path (or STATUS_LIST_FILE_PATH) to be set at startup. If it is missing, the plugin raises a ConfigError and refuses to load:
This means that even if an organization would prefer a different approach, every deployment must provide a persistent volume and a separate HTTP server to serve the published files.
What we'd like to discuss
The underlying bitstring data already lives in the ACA-Py wallet (Askar) as StatusListShard records. The plugin could expose a public route (something like GET /status-list/{tenant_id}/{list_number}) that assembles and serves the status list on demand with no file system involvement.
This would make file_path optional, allowing:
Deployments that want static file serving (e.g. for CDN caching) keep the existing publish flow unchanged
Deployments that prefer simplicity get a working status list endpoint out of the box, with no volume mount or sidecar required
It also opens the door for controllers to handle publishing themselves. A controller would be able to call the publish endpoint after a revocation event and store or forward the result depending on the way their infrastructure is setup, rather than being forced into the file-based path.
Proposed change
Add a public GET /status-list/{tenant_id}/{list_number} route that generates the status list JWT on the fly from Askar shard records
Make file_path (and the publish-to-file flow) optional rather than required
public_uri would point to either the new built-in route or an external server, depending on the deployment
Questions for the community
Is the file-based requirement intentional for a specific reason we're missing?
Any concerns with serving directly from ACA-Py (performance, security)?
Would this be a welcome contribution?
Tagging @timbl-ont. @PatStLouis mentioned your team was using this in production. If we could get your input on this, that'd be great!
The primary concern is security. The ACA-Py API endpoints are for internal functions - admin, issuance etc.. The public routes should be separate. The OID4VC plugin has the functionality that you are looking for. This plugin maintains a separation between public and private routes - #1971
The publishing support is for security and scalability reasons especially in large enterprise deployments.
Looking into making the file_path and URL optional.
Activity
timbl-ont commentedon May 4, 2026
@weiiv can you take a look at this issue.
timbl-ont commentedon May 7, 2026
The primary concern is security. The ACA-Py API endpoints are for internal functions - admin, issuance etc.. The public routes should be separate. The OID4VC plugin has the functionality that you are looking for. This plugin maintains a separation between public and private routes - #1971
The publishing support is for security and scalability reasons especially in large enterprise deployments.
Looking into making the file_path and URL optional.