[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-kucherawy-reputation-query-http) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 7072

REPUTE Working Group                                       N. Borenstein
Internet-Draft                                                  Mimecast
Intended status: Standards Track                            M. Kucherawy
Expires: January 13, 2014                                  July 12, 2013


                      A Reputation Query Protocol
                    draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09

Abstract

   This document defines a mechanism to conduct queries for reputation
   information over the Hypertext Transfer Protocol using JSON as the
   payload meta-format.

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 http://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 January 13, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.





Borenstein & Kucherawy  Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         A Reputation Query Protocol             July 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.2.  URI Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.3.  Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.4.  Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     3.5.  Protocol Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Appendix B.  Public Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8































Borenstein & Kucherawy  Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         A Reputation Query Protocol             July 2013


1.  Introduction

   This document defines a method to query a reputation data service for
   information about an entity, using the HyperText Transfer Protocol
   (HTTP) as the transport mechanism and JSON as the payload meta-
   format.

   The mechanism is a two-stage query:

   1.  A client retrieves a template from a server that describes the
       construction of a Universal Resource Identifier (URI) which will
       be the actual query;

   2.  The client then uses the constructed URI to request the
       reputation data from the server.


2.  Terminology and Definitions

   This section defines terms used in the rest of the document.

2.1.  Key Words

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].

2.2.  Other Definitions

   Other terms of importance in this document are defined in
   [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] and [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE].


3.  Description

3.1.  Overview

   The components to the question being asked comprise the following:

   o  The subject of the query;

   o  The name of the host, or the IP address, at which the reputation
      service is available;

   o  The name of the reputation application, i.e., the context within
      which the subject is being evaluated;





Borenstein & Kucherawy  Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         A Reputation Query Protocol             July 2013


   o  Optionally, name(s) of the specific reputation assertions or
      attributies that are being requested.

   Assertions are discussed in [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE].

   The name of the application, if given, is expected to be one
   registered with IANA in the Reputation Applications Registry, which
   is defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE].  A server receiving a query
   about an application it does not recognize or explicitly support
   support (e.g., by virtue of private agreements or experimental
   extensions) MUST return a 404 error code.

   A reputation query made via [HTTP] encodes the question being asked
   in an HTTP GET method.  The specific syntax of the query itself is
   specified by retrieving a URI template from the reputation service,
   completing the template, and then issuing the query.

3.2.  URI Template

   The template file is retrieved by requesting the [WELL-KNOWN-URI]
   "repute-template" from the host providing reputation service, using
   HTTP.  (The registration for this well-known URI is in Section 4.)
   The server returns the template file in a reply that MUST use the
   text/plain media type (see [MIME]), and SHOULD include an Expires
   field (see Section 14.21 of [HTTP]) indicating a duration for which
   the template is to be considered valid by clients and not re-queried.

   Clients SHOULD NOT repeat the query prior to the timestamp in the
   Expires field, or wait no less than one day if the Expires field is
   not present.

   The template file might contain more than one template.  Such a file
   MUST have each template separated by a newline (ASCII 0x0D)
   character.

   Each template in the file is expanded using the variables that are
   the parameters to the query.  These parameters are either the subject
   about which reputation information is sought (or details associated
   with it), or other parameters that are established out-of-band with
   the reputation service; they are not established by any automated
   discovery described here.  The client then attempts to query each
   expanded template that uses a scheme it is cable of querying, in the
   order presented in the file, until finds one to which it can
   establish a usable connection and issue the query.

   For example, given the following template:

   http://{service}/{application}/{subject}/{assertion}



Borenstein & Kucherawy  Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         A Reputation Query Protocol             July 2013


   A query about the use of the domain "example.org" in the "email-id"
   application context to a service run at "example.com", where that
   application declares a required "subject" parameter, requesting the
   "SPAM" reputation assertion, would be formed as follows:

   http://example.com/email-id/example.org/spam

3.3.  Syntax

   The syntax for the [URI] of the query is constructed using a template
   as per [URI-TEMPLATE].  (See Section 3.2.)  Clients MUST provide the
   following values in the expansion of the template:

   application:  The name of the application reputation in whose context
      the request is being made.

   service:  The hostname or IP address to which the query is being
      sent.  This MUST be the same as the host to which the template
      query was issued.

   subject:  The subject of the query, extracted from some content to be
      evaluated.

   The following variable can also be provided.  It is not mandatory in
   this model, but a specific application (defined in its own extension
   document) might declare it mandatory in a specific context:

   assertion:  The name of the specific assertion of interest to the
      client.  If absent, the client is indicating that it requests all
      available assertion information.

   Every application space has a set of assertions applicable to its own
   context.  [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE] defines a single assertion assumed
   to exist in any application that does not define its own assertion
   set.

   Reputation applications can extend the set of optional or required
   query parameters as part of their IANA registration actions.  The set
   enumerated above establishes the base set common to all of them.
   Further, additional required or optional extension query parameters
   might be defined by specific reputation service providers, though
   these are private arrangements between client and server and will not
   be registered with IANA.

   Authentication between reputation client and server is outside the
   scope of this specification.  It could be provided through a variety
   of available transport-based or object-based mechanisms, including a
   later extension of this specification.



Borenstein & Kucherawy  Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         A Reputation Query Protocol             July 2013


3.4.  Response

   The response is expected to be contained in a media type designed to
   deliver reputons.  An media type designed for this purpose,
   "application/reputon+json", is defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE].

3.5.  Protocol Support

   A client has to implement HTTP in order to retrieve the query
   template as described in Section 3.2.  Accordingly, a server can
   assume the client will be able to handle a URI template that produces
   a URI for the query using the "http" scheme.  The template could
   yield a query string that uses some other URI scheme, in which case
   the client could try that URI as well if it supports issuing queries
   with that scheme.

   A server SHOULD include support for providing service over HTTP, and
   publish templates indicating support for this, as a baseline for
   interoperability with arbitrary clients.


4.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers the "repute-template" well-known URI in the
   Well-Known URI registry as defined by [WELL-KNOWN-URI], as follows:

   URI suffix:  repute-template

   Change controller:  IETF

   Specification document(s):  [this document]

   Related information:  none


5.  Security Considerations

   This document defines particular uses of existing protocols for a
   specific application.  In particular, the basic protocol used for
   this service to retrieve a URI template from a well-known location is
   basic HTTP, which is not secure without certain extensions.  Security
   issues relevant to use of URI templates are discussed in
   [URI-TEMPLATE], and those relevant to well-known URI definitions and
   retrieval are discussed in [WELL-KNOWN-URI].

   The reputation service itself will use HTTP or other transport
   methods to issue queries and receive replies.  Those protocols have
   registered URI schemes and, as such, presumably have documented



Borenstein & Kucherawy  Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         A Reputation Query Protocol             July 2013


   security considerations.  The protocol described here operates atop
   those schemes, and does not itself present new security
   considerations.

   Reputation mechanisms represent an obvious security concern, in terms
   of the validity and use of the reputation information.  These issues
   are beyond the scope of this specification.  General information
   pertaining to using or providing reputation services can be found in
   [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS].


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [HTTP]     Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]
              Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
              Reputation Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-media-type
              (work in progress), November 2012.

   [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]
              Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation
              Interchange", draft-iet-repute-model (work in progress),
              November 2012.

   [KEYWORDS]
              Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [MIME]     Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [URI]      Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986,
              January 2005.

   [URI-TEMPLATE]
              Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, March 2012.

   [WELL-KNOWN-URI]
              Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
              Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,



Borenstein & Kucherawy  Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         A Reputation Query Protocol             July 2013


              April 2010.

6.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS]
              Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding
              Reputation Services", draft-ietf-repute-considerations
              (work in progress), November 2012.


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the following for their contributions
   to this work: Simon Hunt, Mark Nottingham, David F. Skoll, and Mykyta
   Yevstifeyev.


Appendix B.  Public Discussion

   Public discussion of this set of documents takes place on the
   domainrep@ietf.org mailing list.  See
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep.


Authors' Addresses

   Nathaniel Borenstein
   Mimecast
   203 Crescent St., Suite 303
   Waltham, MA  02453
   USA

   Phone: +1 781 996 5340
   Email: nsb@guppylake.com


   Murray S. Kucherawy
   270 Upland Drive
   San Francisco, CA  94127
   USA

   Email: superuser@gmail.com









Borenstein & Kucherawy  Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/