[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-repute...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

PROPOSED STANDARD

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     N. Borenstein
Request for Comments: 7072                                      Mimecast
Category: Standards Track                                   M. Kucherawy
ISSN: 2070-1721                                            November 2013


                      A Reputation Query Protocol

Abstract

   This document defines a mechanism to conduct queries for reputation
   information over the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) using
   JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as the payload meta-format.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7072.

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       Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 7072               A Reputation Query Protocol         November 2013


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Terminology and Definitions .....................................2
      2.1. Key Words ..................................................2
      2.2. Other Definitions ..........................................3
   3. Description .....................................................3
      3.1. Overview ...................................................3
      3.2. URI Template ...............................................3
      3.3. Syntax .....................................................4
      3.4. Response ...................................................6
      3.5. Protocol Support ...........................................6
   4. IANA Considerations .............................................7
   5. Security Considerations .........................................7
   6. References ......................................................8
      6.1. Normative References .......................................8
      6.2. Informative References .....................................8
   Appendix A. Acknowledgements .......................................9

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) that 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].







Borenstein & Kucherawy       Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 7072               A Reputation Query Protocol         November 2013


2.2.  Other Definitions

   Other terms of importance in this document are defined in [RFC7070]
   and [RFC7071].

3.  Description

3.1.  Overview

   The components to the question being asked are 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;

   o  Optionally, names of the specific reputation assertions or
      attributes that are being requested.

   There is no discovery protocol for finding reputation services.
   These are typically subscription services, negotiated between
   operators through some out-of-band method.

   Assertions are discussed in [RFC7071].

   The name of the application, if given, is expected to be one
   registered with IANA in the "Reputation Applications" registry, which
   is defined in [RFC7071].  A server receiving a query about an
   application it does not recognize or explicitly 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





Borenstein & Kucherawy       Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 7072               A Reputation Query Protocol         November 2013


   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.

   If an Expires field is present, the client SHOULD NOT send another
   query to the same server prior to the timestamp in the field.  If no
   Expires field is present, the client SHOULD wait at least one day
   before sending another query to the same server (i.e., the client
   assumes a default expiration of one day).

   The template file might contain more than one template.  Such a file
   MUST have each template separated by a carriage return (ASCII 0x0D)
   and newline (ASCII 0x0A) character, as is typical for most text-based
   Internet protocols.

   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 URI scheme it is capable of querying,
   in the order presented in the file, until the client 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}

   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.  These names are registered with IANA,
      and conform to the ABNF "token" found in [MIME].






Borenstein & Kucherawy       Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 7072               A Reputation Query Protocol         November 2013


   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 subject portion of the template conforms to the
      ABNF "value" found in [MIME].

   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.  Assertion names conform to the ABNF "token" found in
      [MIME].  If absent, the client is indicating that it requests all
      available assertion information.

   If a template contains a variable that is not required and the client
   does not have a value to insert, it substitutes the empty string into
   the template in place of that variable.  Service providers crafting
   templates MUST do so such that a client doing an empty variable
   expansion will still produce a syntactically and semantically valid
   and unambiguous URI.  For example, given this template:

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

   If "{a}" and "{b}" are optional and "{a}" expands to the empty
   string, then the resulting URI will have adjacent backslash ("/",
   ASCII 0x2F) characters and one path component after the assertion.
   If the server interpreting the URI's path component removes or
   ignores adjacent backslash characters (such as is done with the UNIX
   filesystem), the server will be unable to distinguish an empty "{a}"
   from an empty "{b}", and it could serve the wrong response.  Where
   possible, the template needs to be constructed such that expansion of
   optional variables yields an unambiguous result.  For example, an
   unambiguous version of the above would be:

     http://{service}/{application}/{subject}/{assertion}/a={a}/b={b}

   ...or, even better, using URI template set expansions:

     http://{service}/{application}/{subject}/{assertion}{?a,b}

   Every application space has a set of assertions applicable to its own
   context.  [RFC7071] defines a single assertion assumed to exist in
   any application that does not define its own assertion set.





Borenstein & Kucherawy       Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 7072               A Reputation Query Protocol         November 2013


   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.

3.4.  Response

   The response is expected to be contained in a media type designed to
   deliver reputons.  A media type designed for this purpose,
   "application/reputon+json", is defined in [RFC7071].

   If the server generates responses that contain an Expires field (see
   Section 14.21 of [HTTP]), that timestamp MUST align with the
   "expires" field within the response, if any.  Failing to do so can
   result in a state where the response has expired, but the HTTP reply
   has not, and the client would in that case be unable to get a fresh
   answer from the reputation server.

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" URI 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 URI 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.












Borenstein & Kucherawy       Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 7072               A Reputation Query Protocol         November 2013


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):  [RFC7072]

   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
   security considerations.  The protocol described here operates atop
   those URI 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
   [CONSIDERATIONS].

   The security considerations applicable to HTTP (see Section 15 of
   [HTTP] apply, since this query mechanism for reputation uses that
   protocol.  If it is desirable to conceal the content of the query and
   its response, use of encryption techniques such as HTTP over TLS
   [HTTPS] can be used.










Borenstein & Kucherawy       Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 7072               A Reputation Query Protocol         November 2013


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.

   [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.

   [RFC7070]  Borenstein, N., Kucherawy, M., and A. Sullivan, "An
              Architecture for Reputation Reporting", RFC 7070, November
              2013.

   [RFC7071]  Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
              Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, November 2013.

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

   [URI]      Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
              3986, January 2005.

   [WELL-KNOWN-URI]
              Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
              Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785, April
              2010.

6.2.  Informative References

   [CONSIDERATIONS]
              Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding
              Reputation Services", Work in Progress, May 2013.

   [HTTPS]    Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.









Borenstein & Kucherawy       Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 7072               A Reputation Query Protocol         November 2013


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.

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       Standards Track                    [Page 9]


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