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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

INTERNET DRAFT                                      Michiel B. de Jong
Document: draft-dejong-remotestorage-01                  (independent)
                                                             F. Kooman
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                             SURFnet
Expires: 10 December 2013                                  8 June 2013


                            remoteStorage

Abstract

    This draft describes a protocol by which client-side applications,
    running inside a web browser, can communicate with a data storage
    server that is hosted on a different domain name. This way, the
    provider of a web application need not also play the role of data
    storage provider. The protocol supports storing, retrieving, and
    removing individual documents, as well as listing the contents of an
    individual directory, and access control is based on bearer tokens.

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 10 December 2013.

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.


de Jong                                                         [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Terminology....................................................2
   3. Storage model..................................................3
   4. Requests.......................................................3
   5. Response codes.................................................4
   6. Versioning.....................................................5
   7. CORS headers...................................................5
   8. Session description............................................5
   9. Bearer tokens and access control...............................6
  10. Application-first bearer token issuance........................6
  11. Storage-first bearer token issuance............................7
  12. Security Considerations........................................8
  13. IANA Considerations............................................9
  14. Acknowledgments................................................9
  15. References.....................................................9
     15.1. Normative References......................................9
     15.2. Informative References....................................9
  16. Authors' addresses............................................10


1.  Introduction

    Many services for data storage are available over the internet. This
    specification describes a vendor-independent interface for such
    services. It is based on https, CORS and bearer tokens. The
    metaphor for addressing data on the storage is that of folders
    containing documents and subfolders. The actions the interface
    exposes are:

       *  GET a folder: retrieve the names and current versions of the
          documents and subfolders currently contained by the folder

       *  GET a document: retrieve its content type, current version,
          and contents

       *  PUT a document: store a new version, its content type, and
          contents, conditional on the current version

       *  DELETE a document: remove it from the storage, conditional on
          the current version

    The exact details of these four actions are described in this
    specification.



de Jong                                                         [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


2. Terminology

    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 RFC 2119 [WORDS].

    "SHOULD" and "SHOULD NOT" are appropriate when valid exceptions to a
    general requirement are known to exist or appear to exist, and it is
    infeasible or impractical to enumerate all of them.  However, they
    should not be interpreted as permitting implementors to fail to
    implement the general requirement when such failure would result in
    interoperability failure.

3. Storage model

    The server stores data in nodes that form a tree structure.
    Internal nodes are called 'folders' and leaf nodes are called
    'documents'. For a folder, the server stores references to nodes
    contained in the folder, and it should be able to produce a list of
    them, with for each contained item:

       * item name
       * item type (folder or document)
       * current version

    For a document, the server stores, and should be able to produce:

       * content type
       * content
       * current version

4. Requests

    Client-to-server requests SHOULD be made over https [HTTPS]. The
    root folder of the storage tree is represented by the URL
    <storage_root> '/'. Subsequently, if <parent_folder> is the URL of a
    folder, then the URL of an item contained in it is
    <parent_folder> <document_name> for a document, or
    <parent_folder> <folder_name> '/' for a folder. Item names MAY
    contain a-z, A-Z, 0-9, %, ., -, _, and MUST NOT have zero length.

    A successful GET request to a folder SHOULD be responded to with a
    JSON document (content type 'application/json'), representing a map
    in which contained documents appear as entries <item_name> to
    <current_version>, and contained folders appear as entries
    <item_name> '/' to <current_version>, for instance:


de Jong                                                         [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


       {
         "abc": "DEADBEEFDEADBEEFDEADBEEF",
         "def/": "1337ABCD1337ABCD1337ABCD"
       }

    Empty folders are treated as non-existing, and therefore GET
    requests to them SHOULD be responded to with a 404 response, and an
    empty folder MUST NOT be listed as an item in its parent folder.
    Also, folders SHOULD be created silently, as necessary to contain
    newly added items. This way, PUT and DELETE requests only need to be
    made to documents, and folder management becomes an implicit result.

    A successful GET request to a document SHOULD be responded to with
    the full document contents in the body, the document's content type
    in a 'Content-Type' header, and the document's current version in an
    'ETag' header.


    A successful PUT request to a document MUST result in:

       * the request body being stored as the document's new content,
       * parent and further ancestor folders being silently created as
         necessary, with the document (name and version) being added to
         its parent folder, and each folder added to its subsequent
         parent,
       * the value of its Content-Type header being stored as the
         document's new content type,
       * its version being updated, as well as that of its parent folder
         and further ancestor folders.

    The response MUST contain an ETag header, with the document's new
    version (for instance a hash of its contents) as its value.

    A successful DELETE request to a document MUST result in:

       * the deletion of that document from the storage, and from its
         parent folder,
       * silent deletion of the parent folder if it is left empty by
         this, and so on for further ancestor folders,
       * the version of its parent folder being updated, as well as that
         of further ancestor folders.

    The response MUST contain an ETag header, with the document's
    version that was deleted as its value.

    A successful OPTIONS request SHOULD be responded to as described in
    the CORS section below.

5. Response codes

    The following responses SHOULD be given in the indicated cases, in
    order of preference, and SHOULD be recognized by the client:



de Jong                                                         [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


       * 500 if an internal server error occurs,
       * 420 if the client makes too frequent requests or is suspected
             of malicious activity,
       * 400 for all malformed requests (e.g. foreign characters in the
             path or unrecognized http verb, etcetera), as well as for
             all PUT and DELETE requests to folders,
       * 401 for all requests that don't have a bearer token with
             sufficient permissions,
       * 404 for all DELETE and GET requests to nodes that do not exist
             on the storage,
       * 412 for a conditional request whose pre-condition
             fails (see "Versioning" below),
       * 507 in case the user's account is over its storage quota,
       * 200 for all successful requests, including PUT and DELETE.

    Clients SHOULD also handle the case where a response takes too long
    to arrive, or where no response is received at all.

6. Versioning

    All successful requests MUST return an 'ETag' header [HTTP] with,
    in the case of GET, the current version, in the case of PUT, the
    new version, and in case of DELETE, the version that was deleted.
    PUT and DELETE requests MAY have an 'If-Match' request header
    [HTTP], and MUST fail with a 412 response code if that doesn't match
    the document's current version. GET requests MAY have an
    'If-None-Match' header [HTTP], and SHOULD be responded to with a 412
    response if that includes the document or folder's current version.

    A PUT request MAY have an 'If-None-Match:*' header [HTTP], in which
    case it MUST fail with a 412 response code if the document already
    exists.

    A provider MAY offer its users a way to roll back to a previous
    version of the storage contents, but this specification does not
    define any such rollback functionality.

7. CORS headers

    All responses MUST carry CORS headers [CORS]. The server MUST also
    reply to OPTIONS requests as per CORS. For GET requests, a wildcard
    origin MAY be returned, but for PUT and DELETE requests, the
    response MUST echo back the Origin header sent by the client.





de Jong                                                         [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


8. Session description

    The information that a client needs to receive in order to be able
    to connect to a server SHOULD reach the client as described in the
    'bearer token issuance' sections below. It consists of:

       * <storage_root>, consisting of 'https://' followed by a server
         host, and optionally a server port and a path prefix as per
         [IRI]. Examples:
         * 'https://example.com' (host only)
         * 'https://example.com:8080' (host and port)
         * 'https://example.com/path/to/storage' (host, port and
           path prefix; note there is no trailing slash)
       * <access_token> as per [OAUTH]. The token SHOULD be hard to
         guess and SHOULD NOT be reused from one client to another. It
         can however be reused in subsequent interactions with the same
         client, as long as that client is still trusted. Example:
         * 'ofb24f1ac3973e70j6vts19qr9v2eei'
       * <storage_api>, always 'draft-dejong-remotestorage-01' for this
         version of the specification.

    The client can make its requests using https with CORS and bearer
    tokens, to the URL that is the concatenation of <storage_root> with
    '/' plus one or more <folder> '/' strings indicating a path in the
    folder tree, followed by zero or one <document> strings, indicating
    a document. For example, if <storage_root> is
    "https://storage.example.com/bob", then to retrieve the folder
    contents of the /public/documents/ folder, or to retrieve a
    'draft.txt' document from that folder, the client would make
    requests to, respectively:

    * https://storage.example.com/bob/public/documents/
    * https://storage.example.com/bob/public/documents/draft.txt

9. Bearer tokens and access control

    A bearer token represents one or more access scopes. These access
    scopes are represented as strings of the form <module> <level>,
    where the <module> string SHOULD be lower-case alphanumerical, other
    than the reserved word 'public', and <level> can be ':r' or ':rw'.
    The access the bearer token gives is the sum of its access scopes,
    with each access scope representing the following permissions:

    'root:rw') any request,

    'root:r') any GET request,


de Jong                                                         [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


    <module> ':rw') any requests to paths that start with
                    '/' <module> '/' or '/public/' <module> '/',

    <module> ':r') any GET requests to paths that start with
                   '/' <module> '/' or '/public/' <module> '/',

    As a special exceptions, GET requests to a document (but not a
    folder) whose path starts with '/public/' are always allowed. They,
    as well as OPTIONS requests, can be made without a bearer token. All
    other requests should present a bearer token with sufficient access
    scope, using a header of the following form:

       Authorization: Bearer <access_token>


10. Application-first bearer token issuance

    To make a remoteStorage server available as 'the remoteStorage of
    <user> at <host>', exactly one link of the following format SHOULD
    be added to the webfinger record [WEBFINGER] of <user> at <host>:

    {
      href: <storage_root>,
      rel: "remotestorage",
      type: <storage_api>,
      properties: {
        "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.2": <auth-dialog>
      }
    }

    Here <storage_root> and <storage_api> are as per "Session
    description" above, and <auth-dialog> SHOULD be a URL where an
    OAuth2 implicit-grant flow dialog [OAUTH] is be presented, so the
    user can supply her credentials (how, is out of scope), and allow or
    reject a request by the connecting application to obtain a bearer
    token for a certain list of access scopes.

    The server SHOULD NOT expire bearer tokens unless they are revoked,
    and MAY require the user to register applications as OAuth clients
    before first use; if no client registration is required, then the
    server MAY ignore the client_id parameter in favour of relying on
    the redirect_uri parameter for client identification.

11. Storage-first bearer token issuance

    The provider MAY also present a dashboard to the user, where she


de Jong                                                         [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


    has some way to add open web app manifests [MANIFEST]. Adding a
    manifest to the dashboard is considered equivalent to clicking
    'accept' in the dialog of the application-first flow. Removing one
    is considered equivalent to revoking its access token.

    As an equivalent to OAuth's 'scope' parameter, a 'remotestorage'
    field SHOULD be present in the root of such an application manifest
    document, as a JSON array of strings, each string being one access
    scope of the form <module> <level>.

    When the user gestures she wants to use a certain application whose
    manifest is present on the dashboard, the dashboard SHOULD redirect
    to the application or open it in a new window. To mimic coming back
    from the OAuth dialog, it MAY add 'access_token' and 'scope'
    parameters to the URL fragment.

    Regardless of whether 'access_token' and 'scope' are specified, it
    SHOULD add a 'remotestorage' parameter to the URL fragment, with a
    value of the form <user> '@' <host>. When the application detects
    this parameter, it SHOULD resolve the webfinger record for <user> at
    <host> and extract the <storage_root> and <storage_api> information.

    If no access_token was given, then the application SHOULD also
    extract the <auth_endpoint> information from webfinger, and continue
    as per application-first bearer token issuance.

    Note that whereas a remoteStorage server SHOULD offer support of the
    application-first flow with webfinger and OAuth, it MAY choose not
    to support the storage-first flow, provided that users will easily
    remember their <user> '@' <host> webfinger address at that provider.
    Applications SHOULD, however, support both flows, which means
    checking the URL for a 'remoteStorage' parameter, but giving the
    user a way to specify her webfinger address if there is none.

    If a server provides an application manifest dashboard, then it
    SHOULD merge the list of applications there with the list of
    issued access tokens as specified by OAuth into one list. Also,
    the interface for revoking an access token as specified by OAuth
    SHOULD coincide with removing an application from the dashboard.

12. Security Considerations

    To prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, the use of https instead of
    http is important for both the interface itself and all end-points
    involved in webfinger, OAuth, and (if present) the storage-first
    application launch dashboard.


de Jong                                                         [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


    A malicious party could link to an application, but specifying a
    remoteStorage user address that it controls, thus tricking the user
    into using a trusted application to send sensitive data to the wrong
    remoteStorage server. To mitigate this, applications SHOULD clearly
    display to which remoteStorage server they are sending the user's
    data.

    Applications could request scopes that the user did not intend to
    give access to. The user SHOULD always be prompted to carefully
    review which scopes an application is requesting.

    An application may upload malicious html pages and then trick the
    user into visiting them, or upload malicious client-side scripts,
    that take advantage of being hosted on the user's domain name. The
    origin on which the remoteStorage server has its interface SHOULD
    therefore NOT be used for anything else, and the user SHOULD be
    warned not to visit any web pages on that origin. In particular, the
    OAuth dialog and launch dashboard or token revokation interface
    SHOULD be on a different origin than the remoteStorage interface.

    Where the use of bearer tokens is impractical, a user may choose to
    store documents on hard-to-guess URLs whose path after
    <storage_root> starts with '/public/', while sharing this URL only
    with the intended audience. That way, only parties who know the

    document's hard-to-guess URL, can access it. The server SHOULD
    therefore make an effort to detect and stop brute-force attacks that
    attempt to guess the location of such documents.
    The server SHOULD also detect and stop denial-of-service attacks
    that aim to overwhelm its interface with too much traffic.

13. IANA Considerations

    This document registers the 'remotestorage' link relation.

14. Acknowledgements

    The authors would like to thank everybody who contributed to the
    development of this protocol, including Kenny Bentley, Javier Diaz,
    Daniel Groeber, Bjarni Runar, Jan Wildeboer, Charles Schultz, Peter
    Svensson, Valer Mischenko, Michiel Leenaars, Jan-Christoph
    Borchardt, Garret Alfert, Sebastian Kippe, Max Wiehle, Melvin
    Carvalho, Martin Stadler, Geoffroy Couprie, Niklas Cathor, Marco
    Stahl, James Coglan, Ken Eucker, Daniel Brolund, elf Pavlik, Nick
    Jennings, Markus Sabadello, and Steven te Brinke, among many others.



de Jong                                                         [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


15. References

15.1. Normative References

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

    [IRI]
        Duerst, M., "Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)",
        RFC 3987, January 2005.

    [WEBFINGER]
        Jones, Paul E., Salguerio, Gonzalo, and Smarr, Joseph,
        "WebFinger", draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-14, Work in Progress

    [OAUTH]
        "Section 4.2: Implicit Grant", in: Hardt, D. (ed), "The OAuth
        2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC6749, October 2012.

15.2. Informative References

    [HTTPS]
        Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC2818, May 2000.

    [HTTP]
        Fielding et al., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
        RFC2616, June 1999.

    [CORS]
        van Kesteren, Anne (ed), "Cross-Origin Resource Sharing -- W3C
        Working Draft 3 April 2012",
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-cors-20120403/CORS, April 2012.

    [MANIFEST]
        Mozilla Developer Network (ed), "App manifest -- Revision
        330541", https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
        US/docs/Apps/Manifest$revision/330541, November 2012.










de Jong                                                         [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              remoteStorage                      June 2013


16. Authors' addresses

    Michiel B. de Jong
    (independent)

    Email: michiel@michielbdejong.com


    F. Kooman
    SURFnet bv
    Postbus 19035
    3501 DA Utrecht
    The Netherlands

    Email: Francois.Kooman@surfnet.nl

































de Jong                                                        [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/