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

Versions: (draft-thomson-webpush-vapid) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 8292

Network Working Group                                         M. Thomson
Internet-Draft                                                   Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track                             P. Beverloo
Expires: March 8, 2018                                            Google
                                                      September 04, 2017


    Voluntary Application Server Identification (VAPID) for Web Push
                      draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-04

Abstract

   An application server can use the method described to voluntarily
   identify itself to a push service.  The "vapid" authentication scheme
   allows a client to include its an identity in a signed token with
   requests that it makes.  The signature can be used by the push
   service to attribute requests that are made by the same application
   server to a single entity.  The identification information can allow
   the operator of a push service to contact the operator of the
   application server.  The signature can be used to restrict the use of
   a push subscription to a single application server.

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 March 8, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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



Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Voluntary Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Application Server Self-Identification  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Application Server Contact Information  . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Additional Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Cryptographic Agility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Vapid Authentication Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Token Parameter (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Public Key Parameter (k)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Subscription Restriction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Creating a Restricted Push Subscription . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Using Restricted Subscriptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Vapid Authentication Scheme Registration  . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Vapid Authentication Scheme Parameters  . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.3.  application/webpush-options+json Media Type Registration   11
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The Web Push protocol [RFC8030] describes how an application server
   is able to request that a push service deliver a push message to a
   user agent.

   As a consequence of the expected deployment architecture, there is no
   basis for an application server to be known to a push service prior
   to requesting delivery of a push message.  Requiring that the push
   service be able to authenticate application servers places an
   unwanted constraint on the interactions between user agents and
   application servers, who are the ultimate users of a push service.
   That constraint would also degrade the privacy-preserving properties
   the protocol provides.  For these reasons, [RFC8030] does not define
   a mandatory system for authentication of application servers.



Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   An unfortunate consequence of the design of [RFC8030] is that a push
   service is exposed to a greater risk of denial of service attack.
   While requests from application servers can be indirectly attributed
   to user agents, this is not always efficient or even sufficient.
   Providing more information about the application server directly to a
   push service allows the push service to better distinguish between
   legitimate and bogus requests.

   Additionally, the design of RFC 8030 relies on maintaining the
   secrecy of push subscription URIs.  Any application server in
   possession of this URI is able to send messages to the user agent.
   If use of a subscription could be limited to a single application
   server, this would reduce the impact of the push subscription URI
   being learned by an unauthorized party.

1.1.  Voluntary Identification

   This document describes a system whereby an application server can
   volunteer information about itself to a push service.  At a minimum,
   this provides a stable identity for the application server, though
   this could also include contact information, such as an email
   address.

   A consistent identity can be used by a push service to establish
   behavioral expectations for an application server.  Significant
   deviations from an established norm can then be used to trigger
   exception handling procedures.

   Voluntarily-provided contact information can be used to contact an
   application server operator in the case of exceptional situations.

   Experience with push service deployment has shown that software
   errors or unusual circumstances can cause large increases in push
   message volume.  Contacting the operator of the application server
   has proven to be valuable.

   Even in the absence of usable contact information, an application
   server that has a well-established reputation might be given
   preference over an unidentified application server when choosing
   whether to discard a push message.

1.2.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.



Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   The terms "push message", "push service", "push subscription",
   "application server", and "user agent" are used as defined in
   [RFC8030].

2.  Application Server Self-Identification

   Application servers that wish to self-identify generate and maintain
   a signing key pair.  This key pair MUST be usable with elliptic curve
   digital signature (ECDSA) over the P-256 curve [FIPS186].  Use of
   this key when sending push messages establishes an identity for the
   application server that is consistent across multiple messages.

   When requesting delivery of a push message, the application includes
   a JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519], signed using its signing key.  The
   token includes a number of claims as follows:

   o  An "aud" (Audience) claim in the token MUST include the unicode
      serialization of the origin (Section 6.1 of [RFC6454]) of the push
      resource URL.  This binds the token to a specific push service.
      This ensures that the token is reusable for all push resource URLs
      that share the same origin.

   o  An "exp" (Expiry) claim MUST be included with the time after which
      the token expires.  This limits the time over which a token is
      valid.  An "exp" claim MUST NOT be more than 24 hours from the
      time of the request.  Limiting this to 24 hours balances the need
      for reuse against the potential cost and likelihood of theft of a
      valid token.

   This JWT is included in an Authorization header field, using an auth-
   scheme of "vapid".  A push service MAY reject a request with a 403
   (Forbidden) status code [RFC7235] if the JWT signature or its claims
   are invalid.  A push service MUST NOT use information from an invalid
   token.

   The JWT MUST use a JSON Web Signature (JWS) [RFC7515].  The signature
   MUST use ECDSA on the NIST P-256 curve [FIPS186] which is identified
   as "ES256" [RFC7518].

2.1.  Application Server Contact Information

   If the application server wishes to provide contact details it MAY
   include a "sub" (Subject) claim in the JWT.  The "sub" claim SHOULD
   include a contact URI for the application server as either a
   "mailto:" (email) [RFC6068] or an "https:" [RFC2818] URI.






Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


2.2.  Additional Claims

   An application server MAY include additional claims using public or
   private names (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of [RFC7519]).  Since the JWT
   is in a header field, the size of additional claims SHOULD be kept as
   small as possible.

2.3.  Cryptographic Agility

   The "vapid" HTTP authentication scheme (Section 3) is used to
   identify the specific profile of JWT defined in this document.  A
   different authentication scheme is needed to update the signature
   algorithm or other parameters.  This ensures that existing mechanisms
   for negotiating authentication scheme can be used rather than
   defining new parameter negotiation mechanisms.

2.4.  Example

   An application server requests the delivery of a push message as
   described in [RFC8030].  If the application server wishes to self-
   identify, it includes an Authorization header field with credentials
   that use the "vapid" authentication scheme.

   POST /p/JzLQ3raZJfFBR0aqvOMsLrt54w4rJUsV HTTP/1.1
   Host: push.example.net
   TTL: 30
   Content-Length: 136
   Content-Encoding: aes128gcm
   Authorization: vapid
      t=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiJ9.eyJhdWQiOiJodHRwczovL3
        B1c2guZXhhbXBsZS5uZXQiLCJleHAiOjE0NTM1MjM3NjgsInN1YiI6Im1ha
        Wx0bzpwdXNoQGV4YW1wbGUuY29tIn0.i3CYb7t4xfxCDquptFOepC9GAu_H
        LGkMlMuCGSK2rpiUfnK9ojFwDXb1JrErtmysazNjjvW2L9OkSSHzvoD1oA,
      k=BA1Hxzyi1RUM1b5wjxsn7nGxAszw2u61m164i3MrAIxHF6YK5h4SDYic-dR
        uU_RCPCfA5aq9ojSwk5Y2EmClBPs

   { encrypted push message }

            Figure 1: Requesting Push Message Delivery with JWT

   Note that the example header fields in this document include extra
   line wrapping to meet formatting constraints.

   The "t" parameter of the Authorization header field contains a JWT;
   the "k" parameter includes the base64url-encoded key that signed that
   token.  The JWT input values and the JWK [RFC7517] corresponding to
   the signing key are shown in Figure 2 with additional whitespace




Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   added for readability purposes.  This JWT would be valid until
   2016-01-23T04:36:08Z [RFC3339].

   JWT header = { "typ": "JWT", "alg": "ES256" }
   JWT body = { "aud": "https://push.example.net",
                "exp": 1453523768,
                "sub": "mailto:push@example.com" }
   JWK = { "crv":"P-256",
           "kty":"EC",
           "x":"DUfHPKLVFQzVvnCPGyfucbECzPDa7rWbXriLcysAjEc",
           "y":"F6YK5h4SDYic-dRuU_RCPCfA5aq9ojSwk5Y2EmClBPs" }

                     Figure 2: Decoded Example Values

3.  Vapid Authentication Scheme

   A new "vapid" HTTP authentication scheme [RFC7235] is defined.  This
   authentication scheme carries a signed JWT, as described in
   Section 2, plus the key that signed that JWT.

   This authentication scheme is for origin-server authentication only.
   Therefore, this authentication scheme MUST NOT be used with the
   Proxy-Authenticate or Proxy-Authorization header fields.

   The challenge for the "vapid" authentication scheme contains only the
   "auth-scheme" production.  No parameters are currently defined.

   Two parameters are defined for this authentication scheme: "t" and
   "k".  All unknown or unsupported parameters to "vapid" authentication
   credentials MUST be ignored.  The "realm" parameter is ignored for
   this authentication scheme.

   This authentication scheme is intended for use by an application
   server when using the Web Push protocol [RFC8030].

3.1.  Token Parameter (t)

   The "t" parameter of the "vapid" authentication scheme carries a JWT
   as described in Section 2.

3.2.  Public Key Parameter (k)

   In order for the push service to be able to validate the JWT, it
   needs to learn the public key of the application server.  A "k"
   parameter is defined for the "vapid" authentication scheme to carry
   this information.





Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   The "k" parameter includes an elliptic curve digital signature
   algorithm (ECDSA) public key [FIPS186] in uncompressed form [X9.62]
   that is encoded using base64url encoding [RFC7515].

   Note:  X9.62 encoding is used over JWK [RFC7517] for two reasons.  A
      JWK does not have a canonical form, so X9.62 encoding makes it
      easier for the push service to handle comparison of keys from
      different sources.  Secondarily, the X9.62 encoding is also
      considerably smaller.

   Some elliptic curve implementations permit the same P-256 key to be
   used for signing and key exchange.  An application server MUST select
   a different private key for the key exchange [WEBPUSH-ENCRYPTION] and
   signing the authentication token.  Though a push service is not
   obligated to check either parameter for every push message, a push
   service SHOULD reject push messages that have identical values for
   these parameters with a 400 (Bad Request) status code.

4.  Subscription Restriction

   The public key of the application server serves as a stable
   identifier for the server.  This key can be used to restrict a push
   subscription to a specific application server.

   Subscription restriction reduces the reliance on endpoint secrecy by
   requiring that an application server provide a signed token when
   requesting delivery of a push message.  This provides an additional
   level of protection against leaking of the details of the push
   subscription.

4.1.  Creating a Restricted Push Subscription

   A user agent that wishes to create a restricted subscription includes
   the public key of the application server when requesting the creation
   of a push subscription.  This restricts use of the resulting
   subscription to application servers that are able to provide a valid
   JWT signed by the corresponding private key.

   The user agent then adds the public key to the request to create a
   push subscription.  The push subscription request is extended to
   include a body.  The body of the request is a JSON object as
   described in [RFC7159].  The user agent adds a "vapid" member to this
   JSON object that contains a public key on the P-256 curve, encoded in
   the uncompressed form [X9.62] and base64url encoded [RFC7515].  The
   media type of the body is set to "application/webpush-options+json"
   (see Section 6.3 for registration of this media type).





Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   A push service MUST ignore the body of a request that uses a
   different media type.  For the "application/webpush-options+json"
   media type, a push service MUST ignore any members on this object
   that it does not understand.

   The example in Figure 3 shows a restriction to the key used in
   Figure 1.  Extra whitespace is added to meet formatting constraints.

   POST /subscribe/ HTTP/1.1
   Host: push.example.net
   Content-Type: application/webpush-options+json
   Content-Length: 104

   { "vapid": "BA1Hxzyi1RUM1b5wjxsn7nGxAszw2u61m164i3MrAIxH
               F6YK5h4SDYic-dRuU_RCPCfA5aq9ojSwk5Y2EmClBPs" }

                    Figure 3: Example Subscribe Request

   An application might use the Web Push API [API] to provide the user
   agent with a public key.

4.2.  Using Restricted Subscriptions

   When a push subscription has been restricted to an application
   server, the request for push message delivery MUST include a JWT
   signed by the private key that corresponds to the public key used
   when creating the subscription.

   A push service MUST reject a message sent to a restricted push
   subscription if that message includes no "vapid" authentication or
   invalid "vapid" authentication.  A 401 (Unauthorized) status code
   might be used if the authentication is absent; a 403 (Forbidden)
   status code might be used if authentication is invalid.

   "vapid" authentication is invalid if:

   o  either the authentication token or public key are not included in
      the request,

   o  the signature on the JWT cannot be successfully verified using the
      included public key,

   o  the current time is later than the time identified in the "exp"
      (Expiry) claim or more than 24 hours before the expiry time,

   o  the origin of the push resource is not included in the "aud"
      (Audience) claim, or




Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   o  the public key used to sign the JWT doesn't match the one that was
      included in the creation of the push subscription.

   A push service MUST NOT forward the JWT or public key to the user
   agent when delivering the push message.

   An application server that needs to replace its signing key needs to
   request the creation of a new subscription by the user agent that is
   restricted to the updated key.  Application servers need to remember
   the key that was used when requesting the creation of a subscription.

5.  Security Considerations

   This authentication scheme is vulnerable to replay attacks if an
   attacker can acquire a valid JWT.  Sending requests using HTTPS as
   required by [RFC8030] provides confidentiality.  Additionally,
   applying narrow limits to the period over which a replayable token
   can be reused limits the potential value of a stolen token to an
   attacker and can increase the difficulty of stealing a token.

   An application server might offer falsified contact information.  The
   application server asserts its email address or contact URI without
   any evidence to support the claim.  A push service operator cannot
   use the presence of unvalidated contact information as input to any
   security-critical decision-making process.

   Validation of a signature on the JWT requires a non-trivial amount of
   computation.  For something that might be used to identify legitimate
   requests under denial of service attack conditions, this is not
   ideal.  Application servers are therefore encouraged to reuse tokens,
   which permits the push service to cache the results of signature
   validation.

   An application server that changes its signing key breaks linkability
   between push messages that it sends under the different keys.  A push
   service that relies on a consistent identity for application servers
   might categorize requests made with new keys differently.  Gradual
   migration to a new signing key reduces the chances that requests that
   use the new key will be categorized as abusive.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers a new authentication scheme, a registry for
   parameters of that scheme, and media type for push options.







Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


6.1.  Vapid Authentication Scheme Registration

   This document registers the "vapid" authentication scheme in the
   "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme Registry"
   established in [RFC7235].

   Authentication Scheme Name:  vapid

   Pointer to specification text:  Section 3 of this document

   Notes:  This scheme is origin-server only and does not define a
      challenge.

6.2.  Vapid Authentication Scheme Parameters

   This document creates a "Vapid Authentication Scheme Parameters"
   registry for parameters to the "vapid" authentication scheme.  These
   parameters are defined for use in requests (in the Authorization
   header field) and for challenges (in the WWW-Authenticate header
   field).  This registry is under the "WebPush Parameters" grouping.
   The registry operates on the "Specification Required" policy
   [RFC5226].

   Registrations MUST include the following information:

   Parameter Name:  A name for the parameter, which conforms to the
      "token" grammar [RFC7230]

   Purpose (optional):  A brief identifying the purpose of the
      parameter.

   Header Fields:  The header field or header fields where the parameter
      can be used.

   Specification:  A link to the specification that defines the format
      and semantics of the parameter.

   This registry initially contains the following entries:













Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   +------------+------------------+---------------+-------------------+
   | Parameter  | Purpose          | Header Fields | Specification     |
   | Name       |                  |               |                   |
   +------------+------------------+---------------+-------------------+
   | t          | JWT              | Authorization | [[RFC-to-be]],    |
   |            | authentication   |               | Section 3.1       |
   |            | token            |               |                   |
   |            |                  |               |                   |
   | k          | signing key      | Authorization | [[RFC-to-be]],    |
   |            |                  |               | Section 3.2       |
   +------------+------------------+---------------+-------------------+

6.3.  application/webpush-options+json Media Type Registration

   This document registers the "application/webpush-options+json" media
   type in the "Media Types" registry following the process described in
   [RFC6838].

   [[RFC editor: please replace instances of RFCXXXX in this section
   with a reference to the published RFC.]]

   Type name:  application

   Subtype name:  webpush-options+json

   Required parameters:  none

   Optional parameters:  none

   Encoding considerations:  binary (JSON is UTF-8-encoded text)

   Security considerations:  See [RFC7159] for security considerations
      specific to JSON.

   Interoperability considerations:  See [RFC7159] for interoperability
      considerations specific to JSON.

   Published specification:  [[RFCXXXX]].

   Applications that use this media type:  Web browsers, via the Web
      Push Protocol [RFC8030].

   Fragment identifier considerations:  None, see [RFC7159].

   Additional information:

      Deprecated alias names for this type:  n/a




Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


      Magic number(s):  n/a

      File extension(s):  .json

      Macintosh file type code(s):  TEXT

   Person & email address to contact for further information:  Martin
      Thomson (martin.thomson@gmail.com)

   Intended usage:  LIMITED USE

   Restrictions on usage:  For use with the Web Push Protocol [RFC8030].

   Author:  See "Authors' Addresses" section of [[RFCXXXX]].

   Change controller:  Internet Engineering Task Force

7.  Acknowledgements

   This document would have been much worse than it is if not for the
   contributions of Benjamin Bangert, JR Conlin, Chris Karlof, Costin
   Manolache, Adam Roach, and others.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [FIPS186]  National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", NIST PUB 186-4 , July
              2013.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC6068]  Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto'
              URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6068>.



Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   [RFC6454]  Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc6454>.

   [RFC6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
              Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
              RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.

   [RFC7159]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7235]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc7235>.

   [RFC7515]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
              Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.

   [RFC7518]  Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc7518>.

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC8030]  Thomson, M., Damaggio, E., and B. Raymor, Ed., "Generic
              Event Delivery Using HTTP Push", RFC 8030,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8030, December 2016, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc8030>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [WEBPUSH-ENCRYPTION]
              Thomson, M., "Message Encryption for Web Push", draft-
              ietf-webpush-encryption-08 (work in progress), February
              2017.



Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             Self Identification            September 2017


   [X9.62]    ANSI, "Public Key Cryptography For The Financial Services
              Industry: The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm
              (ECDSA)", ANSI X9.62 , 1998.

8.2.  Informative References

   [API]      Beverloo, P., Thomson, M., van Ouwerkerk, M., Sullivan,
              B., and E. Fullea, "Push API", May 2017,
              <https://w3c.github.io/push-api/>.

   [RFC3339]  Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
              Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.

   [RFC7517]  Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc7517>.

Authors' Addresses

   Martin Thomson
   Mozilla

   Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com


   Peter Beverloo
   Google

   Email: beverloo@google.com





















Thomson & Beverloo        Expires March 8, 2018                [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.128, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/