< draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-02.txt   draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-03.txt >
Network Working Group A. Backman, Ed. Network Working Group A. Backman, Ed.
Internet-Draft Amazon Internet-Draft Amazon
Intended status: Standards Track M. Jones, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track M. Jones, Ed.
Expires: September 11, 2019 Microsoft Expires: January 9, 2020 Microsoft
M. Scurtescu M. Scurtescu
Coinbase Coinbase
M. Ansari M. Ansari
Cisco Cisco
A. Nadalin A. Nadalin
Microsoft Microsoft
March 10, 2019 July 8, 2019
Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP
draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-02 draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-03
Abstract Abstract
This specification defines how a series of Security Event Tokens This specification defines how a series of Security Event Tokens
(SETs) may be delivered to an intended recipient using HTTP POST over (SETs) may be delivered to an intended recipient using HTTP POST over
TLS initiated as a poll by the recipient. The specification also TLS initiated as a poll by the recipient. The specification also
defines how delivery can be assured, subject to the SET Recipient's defines how delivery can be assured, subject to the SET Recipient's
need for assurance. need for assurance.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 19
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SET Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. SET Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Polling HTTP Request Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Polling HTTP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Polling HTTP Response Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Polling HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Poll Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Poll Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.1. Poll Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4.1. Poll Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.2. Acknowledge Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.2. Acknowledge Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.4. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors . . . . . . . . 9 2.4.4. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors . . . . . . . . 9
2.5. Poll Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.5. Poll Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6. Error Response Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.6. Error Response Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. HTTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2. HTTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. TLS Support Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3. Confidentiality of SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. Access Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4. Access Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction and Overview 1. Introduction and Overview
This specification defines how a stream of Security Event Tokens This specification defines how a stream of Security Event Tokens
(SETs) [RFC8417] can be transmitted to an intended SET Recipient (SETs) [RFC8417] can be transmitted to an intended SET Recipient
using HTTP [RFC7231] over TLS. The specification defines a method to using HTTP [RFC7231] over TLS. The specification defines a method to
poll for SETs using HTTP POST. poll for SETs using HTTP POST.
A mechanism for exchanging configuration metadata such as endpoint
URLs and cryptographic key parameters between the transmitter and
recipient is out of scope for this specification.
1.1. Notational Conventions 1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
Throughout this document, all figures MAY contain spaces and extra Throughout this document, all figures MAY contain spaces and extra
line wrapping for readability and due to space limitations. line wrapping for readability and due to space limitations.
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
2. SET Delivery 2. SET Delivery
When an event occurs, the SET Transmitter constructs a SET [RFC8417] When an event occurs, the SET Transmitter constructs a SET [RFC8417]
that describes the event. The SET Transmitter determines the SET that describes the event. The SET Transmitter determines the SET
Recipients that the SET should be distributed to. Recipients that the SET should be distributed to.
How SETs are defined and the process by which events are identified How SETs are defined and the process by which events are identified
for SET Recipients is out of scope of this specification. for SET Recipients is out of scope of this specification.
When a SET is available for a SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter When a SET is available for a SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter
attempts to deliver the SET by queueing s the SET in a buffer so that attempts to deliver the SET by queueing the SET in a buffer so that a
a SET Recipient can poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST. SET Recipient can poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST.
In Poll-Based SET Delivery Using HTTP, zero or more SETs are In Poll-Based SET Delivery Using HTTP, zero or more SETs are
delivered in a JSON [RFC8259] document to a SET Recipient in response delivered in a JSON [RFC8259] document to a SET Recipient in response
to an HTTP POST request to the SET Transmitter. Then in a following to an HTTP POST request to the SET Transmitter. Then in a following
request, the SET Recipient acknowledges received SETs and can poll request, the SET Recipient acknowledges received SETs and can poll
for more. All requests and responses are JSON documents and use a for more. All requests and responses are JSON documents and use a
"Content-Type" of "application/json", as described in Section 2.1. "Content-Type" of "application/json", as described in Section 2.1.
After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, SET Transmitters are After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, SET Transmitters are
not be required to retain or record SETs for recovery. Once a SET is not be required to retain or record SETs for retransmission. Once a
acknowledged, the SET Recipient SHALL be responsible for retention SET is acknowledged, the SET Recipient SHALL be responsible for
and recovery. retention, if needed.
Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (e.g., signed) if there is Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (signed) if there is a
a requirement to verify they were issued by the SET Transmitter at a requirement to verify they were issued by the SET Transmitter at a
later date when de-coupled from the original delivery where later date when de-coupled from the original delivery where
authenticity could be checked via the HTTP or TLS mutual authenticity could be checked via the HTTP or TLS mutual
authentication. authentication.
Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates
it. The SET Recipient MUST acknowledge receipt to the SET it in the manner described in Section 2 of
Transmitter. [I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push]. The SET Recipient MUST acknowledge
receipt to the SET Transmitter. The SET Recipient SHALL NOT use the
The SET Recipient SHALL NOT use the event acknowledgement mechanism event acknowledgement mechanism to report event errors other than
to report event errors other than relating to the parsing and relating to the parsing and validation of the SET.
validation of the SET.
2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP 2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP
This method allows a SET Recipient to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3 of This method allows a SET Recipient to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3 of
[RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero or [RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero or
more SETs. Requests MAY be made at a periodic interval (short more SETs. Requests MAY be made at a periodic interval (short
polling) or requests MAY wait, pending availability of new SETs using polling) or requests MAY wait, pending availability of new SETs using
long polling, per Section 2 of [RFC6202]. long polling, per Section 2 of [RFC6202].
The delivery of SETs in this method is facilitated by HTTP POST The delivery of SETs in this method is facilitated by HTTP POST
requests initiated by the SET Recipient in which: requests initiated by the SET Recipient in which:
o The SET Recipient makes a request for available SETs using an HTTP o The SET Recipient makes a request for available SETs using an HTTP
POST to a pre-arranged endpoint provided by the SET Transmitter. POST to a pre-arranged endpoint provided by the SET Transmitter
Or, or,
o After validating previously received SETs, the SET Recipient o after validating previously received SETs, the SET Recipient
initiates another poll request using HTTP POST that includes initiates another poll request using HTTP POST that includes
acknowledgement of previous SETs and waits for the next batch of acknowledgement of previous SETs and waits for the next batch of
SETs. SETs.
The purpose of the acknowledgement is to inform the SET Transmitter The purpose of the acknowledgement is to inform the SET Transmitter
that delivery has succeeded and redelivery is no longer required. that delivery has succeeded and redelivery is no longer required.
Before acknowledgement, SET Recipients SHOULD ensure that received Before acknowledgement, SET Recipients SHOULD ensure that received
SETs have been validated and retained in a manner appropriate to the SETs have been validated and retained in a manner appropriate to the
recipient's requirements. The level and method of retention of SETs recipient's requirements. The level and method of retention of SETs
by SET Recipients is out of scope of this specification. by SET Recipients is out of scope of this specification.
2.2. Polling HTTP Request Attributes 2.2. Polling HTTP Request
When initiating a poll request, the SET Recipient constructs a JSON When initiating a poll request, the SET Recipient constructs a JSON
document that consists of polling request parameters and SET document that consists of polling request parameters and SET
acknowledgement parameters in the form of JSON attributes. The acknowledgement parameters in the form of JSON objects. The request
request payloads are delivered in a JSON document, as described in payloads are delivered in a JSON document, as described in
Section 2.4 and Section 2.5. Section 2.4 and Section 2.5.
When making a request, the HTTP header "Content-Type" is set to When making a request, the HTTP header "Content-Type" is set to
"application/json". "application/json".
The following JSON attributes are used in a polling request: The following JSON object members are used in a polling request:
Request Processing Parameters Request Processing Parameters
maxEvents maxEvents
An OPTIONAL JSON integer value indicating the maximum number of An OPTIONAL JSON integer value indicating the maximum number of
unacknowledged SETs that SHOULD be returned. If more than the unacknowledged SETs that SHOULD be returned. If more than the
maximum number of SETs are available, the oldest SETs available maximum number of SETs are available, the oldest SETs available
SHOULD be returned first. A value of "0" MAY be used by SET SHOULD be returned first. A value of "0" MAY be used by SET
Recipients that would like to perform an acknowledge only Recipients that would like to perform an acknowledge only
request. This enables the Recipient to use separate HTTP request. This enables the Recipient to use separate HTTP
requests for acknowledgement and reception of SETs. If this requests for acknowledgement and reception of SETs. If this
parameter is omitted, no limit is placed on the number of SETs parameter is omitted, no limit is placed on the number of SETs
to be returned. to be returned.
returnImmediately returnImmediately
An OPTIONAL JSON boolean value that indicates the SET An OPTIONAL JSON boolean value that indicates the SET
Transmitter SHOULD return an immediate response even if no Transmitter SHOULD return an immediate response even if no
results are available (short polling). The default value is results are available (short polling). The default value is
"false" indicates the request is to be treated as an HTTP Long "false", which indicates the request is to be treated as an
Poll, per Section 2 of [RFC6202]. The timeout for the request HTTP Long Poll, per Section 2 of [RFC6202]. The timeout for
is part of the configuration between the participants, which is the request is part of the configuration between the
out of scope of this specification. participants, which is out of scope of this specification.
SET Acknowledgment Parameters SET Acknowledgment Parameters
ack ack
Which is an array of Strings that each correspond to the "jti" An array of strings that each corresponds to the "jti" of a
of a successfully received SET. If there are no outstanding successfully received SET. If there are no outstanding SETs to
SETs to acknowledge, the attribute MAY be omitted. When acknowledge, the member MAY be omitted. When acknowledging a
acknowledging a SET, the SET Transmitter is released from any SET, the SET Transmitter is released from any obligation to
obligation to retain the SET (e.g., for a future retry to retain the SET.
receive).
setErrs setErrs
A JSON Object that contains one or more nested JSON attributes A JSON Object that contains one or more nested JSON object
that correspond to the "jti" of each invalid SET received. The members that correspond to the "jti" of each invalid SET
value of each is a JSON object whose contents is an "err" received. The value of each is a JSON object whose contents is
attribute and "description" attribute whose value correspond to an "err" member and "description" member, whose values
the errors described in Section 2.6. correspond to the errors described in Section 2.6.
2.3. Polling HTTP Response Attributes 2.3. Polling HTTP Response
In response to a poll request, the SET Transmitter checks for In response to a poll request, the SET Transmitter checks for
available SETs and responds with a JSON document containing the available SETs and responds with a JSON document containing the
following JSON attributes: following JSON object members:
sets sets
A JSON object that contains zero or more nested JSON attributes. A JSON object that contains zero or more nested JSON objects.
Each nested attribute corresponds to the "jti" of a SET to be Each nested JSON object corresponds to the "jti" of a SET to be
delivered and whose value is a JSON String containing the value of delivered and whose value is a JSON string containing the value of
the encoded corresponding SET. If there are no outstanding SETs the encoded corresponding SET. If there are no outstanding SETs
to be transmitted, the JSON object SHALL be empty. to be transmitted, the JSON object SHALL be empty.
moreAvailable moreAvailable
A JSON boolean value that indicates if more unacknowledged SETs A JSON boolean value that indicates if more unacknowledged SETs
are available to be returned. are available to be returned.
When making a response, the HTTP header "Content-Type" is set to When making a response, the HTTP header "Content-Type" is set to
"application/json". "application/json".
skipping to change at page 6, line 47 skipping to change at page 6, line 49
in acknowledgement, where possible. in acknowledgement, where possible.
Poll requests have three variations: Poll requests have three variations:
Poll Only Poll Only
In which a SET Recipient asks for the next set of events where no In which a SET Recipient asks for the next set of events where no
previous SET deliveries are acknowledged (such as in the initial previous SET deliveries are acknowledged (such as in the initial
poll request). poll request).
Acknowledge Only Acknowledge Only
In which a SET Recipient sets the "maxEvents" attribute to "0" In which a SET Recipient sets the "maxEvents" value to "0" along
along with "ack" and "err" attributes indicating the SET Recipient with "ack" and "err" members indicating the SET Recipient is
is acknowledging previously received SETs and does not want to acknowledging previously received SETs and does not want to
receive any new SETs in response to the request. receive any new SETs in response to the request.
Combined Acknowledge and Poll Combined Acknowledge and Poll
In which a SET Recipient is both acknowledging previously received In which a SET Recipient is both acknowledging previously received
SETs using the "ack" and "err" attributes and will wait for the SETs using the "ack" and "err" members and will wait for the next
next group of SETs in the SET Transmitters response. group of SETs in the SET Transmitters response.
2.4.1. Poll Only Request 2.4.1. Poll Only Request
In the case where no SETs were received in a previous poll (see In the case where no SETs were received in a previous poll (see
Figure 7), the SET Recipient simply polls without acknowledgement Figure 7), the SET Recipient simply polls without acknowledgement
parameters ("sets" and "setErrs"). parameters ("sets" and "setErrs").
The following is an example request made by a SET Recipient that has The following is an example request made by a SET Recipient that has
no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling for available SETs. no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling for available SETs
at the endpoint "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events":
The following is a non-normative example poll request to the
endpoint: "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events".
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Accept: application/json Accept: application/json
{ {
"returnImmediately": true "returnImmediately": true
} }
Figure 1: Example Initial Poll Request Figure 1: Example Initial Poll Request
A SET Recipient can poll using default parameter values by passing an A SET Recipient can poll using default parameter values by passing an
empty JSON object. empty JSON object.
The following is a non-normative example default poll request to the The following is a non-normative example default poll request to the
endpoint: "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events". endpoint "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events":
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Accept: application/json Accept: application/json
{} {}
Figure 2: Example Default Poll Request Figure 2: Example Default Poll Request
2.4.2. Acknowledge Only Request 2.4.2. Acknowledge Only Request
In this variation, the SET Recipient acknowledges previously received In this variation, the SET Recipient acknowledges previously received
SETs and indicates it does not want to receive SETs in response by SETs and indicates it does not want to receive SETs in response by
setting the "maxEvents" attribute to "0". setting the "maxEvents" value to "0".
This variation might be used, for instance, when a SET Recipient This variation might be used, for instance, when a SET Recipient
needs to acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g., on separate needs to acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g., on separate
threads) from the process of receiving SETs. threads) from the process of receiving SETs.
The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement of The following is a non-normative example poll request with
SETs received (for example as shown in Figure 6). acknowledgement of SETs received (for example as shown in Figure 6):
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
{ {
"ack": [ "ack": [
skipping to change at page 9, line 6 skipping to change at page 9, line 6
Figure 3: Example Acknowledge Only Request Figure 3: Example Acknowledge Only Request
2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement 2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement
This variation allows a recipient thread to simultaneously This variation allows a recipient thread to simultaneously
acknowledge previously received SETs and wait for the next group of acknowledge previously received SETs and wait for the next group of
SETs in a single request. SETs in a single request.
The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement of The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement of
SETs received in Figure 6. the SETs received in Figure 6:
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
{ {
"ack": [ "ack": [
skipping to change at page 9, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 32
Figure 4: Example Poll with Acknowledgement and No Errors Figure 4: Example Poll with Acknowledgement and No Errors
In the above acknowledgement, the SET Recipient has acknowledged In the above acknowledgement, the SET Recipient has acknowledged
receipt of two SETs and has indicated it wants to wait until the next receipt of two SETs and has indicated it wants to wait until the next
SET is available. SET is available.
2.4.4. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors 2.4.4. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors
In the case where errors were detected in previously delivered SETs, In the case where errors were detected in previously delivered SETs,
the SET Recipient MAY use the "setErrs" attribute to communicate the the SET Recipient MAY use the "setErrs" member to communicate the
errors in the following poll request. errors in the following poll request.
The following is a non-normative example of a response acknowledging The following is a non-normative example of a response acknowledging
one successfully received SET and one SET with an error from the two one successfully received SET and one SET with an error from the two
SETs received in in Figure 6. SETs received in Figure 6:
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
{ {
"ack": ["3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"], "ack": ["3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"],
skipping to change at page 10, line 39 skipping to change at page 10, line 39
2.5. Poll Response 2.5. Poll Response
In response to a poll request, the service provider MAY respond In response to a poll request, the service provider MAY respond
immediately if SETs are available to be delivered. If no SETs are immediately if SETs are available to be delivered. If no SETs are
available at the time of the request, the SET Transmitter SHALL delay available at the time of the request, the SET Transmitter SHALL delay
responding until a SET is available or the timeout interval has responding until a SET is available or the timeout interval has
elapsed unless the poll request parameter "returnImmediately" is elapsed unless the poll request parameter "returnImmediately" is
"true". "true".
As described in Section 2.3, a JSON document is returned containing a As described in Section 2.3, a JSON document is returned containing a
number of attributes including "sets" which SHALL contain zero or number of members including "sets", which SHALL contain zero or more
more SETs. SETs.
The following is a non-normative example response to the request The following is a non-normative example response to the request
shown Section 2.4. This example shows two SETs are returned. shown in Section 2.4. This example shows two SETs being returned:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events
{ {
"sets": { "sets": {
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8": "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":
"eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0. "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.
eyJqdGkiOiI0ZDM1NTllYzY3NTA0YWFiYTY1ZDQwYjAzNjNmYWFkOCIsImlhdCI6MTQ eyJqdGkiOiI0ZDM1NTllYzY3NTA0YWFiYTY1ZDQwYjAzNjNmYWFkOCIsImlhdCI6MTQ
skipping to change at page 11, line 40 skipping to change at page 11, line 40
ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwic3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL1V ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwic3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL1V
zZXJzLzQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkiLCJldmVudHMiOnsidXJuOmlldG zZXJzLzQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkiLCJldmVudHMiOnsidXJuOmlldG
Y6cGFyYW1zOnNjaW06ZXZlbnQ6cGFzc3dvcmRSZXNldCI6eyJpZCI6IjQ0ZjYxNDJkZ Y6cGFyYW1zOnNjaW06ZXZlbnQ6cGFzc3dvcmRSZXNldCI6eyJpZCI6IjQ0ZjYxNDJkZ
jk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkifSwiaHR0cHM6Ly9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9zY2ltL2V2ZW50 jk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkifSwiaHR0cHM6Ly9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9zY2ltL2V2ZW50
L3Bhc3N3b3JkUmVzZXRFeHQiOnsicmVzZXRBdHRlbXB0cyI6NX19fQ." L3Bhc3N3b3JkUmVzZXRFeHQiOnsicmVzZXRBdHRlbXB0cyI6NX19fQ."
} }
} }
Figure 6: Example Poll Response Figure 6: Example Poll Response
In the above example, a two SETs whose "jti" are In the above example, two SETs whose "jti" values are
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8" and "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8" and
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" are delivered. "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" are delivered.
The following is a non-normative example response to the request The following is a non-normative example response to the request
shown Section 2.4 showing no new SETs or unacknowledged SETs are shown in Section 2.4, which indicates that no new SETs or
available. unacknowledged SETs are available:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events
{ {
"sets": {} "sets": {}
} }
Figure 7: Example No SETs Poll Response Figure 7: Example No SETs Poll Response
Upon receiving the JSON document (e.g., as shown in Figure 6), the Upon receiving the JSON document (e.g., as shown in Figure 6), the
SET Recipient parses and verifies the received SETs and notifies the SET Recipient parses and verifies the received SETs and notifies the
SET Transmitter via the next poll request to the SET Transmitter, as SET Transmitter via the next poll request to the SET Transmitter, as
described in Section 2.4.3 or Section 2.4.4. described in Section 2.4.3 or Section 2.4.4.
2.6. Error Response Handling 2.6. Error Response Handling
If a SET is invalid, error codes from the IANA "Security Event Token If a SET is invalid, error codes from the IANA "Security Event Token
Delivery Error Codes" registry established by Delivery Error Codes" registry established by
[I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push] are used in error responses. An error [I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push] are used in error responses. As
response SHALL include a JSON object that provides details about the described in Section 2.3 of [I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push], an error
error. The JSON object includes the JSON attributes: response is a JSON object providing details about the error that
includes the following name/value pairs:
err err
A value from the IANA "Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes" A value from the IANA "Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes"
registry that identifies the error. registry that identifies the error.
description description
A human-readable string that provides additional diagnostic A human-readable string that provides additional diagnostic
information. information.
When included as part of a batch of SETs, the above JSON is included When included as part of a batch of SETs, the above JSON is included
as part of the "setErrs" attribute, as defined in Section 2.3 and as part of the "setErrs" member, as defined in Section 2.3 and
Section 2.4.4. Section 2.4.4.
3. Authentication and Authorization 3. Authentication and Authorization
The SET delivery method described in this specification is based upon The SET delivery method described in this specification is based upon
HTTP and depends on the use of TLS and/or standard HTTP HTTP and depends on the use of TLS and/or standard HTTP
authentication and authorization schemes as per [RFC7235]. For authentication and authorization schemes, as per [RFC7235]. For
example, the following methodologies could be used among others: example, the following methodologies could be used among others:
TLS Client Authentication TLS Client Authentication
Event delivery endpoints MAY request TLS mutual client Event delivery endpoints MAY request TLS mutual client
authentication, per Section 7.3 of [RFC5246]. authentication, per Section 7.3 of [RFC5246].
Bearer Tokens Bearer Tokens
Bearer tokens [RFC6750] MAY be used when combined with TLS and a Bearer tokens [RFC6750] MAY be used when combined with TLS and a
token framework such as OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. For security token framework such as OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. For security
considerations regarding the use of bearer tokens in SET delivery, considerations regarding the use of bearer tokens in SET delivery,
see Section 4.4.1. see Section 4.4.1.
Basic Authentication Basic Authentication
Use of HTTP BASIC authentication should be avoided due to its use Use of HTTP BASIC authentication should be avoided due to its use
of a single factor that is based upon a relatively static, of a single factor that is based upon a relatively static,
symmetric secret. When used, implementers SHOULD combine the use symmetric secret. When used, implementers SHOULD combine the use
of basic authentication with other factors. The security of basic authentication with other factors. The security
considerations of HTTP BASIC are well documented in [RFC7617] and considerations of HTTP BASIC are well documented in [RFC7617] and
SHOULD be considered along with using signed SETs (see SET Payload SHOULD be considered along with using signed SETs, as described in
Authentication below). Section 4.1.
As per Section 4.1 of [RFC7235], a SET delivery endpoint SHALL As per Section 4.1 of [RFC7235], a SET delivery endpoint SHALL
indicate supported HTTP authentication schemes via the "WWW- indicate supported HTTP authentication schemes via the "WWW-
Authenticate" header. Authenticate" header.
Because SET Delivery describes a simple function, authorization for Authorization for the ability to pick-up or deliver SETs can be
the ability to pick-up or deliver SETs can be derived by considering determined by using the identity of the SET issuer, or via an
the identity of the SET issuer, or via an authentication method authentication method above. This specification considers
above. This specification considers authentication as a feature to authentication as a feature to prevent denial-of-service attacks.
prevent denial-of-service attacks. Because SETs are not commands, Because SETs are not commands, SET Recipients are free to ignore SETs
SET Recipients are free to ignore SETs that are not of interest after that are not of interest after acknowledging their receipt.
acknowledging their receipt.
For illustrative purposes only, SET delivery examples show an OAuth2 For illustrative purposes only, SET delivery examples show an OAuth
bearer token value [RFC6750] in the authorization header. This is 2.0 bearer token value [RFC6750] in the authorization header. This
not intended to imply that bearer tokens are preferred. However, the is not intended to imply that bearer tokens are preferred. However,
use of bearer tokens in the specification does reflect common the use of bearer tokens in the specification does reflect common
practice. practice.
3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations 3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations
When using bearer tokens or proof-of-possession tokens that represent When using bearer tokens or proof-of-possession tokens that represent
an authorization grant such as issued by OAuth (see [RFC6749]), an authorization grant such as issued by OAuth (see [RFC6749]),
implementers SHOULD consider the type of authorization granted, any implementers SHOULD consider the type of authorization granted, any
authorized scopes (see Section 3.3 of [RFC6749]), and the security authorized scopes (see Section 3.3 of [RFC6749]), and the security
subject(s) that SHOULD be mapped from the authorization when subject(s) that SHOULD be mapped from the authorization when
considering local access control rules. Section 6 of the OAuth considering local access control rules. Section 6 of the OAuth
Assertions draft [RFC7521], documents common scenarios for Assertion Framework specification [RFC7521] documents common
authorization including: scenarios for authorization including:
o Clients using an assertion to authenticate and/or act on behalf of o Clients using an assertion to authenticate and/or act on behalf of
itself; itself;
o Clients acting on behalf of a user; and, o Clients acting on behalf of a user; and,
o A Client acting on behalf of an anonymous user (e.g., see next o A Client acting on behalf of an anonymous user.
section).
When using OAuth access tokens, implementers MUST take into account When using OAuth access tokens, implementers MUST take into account
the threats and countermeasures documented in the security the threats and countermeasures documented in the security
considerations for the use of client authorizations (see Section 8 of considerations for the use of client authorizations (see Section 8 of
[RFC7521]). When using other token formats or frameworks, [RFC7521]). When using other token formats or frameworks,
implementers MUST take into account similar threats and implementers MUST take into account similar threats and
countermeasures, especially those documented by the relevant countermeasures, especially those documented by the relevant
specifications. specifications.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs 4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs
In scenarios where HTTP authorization or TLS mutual authentication In scenarios where HTTP authorization or TLS mutual authentication
are not used or are considered weak, JWS signed SETs SHOULD be used are not used or are considered weak, JWS signed SETs SHOULD be used
(see [RFC7515] and Security Considerations [RFC8417]). This enables (see [RFC7515] and Section 5 of [RFC8417]). This enables the SET
the SET Recipient to validate that the SET issuer is authorized to Recipient to validate that the SET issuer is authorized to deliver
deliver the SET. the SET.
4.2. HTTP Considerations 4.2. HTTP Considerations
SET delivery depends on the use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol and SET delivery depends on the use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol and is
thus subject to the security considerations of HTTP Section 9 of thus subject to the security considerations of HTTP Section 9 of
[RFC7230] and its related specifications. [RFC7230] and its related specifications.
As stated in Section 2.7.1 of [RFC7230], an HTTP requestor MUST NOT As stated in Section 2.7.1 of [RFC7230], an HTTP requestor MUST NOT
generate the "userinfo" (i.e., username and password) component (and generate the "userinfo" (i.e., username and password) component (and
its "@" delimiter) when an "http" URI reference is generated with a its "@" delimiter) when an "http" URI reference is generated with a
message as they are now disallowed in HTTP. message, as they are now disallowed in HTTP.
4.3. TLS Support Considerations 4.3. Confidentiality of SETs
SETs may contain sensitive information that is considered PII (e.g., SETs may contain sensitive information that is considered Personally
subject claims). In such cases, SET Transmitters and SET Recipients Identifiable Information (PII). In such cases, SET Transmitters and
MUST encrypt the SET, either with a transport-layer security SET Recipients MUST protect the confidentiality of the SET contents
mechanism, with JWE [RFC7516], or both. Event delivery endpoints by encrypting the SET as described in JWE [RFC7516], using a
MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MAY support additional transport- transport-layer security mechanism such as TLS, or both. If an Event
layer mechanisms meeting its security requirements. When using TLS, delivery endpoint supports TLS, it MUST support at least TLS version
the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check, per 1.2 [RFC5246] and SHOULD support the newest version of TLS that meets
[RFC6125]. Implementation security considerations for TLS can be its security requirements. When using TLS, the client MUST perform a
found in "Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525]. TLS/SSL server certificate check, per [RFC6125]. Implementation
security considerations for TLS can be found in "Recommendations for
Secure Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525].
4.4. Access Token Considerations 4.4. Access Token Considerations
When using access tokens such as those issued by OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749], When using access tokens, such as those issued by OAuth 2.0
implementers MUST take into account threats and countermeasures [RFC6749], implementers MUST take into account threats and
documented in Section 8 of [RFC7521]. countermeasures documented in Section 8 of [RFC7521].
4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations 4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations
Due to the possibility of interception, Bearer tokens MUST be Due to the possibility of interception, Bearer tokens MUST be
exchanged using TLS. exchanged using TLS.
Bearer tokens MUST have a limited lifetime that can be determined Bearer tokens MUST have a limited lifetime that can be determined
directly or indirectly (e.g., by checking with a validation service) directly or indirectly (e.g., by checking with a validation service)
by the service provider. By expiring tokens, clients are forced to by the service provider. By expiring tokens, clients are forced to
obtain a new token (which usually involves re-authentication) for obtain a new token (which usually involves re-authentication) for
continued authorized access. For example, in OAuth2, a client MAY continued authorized access. For example, in OAuth 2.0, a client MAY
use an OAuth refresh token to obtain a new bearer token after use an OAuth refresh token to obtain a new bearer token after
authenticating to an authorization server, per Section 6 of authenticating to an authorization server, per Section 6 of
[RFC6749]. [RFC6749].
Implementations supporting OAuth bearer tokens need to factor in Implementations supporting OAuth bearer tokens need to factor in
security considerations of this authorization method [RFC7521]. security considerations of this authorization method [RFC7521].
Since security is only as good as the weakest link, implementers also Since security is only as good as the weakest link, implementers also
need to consider authentication choices coupled with OAuth bearer need to consider authentication choices coupled with OAuth bearer
tokens. The security considerations of the default authentication tokens. The security considerations of the default authentication
method for OAuth bearer tokens, HTTP BASIC, are well documented in method for OAuth bearer tokens, HTTP BASIC, are well documented in
skipping to change at page 16, line 9 skipping to change at page 16, line 9
agreements and user consent or terms of service in place. agreements and user consent or terms of service in place.
The propagation of subject identifiers can be perceived as personally The propagation of subject identifiers can be perceived as personally
identifiable information. Where possible, SET Transmitters and identifiable information. Where possible, SET Transmitters and
Recipients SHOULD devise approaches that prevent propagation, for Recipients SHOULD devise approaches that prevent propagation, for
example, the passing of a hash value that requires the subscriber to example, the passing of a hash value that requires the subscriber to
already know the subject. already know the subject.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations. This specification requires no IANA actions.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push] [I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push]
Backman, A., Jones, M., Scurtescu, M., Ansari, M., and A. Backman, A., Jones, M., Scurtescu, M., Ansari, M., and A.
Nadalin, "Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Nadalin, "Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery
Using HTTP", draft-ietf-secevent-http-push-04 (work in Using HTTP", draft-ietf-secevent-http-push-06 (work in
progress), January 2019. progress), May 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
skipping to change at page 18, line 31 skipping to change at page 18, line 31
RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015, RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7617>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7617>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The editors would like to thank the members of the SCIM working The editors would like to thank the members of the SCIM working
group, which began discussions of provisioning events starting with group, which began discussions of provisioning events starting with
draft-hunt-scim-notify-00 in 2015. draft-hunt-scim-notify-00 in 2015.
The editors would like to thank Phil Hunt and the other the authors The editors would like to thank Phil Hunt and the other the authors
of draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02, on which this draft is based. of draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02, on which this specification is
based.
The editors would like to thank the participants in the SecEvents The editors would like to thank the participants in the SecEvents
working group for their contributions to this specification. working group for their contributions to this specification.
Appendix B. Change Log Appendix B. Change Log
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]] [[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
Draft 00 - AB - Based on draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02 with the Draft 00 - AB - Based on draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02 with the
following additions: following additions:
skipping to change at page 19, line 35 skipping to change at page 19, line 35
o Removed uses of the unnecessary term "Event Stream". o Removed uses of the unnecessary term "Event Stream".
o Removed dependencies between the semantics of "maxEvents" and o Removed dependencies between the semantics of "maxEvents" and
"returnImmediately". "returnImmediately".
o Said that PII in SETs is to be encrypted with TLS, JWE, or both. o Said that PII in SETs is to be encrypted with TLS, JWE, or both.
o Corrected grammar and spelling errors. o Corrected grammar and spelling errors.
Draft 03 - mbj:
o Corrected uses of "attribute" to "member" when describing JSON
objects.
o Further alignment with the push draft.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Annabelle Backman (editor) Annabelle Backman (editor)
Amazon Amazon
Email: richanna@amazon.com Email: richanna@amazon.com
Michael B. Jones (editor) Michael B. Jones (editor)
Microsoft Microsoft
Email: mbj@microsoft.com Email: mbj@microsoft.com
URI: http://self-issued.info/ URI: http://self-issued.info/
Marius Scurtescu Marius Scurtescu
Coinbase Coinbase
Email: marius.scurtescu@coinbase.com Email: marius.scurtescu@coinbase.com
Morteza Ansari Morteza Ansari
Cisco Cisco
Email: morteza.ansari@cisco.com Email: morteza.ansari@cisco.com
 End of changes. 57 change blocks. 
116 lines changed or deleted 125 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/