draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-00.txt   draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-01.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: October 18, 2018 Microsoft Expires: April 25, 2019 Microsoft
P. Hunt, Ed.
Oracle
M. Scurtescu M. Scurtescu
Google Coinbase
M. Ansari M. Ansari
Cisco Cisco
A. Nadalin A. Nadalin
Microsoft Microsoft
April 16, 2018 October 22, 2018
Poll-Based SET Token Delivery Using HTTP Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP
draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-00 draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-01
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 a previously registered receiver using (SETs) may be delivered to an intended recipient using HTTP POST over
HTTP POST over TLS initiated as a poll by the receiver. The TLS initiated as a poll by the recipient. The specification also
specification also defines how delivery can be assured subject to the defines how delivery can be assured, subject to the SET Recipient's
SET Token Receiver's need for assurance. need for assurance.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 October 18, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
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 Event Stream Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. SET Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Event Delivery Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Polling Delivery using HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Polling HTTP Request Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Polling HTTP Request Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Polling HTTP Response Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. Polling HTTP Response Attributes . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4. Poll Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3. Poll Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4.1. Poll Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.4. Poll Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.4.2. Acknowledge Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Error Response Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.4. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.5. Poll Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.6. Error Response Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. HTTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. TLS Support Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. Authorization Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2. HTTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3. TLS Support Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4. Access Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Other Streaming Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction and Overview 1. Introduction and Overview
This specification defines how a stream of SETs (see This specification defines how a stream of Security Event Tokens
[I-D.ietf-secevent-token]) can be transmitted to a previously (SETs) [RFC8417] can be transmitted to an intended SET Recipient
registered Event Receiver using HTTP [RFC7231] over TLS. The using HTTP [RFC7231] over TLS. The specification defines a method to
specification defines a method to poll for SETs using HTTP POST. poll for SETs using HTTP POST.
This specification defines a method of SET delivery in what is known This specification defines a method of SET delivery in what is known
as Event Streams. as Event Streams.
This specification does not define the method by which Event Streams This specification does not define the method by which Event Streams
are defined, provisioned, managed, monitored, and configured and is are defined, provisioned, managed, monitored, and configured and is
out of scope of this specification. out of scope of this specification.
[[This work is TBD by the SECEVENTS WG]] [[This work is TBD by the SECEVENTS WG]]
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.
For purposes of readability examples are not URL encoded. For purposes of readability, examples are not URL encoded.
Implementers MUST percent encode URLs as described in Section 2.1 of Implementers MUST percent encode URLs as described in Section 2.1 of
[RFC3986] . [RFC3986].
Throughout this documents all figures MAY contain spaces and extra Throughout this document, all figures MAY contain spaces and extra
line-wrapping for readability and space limitations. Similarly, some line wrapping for readability and due to space limitations.
URI's contained within examples, have been shortened for space and Similarly, some URIs contained within examples have been shortened
readability reasons. for space and readability reasons.
1.2. Definitions 1.2. Definitions
This specification assumes terminology defined in the Security Event This specification utilizes terminology defined in [RFC8417], as well
Token specification[I-D.ietf-secevent-token] . as the terms defined below:
The following definitions are defined for Security Event
distribution:
Event Transmitter
A service provider that delivers SETs to other providers known as
Event Receivers. An Event Transmitter is responsible for offering
a service that allows the Event Receiver to check the Event Stream
configuration and status known as the "Control Plane".
Event Receiver
A service provider that registers to receive SETs from an Event
Transmitter and provides an endpoint to receive SETs via HTTP
POST. Event Receivers can check current Event Stream
configuration and status by accessing the Event Transmitters
"Control Plane".
Event Stream
An Event Stream is a defined location, distribution method and
whereby an Event Transmitter and Event Receiver exchange a pre-
defined family of SETs. A Stream is assumed to have configuration
data such as HTTP endpoints, timeouts, public key sets for signing
and encryption, and Event Families.
Subject
The security subject around which a security event has occurred.
For example, a security subject might per a user, a person, an
email address, a service provider entity, an IP address, an OAuth
Client, a mobile device, or any identifiable thing referenced in
security and authorization systems.
Event
An Event is defined to be an event as represented by a security
event token (SET). See [I-D.ietf-secevent-token].
NumericDate
A JSON numeric value representing the number of seconds from
1970-01-01T00:00:00Z UTC until the specified UTC date/time,
ignoring leap seconds. This is equivalent to the IEEE Std 1003.1,
2013 Edition [POSIX.1] definition "Seconds Since the Epoch", in
which each day is accounted for by exactly 86400 seconds, other
than that non-integer values can be represented. See [RFC3339]
for details regarding date/times in general and UTC in particular.
2. SET Event Stream Protocol
An Event Stream represents the communication channel over which a SET Transmitter
series of SETs are delivered to a configured Event Receiver. An entity that delivers SETs in its possession to one or more SET
Recipients.
2.1. Event Delivery Process 2. SET Delivery
When an Event occurs, the Event Transmitter constructs a SET token When an event occurs, the SET Transmitter constructs a SET [RFC8417]
[I-D.ietf-secevent-token] that describes the Event. The Event that describes the event. The SET Transmitter determines the SET
Transmitter determines the Event Streams over which the SET should be Recipients that the SET should be distributed to.
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 Event Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification. for SET Recipients is out of scope of this specification.
When a SET is available for an Event Receiver, the Event Transmitter When a SET is available for an SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter
attempts to deliver the SET based on the Event Receiver's registered attempts to deliver the SET based on the SET Recipient's registered
delivery mechanism: delivery mechanism:
o The Event Transmitter queues up the SET in a buffer so that an o The SET Transmitter queues the SET in a buffer so that an SET
Event Receiver MAY poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST. Recipient MAY poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST.
o Or, the Event Transmitter delivers the Event through a different o Or, the SET Transmitter delivers the Event through a different
method not defined by this specification. method not defined by this specification.
In Poll-Based SET Token Delivery Using HTTP, multiple SETs are In Poll-Based SET Delivery Using HTTP, multiple SETs are delivered in
delivered in a JSON document [RFC7159] to an Event Receiver in a JSON document [RFC7159] to an SET Recipient in response to an HTTP
response to an HTTP POST request to the Event Transmitter. Then in a POST request to the SET Transmitter. Then in a following request,
following request, the Event Receiver acknowledges received SETs and the SET Recipient acknowledges received SETs and MAY poll for more.
MAY poll for more. All requests and responses are JSON documents and All requests and responses are JSON documents and use a "Content-
use a "Content-Type" of "application/json" as described in Type" of "application/json" as described in Section 2.1.
Section 2.2.
After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, Event Transmitters After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, Event Transmitters
SHOULD NOT be required to maintain or record SETs for recovery. Once SHOULD NOT be required to maintain or record SETs for recovery. Once
a SET is acknowledged, the Event Receiver SHALL be responsible for a SET is acknowledged, the SET Recipient SHALL be responsible for
retention and recovery. retention and recovery.
Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (e.g. signed) if there is Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (e.g., signed) if there is
a requirement to verify they were issued by the Event Transmitter at a requirement to verify they were issued by the Event Transmitter at
a later date when de-coupled from the original delivery where a 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 Event Receiver reads the SET and validates Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates
it. The Event Receiver MUST acknowledge receipt to the Event it. The SET Recipient MUST acknowledge receipt to the SET
Transmitter, using the defined acknowledgement or error method Transmitter, using the defined acknowledgement or error method
depending on the method of transfer. depending on the method of transfer.
The Event Receiver SHALL NOT use the Event acknowledgement mechanism The SET Recipient SHALL NOT use the Event acknowledgement mechanism
to report Event errors other than relating to the parsing and to report Event errors other than relating to the parsing and
validation of the SET. validation of the SET.
2.2. Polling Delivery using HTTP 2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP
This method allows an Event Receiver to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3 This method allows an SET Recipient to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3
[RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero or of [RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero
more SETs. Requests MAY be made at a periodic interval (short or 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 (see Section 2 [RFC6202]). long polling (see 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 Event Receiver in which: requests initiated by the SET Recipient in which:
o The Event Receiver makes a request for available SETs using an o The SET Recipient makes a request for available SETs using an HTTP
HTTP POST to a pre-arranged endpoint provided by the Event POST to a pre-arranged endpoint provided by the Event Transmitter.
Transmitter. Or, Or,
o After validating previously received SETs, the Event Receiver 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 Event The purpose of the "acknowledgement" is to inform the SET Transmitter
Transmitter that has successfully been delivered and attempts to re- that has successfully been delivered and attempts to re-deliver are
deliver are no longer required. Before acknowledgement, Event no longer required. Before acknowledgement, Event Recipients SHOULD
Receivers SHOULD ensure received SETs have been validated and ensure received SETs have been validated and retained in a manner
retained in a manner appropriate to the receiver's retention appropriate to the recipient's retention requirements. The level and
requirements. The level and method of retention of SETs by Event method of retention of SETs by SET Recipients is out of scope of this
Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification. specification.
2.2.1. Polling HTTP Request Attributes 2.2. Polling HTTP Request Attributes
When initiating a poll request, the Event Receiver 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. acknowledgement parameters in the form of JSON attributes.
The request payloads are delivered in one of two forms as described The request payloads are delivered in one of two forms as described
in Section 2.2.3 and Section 2.2.4 in 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 Attributes 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 Event SHOULD be returned first. A value of "0" MAY be used by SET
Receivers that would like to perform an acknowledge only Recipients that would like to perform an acknowledge only
request. This enables the Receiver to use separate HTTP request. This enables the Recipient to use separate HTTP
requests for acknowledgement and reception of SETs. When zero requests for acknowledgement and reception of SETs. When zero
returned events is requested, the value of the attribute returned events is requested, the value of the attribute
"returnImmediately" SHALL be ignored as an immediate response "returnImmediately" SHALL be ignored as an immediate response
is expected. is expected.
returnImmediately returnImmediately
An OPTIONAL JSON boolean value that indicates the Event 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" indicates the request is to be treated as an HTTP Long
Poll (see Section 2 [RFC6202]). The time out for the request Poll (see Section 2 of [RFC6202]). The time out for the
is part of the Stream configuration which is out of scope of request is part of the Stream configuration, which is out of
this specification. scope of this specification.
SET Acknowledgment Parameters SET Acknowledgment Parameters
ack ack
Which is an array of Strings that each correspond to the "jti" Which is an array of Strings that each correspond to the "jti"
of a successfully received SET. If there are no outstanding of a successfully received SET. If there are no outstanding
SETs to acknowledge, the attribute MAY be omitted. When SETs to acknowledge, the attribute MAY be omitted. When
acknowledging a SET, the Event Transmitter is released from any acknowledging a SET, the SET Transmitter is released from any
obligation to retain the SET (e.g. for a future re-try to obligation to retain the SET (e.g., for a future retry to
receive). receive).
setErrs setErrs
A JSON Object that contains one or more nested JSON attributes A JSON Object that contains one or more nested JSON attributes
that correspond to the "jti" of each invalid SET received. The that correspond to the "jti" of each invalid SET received. The
value of each is a JSON object whose contents is an "err" value of each is a JSON object whose contents is an "err"
attribute and "description" attribute whose value correspond to attribute and "description" attribute whose value correspond to
the errors described in Section 2.3. the errors described in Section 2.6.
2.2.2. Polling HTTP Response Attributes 2.3. Polling HTTP Response Attributes
In response to a poll request, the Event Transmitter checks for In response to a poll request, the SET Transmitter checks for
available SET events and responds with a JSON document containing the available SETs and responds with a JSON document containing the
following JSON attributes: following JSON attributes:
sets sets
A JSON object that contains zero or more nested JSON attributes. A JSON object that contains zero or more nested JSON attributes.
Each nested attribute corresponds to the "jti" of a SET to be Each nested attribute 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".
2.2.3. Poll Request 2.4. Poll Request
The Event Receiver performs an HTTP POST (see Section 4.3.4 The SET Recipient performs an HTTP POST (see Section 4.3.4 of
[RFC7231]) to a pre-arranged polling endpoint URI to check for SETs [RFC7231]) to a pre-arranged polling endpoint URI to check for SETs
that are available. Because the Event Receiver has no prior SETs to that are available. Because the SET Recipient has no prior SETs to
acknowledge, the "ack" and "errs" request parameters are omitted. acknowledge, the "ack" and "errs" request parameters are omitted.
If after a period of time, negotiated between the Event Transmitter If after a period of time, negotiated between the Event Transmitter
and Receiver, an Event Transmitter MAY re-issue SETs it has and Recipient, an SET Transmitter MAY reissue SETs it has previously
previously delivered. The Event Receiver SHOULD accept repeat SETs delivered. The SET Recipient SHOULD accept repeat SETs and
and acknowledge the SETs regardless of whether the Receiver believes acknowledge the SETs regardless of whether the Recipient believes it
it has already acknowledged the SETs previously. An Event has already acknowledged the SETs previously. An SET Transmitter MAY
Transmitter MAY limit the number of times it attempts to deliver a limit the number of times it attempts to deliver a SET.
SET. Upon abandoning delivery of a SET, the Event Transmitter SHOULD
have a method to notify the Event Receiver of the loss such as
through a status service (not defined by this specification).
If the Event Receiver has received SETs from the Event Transmitter, If the SET Recipient has received SETs from the SET Transmitter, the
the Event Receiver SHOULD parse and validate received SETs to meet SET Recipient SHOULD parse and validate received SETs to meet its own
its own requirements and SHOULD acknowledge receipt in a timely (e.g. requirements and SHOULD acknowledge receipt in a timely (e.g.,
minutes) fashion so that the Event Transmitter may mark the SETs as minutes) fashion so that the Event Transmitter may mark the SETs as
received. Event Receivers SHOULD acknowledge receipt before taking received. SET Recipients SHOULD acknowledge receipt before taking
any local actions based on the SETs to avoid unnecessary delay in any local actions based on the SETs to avoid unnecessary delay in
acknowledgement where possible. acknowledgement, where possible.
Poll requests have three variations: Poll requests have three variations:
Poll Only Poll Only
In which an Event Receiver asks for the next set of Events where In which an SET Recipient asks for the next set of Events where no
no previous SET deliveries are acknowledged (such as in the previous SET deliveries are acknowledged (such as in the initial
initial poll request). poll request).
Acknowledge Only Acknowledge Only
In which an Event Receiver sets the "maxEvents" attribute to "0" In which an Event Recipient sets the "maxEvents" attribute to "0"
along with "ack" and "err" attributes indicating the Event along with "ack" and "err" attributes indicating the SET Recipient
Receiver is acknowledging previously received SETs and does not is acknowledging previously received SETs and does not want to
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 an Event Receiver is both acknowledging previously In which an SET Recipient is both acknowledging previously
received SETs using the "ack" and "err" attributes and will wait received SETs using the "ack" and "err" attributes and will wait
for the next group of SETs in the Event Transmitters response. for the next group of SETs in the SET Transmitters response.
2.2.3.1. 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 Event Receiver 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 an Event Receiver that The following is an example request made by an SET Recipient that has
has no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling for available no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling for available SETs.
SETs.
The following is a non-normative example poll request to the The following is a non-normative example 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
{ {
"returnImmediately":true "returnImmediately":true
} }
Figure 1: Example Initial Poll Request Figure 1: Example Initial Poll Request
An Event Receiver MAY poll with no parameters at all by passing an An SET Recipient MAY poll with no parameters at all 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
2.2.3.2. Acknowledge Only Request 2.4.2. Acknowledge Only Request
In this variation, the Event Receiver acknowledges previously In this variation, the SET Recipient acknowledges previously received
received SETs and indicates it does not want to receive SETs in SETs and indicates it does not want to receive SETs in response by
response by setting the "maxEvents" attribute to "0". setting the "maxEvents" attribute to "0".
This variation is typically used when an Event Receiver needs to This variation is typically used when an SET Recipient needs to
acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g. on separate threads) acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g., on separate threads)
from the process of receiving SETs. 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 with acknowledgement of
SETs received (for example as shown in Figure 6). 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
{ {
"ack":[ "ack":[
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8", "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8",
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
], ],
"maxEvents":0 "maxEvents":0
} }
Figure 3: Example Acknowledge Only equest Figure 3: Example Acknowledge Only equest
2.2.3.3. Poll with Acknowledgement 2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement
This variation allows a receiver thread to simultaneously acknowledge This variation allows a recipient thread to simultaneously
previously received SETs and wait for the next group of SETs in a acknowledge previously received SETs and wait for the next group of
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. 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
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
{ {
"ack":[ "ack":[
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8", "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8",
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
], ],
"returnImmediately":false "returnImmediately":false
} }
Figure 4: Example Poll With Acknowledgement and No Errors Figure 4: Example Poll With Acknowledgement and No Errors
In the above acknowledgement, the Event Receiver 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.
2.2.3.4. 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 Event Receiver MAY use the "setErrs" attribute to indicate errors the SET Recipient MAY use the "setErrs" attribute to indicate errors
in the following poll request. 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
1 error and 1 receipt of two SETs received in Figure 6. 1 error and 1 receipt of two 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
skipping to change at page 11, line 38 skipping to change at page 10, line 38
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":{ "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":{
"err":"jwtAud", "err":"jwtAud",
"description":"The audience value was incorrect." "description":"The audience value was incorrect."
} }
}, },
"returnImmediately":true "returnImmediately":true
} }
Figure 5: Example Poll Acknowledgement With Error Figure 5: Example Poll Acknowledgement With Error
2.2.4. 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 Event Transmitter SHALL available at the time of the request, the SET Transmitter SHALL delay
delay responding until a SET is available unless the poll request responding until a SET is available unless the poll request parameter
parameter "returnImmediately" is "true". "returnImmediately" is "true".
As described in Section 2.2.2 a JSON document is returned containing As described in Section 2.3 a JSON document is returned containing a
a number of attributes including "sets" which SHALL contain zero or number of attributes including "sets" which SHALL contain zero or
more SETs. more 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 2.2.3. This example shows two SETs are returned. shown Section 2.4. This example shows two SETs are 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 13, line 6 skipping to change at page 12, line 6
} }
} }
Figure 6: Example Poll Response Figure 6: Example Poll Response
In the above example, a two SETs whose "jti" are In the above example, a two SETs whose "jti" 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 2.2.3 showing no new SETs or unacknowledged SETs are shown Section 2.4 showing no new SETs or unacknowledged SETs are
available. 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
Event Receiver parses and verifies the received SETs and notifies the SET Recipient parses and verifies the received SETs and notifies the
Event Transmitter via the next poll request to the Event Transmitter SET Transmitter via the next poll request to the SET Transmitter as
as described in Section 2.2.3.3 or Section 2.2.3.4. described in Section 2.4.3 or Section 2.4.4.
2.3. Error Response Handling
If a SET is invalid, the following error codes are defined:
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Err Value | Description |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| json | Invalid JSON object. |
| jwtParse | Invalid or unparsable JWT or JSON structure. |
| jwtHdr | In invalid JWT header was detected. |
| jwtCrypto | Unable to parse due to unsupported algorithm. |
| jws | Signature was not validated. |
| jwe | Unable to decrypt JWE encoded data. |
| jwtAud | Invalid audience value. |
| jwtIss | Issuer not recognized. |
| setType | An unexpected Event type was received. |
| setParse | Invalid structure was encountered such as an |
| | inability to parse or an incomplete set of Event |
| | claims. |
| setData | SET event claims incomplete or invalid. |
| dup | A duplicate SET was received and has been ignored. |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: SET Errors 2.6. Error Response Handling
An error response SHALL include a JSON object which provides details If a SET is invalid, error codes from the IANA "Security Event Token
about the error. The JSON object includes the JSON attributes: Delivery Error Codes" registry established by
[I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push] are used in error responses. An error
response SHALL include a JSON object which provides details about the
error. The JSON object includes the JSON attributes:
err err
A value which is a keyword that describes the error (see Table 1). A value from the IANA "Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes"
registry that identifies the error.
description description
A human-readable text 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 2.2.2 and as part of the "setErrs" attribute, as defined in Section 2.3 and
Section 2.2.3.4 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. See Section 7.3 [RFC5246]. authentication. See 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
Usage of basic authentication should be avoided due to its use of Usage of basic authentication should be avoided due to its use of
a single factor that is based upon a relatively static, symmetric a single factor that is based upon a relatively static, symmetric
skipping to change at page 14, line 48 skipping to change at page 13, line 30
Authentication below). Authentication below).
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 Because SET Delivery describes a simple function, authorization for
the ability to pick-up or deliver SETs can be derived by considering the ability to pick-up or deliver SETs can be derived by considering
the identity of the SET issuer, or via an authentication method the identity of the SET issuer, or via an authentication method
above. This specification considers authentication as a feature to above. This specification considers authentication as a feature to
prevent denial-of-service attacks. Because SETs are not commands prevent denial-of-service attacks. Because SETs are not commands,
(see ), Event Receivers are free to ignore SETs that are not of SET Recipients are free to ignore SETs that are not of interest.
interest.
For illustrative purposes only, SET delivery examples show an OAuth2 For illustrative purposes only, SET delivery examples show an OAuth2
bearer token value [RFC6750] in the authorization header. This is bearer token value [RFC6750] in the authorization header. This is
not intended to imply that bearer tokens are preferred. However, the not intended to imply that bearer tokens are preferred. However, the
use of bearer tokens in the specification does reflect common 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
skipping to change at page 15, line 30 skipping to change at page 14, line 10
authorization including: 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 (e.g., see next
section). section).
When using OAuth authorization tokens, implementers MUST take into When using OAuth access tokens, implementers MUST take into account
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 (see [RFC7515] and Security Considerations [RFC8417]). This enables
[I-D.ietf-secevent-token]). This enables the Event Receiver to the SET Recipient to validate that the SET issuer is authorized to
validate that the SET issuer is authorized to deliver SETs. deliver 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
thus subject to the security considerations of HTTP Section 9 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 [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. TLS Support Considerations
SETs contain sensitive information that is considered PII (e.g. SETs may contain sensitive information that is considered PII (e.g.,
subject claims). Therefore, Event Transmitters and Event Receivers subject claims). In such cases, SET Transmitters and SET Recipients
MUST require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism. Event MUST require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism. Event
delivery endpoints MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MAY support delivery endpoints MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MAY support
additional transport-layer mechanisms meeting its security additional transport-layer mechanisms meeting its security
requirements. When using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL requirements. When using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL
server certificate check, per [RFC6125]. Implementation security server certificate check, per [RFC6125]. Implementation security
considerations for TLS can be found in "Recommendations for Secure considerations for TLS can be found in "Recommendations for Secure
Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525]. Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525].
4.4. Authorization Token Considerations 4.4. Access Token Considerations
When using authorization tokens such as those issued by OAuth 2.0 When using access tokens such as those issued by OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749],
[RFC6749], implementers MUST take into account threats and implementers MUST take into account threats and countermeasures
countermeasures documented in Section 8 of [RFC7521]. 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
skipping to change at page 16, line 50 skipping to change at page 15, line 33
[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
[RFC7617], therefore implementers are encouraged to prefer stronger [RFC7617], therefore implementers are encouraged to prefer stronger
authentication methods. Designating the specific methods of authentication methods. Designating the specific methods of
authentication and authorization are out-of-scope for the delivery of authentication and authorization are out of scope for the delivery of
SET tokens, however this information is provided as a resource to SETs, however this information is provided as a resource to
implementers. implementers.
5. Privacy Considerations 5. Privacy Considerations
If a SET needs to be retained for audit purposes, JWS MAY be used to If a SET needs to be retained for audit purposes, a JWS signature MAY
provide verification of its authenticity. be used to provide verification of its authenticity.
Event Transmitters SHOULD attempt to specialize Event Streams so that SET Transmitters SHOULD attempt to specialize Event Streams so that
the content is targeted to the specific business and protocol needs the content is targeted to the specific business and protocol needs
of subscribers. of subscribers.
When sharing personally identifiable information or information that When sharing personally identifiable information or information that
is otherwise considered confidential to affected users, Event is otherwise considered confidential to affected users, Event
Transmitters and Receivers MUST have the appropriate legal agreements Transmitters and Recipients MUST have the appropriate legal
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, Event Transmitters and identifiable information. Where possible, SET Transmitters and
Receivers 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. There are no IANA considerations.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-secevent-token] [I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push]
Hunt, P., Denniss, W., Ansari, M., and M. Jones, "Security Backman, A., Jones, M., Scurtescu, M., Ansari, M., and A.
Event Token (SET)", draft-ietf-secevent-token-00 (work in Nadalin, "Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery
progress), January 2017. Using HTTP", draft-ietf-secevent-http-push-03 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[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 43 skipping to change at page 17, line 28
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References [RFC8417] Hunt, P., Ed., Jones, M., Denniss, W., and M. Ansari,
"Security Event Token (SET)", RFC 8417,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8417, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8417>.
[openid-connect-core] 7.2. Informative References
NRI, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0", Nov 2014.
[POSIX.1] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "The [POSIX.1] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "The
Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7", IEEE Std 1003.1, Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7", IEEE Std 1003.1,
2013 Edition, 2013. 2013 Edition, 2013.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC6202] Loreto, S., Saint-Andre, P., Salsano, S., and G. Wilkins, [RFC6202] Loreto, S., Saint-Andre, P., Salsano, S., and G. Wilkins,
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 37
[RFC7521] Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland, [RFC7521] Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,
"Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication
and Authorization Grants", RFC 7521, DOI 10.17487/RFC7521, and Authorization Grants", RFC 7521, DOI 10.17487/RFC7521,
May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7521>. May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7521>.
[RFC7617] Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme", [RFC7617] Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme",
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>.
[saml-core-2.0] Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Internet2, "Assertions and Protocols for the OASIS
Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", March
2005.
Appendix A. Other Streaming Specifications
[[EDITORS NOTE: This section to be removed prior to publication]]
The following pub/sub, queuing, streaming systems were reviewed as
possible solutions or as input to the current draft:
XMPP Events
The WG considered the XMPP events ands its ability to provide a
single messaging solution without the need for both polling and push
modes. The feeling was the size and methodology of XMPP was to far
apart from the current capabilities of the SECEVENTs community which
focuses in on HTTP based service delivery and authorization.
Amazon Simple Notification Service
Simple Notification Service, is a pub/sub messaging product from AWS.
SNS supports a variety of subscriber types: HTTP/HTTPS endpoints, AWS
Lambda functions, email addresses (as JSON or plain text), phone
numbers (via SMS), and AWS SQS standard queues. It doesn't directly
support pull, but subscribers can get the pull model by creating an
SQS queue and subscribing it to the topic. Note that this puts the
cost of pull support back onto the subscriber, just as it is in the
push model. It is not clear that one way is strictly better than the
other; larger, sophisticated developers may be happy to own message
persistence so they can have their own internal delivery guarantees.
The long tail of OIDC clients may not care about that, or may fail to
get it right. Regardless, I think we can learn something from the
Delivery Policies supported by SNS, as well as the delivery controls
that SQS offers (e.g. Visibility Timeout, Dead-Letter Queues). I'm
not suggesting that we need all of these things in the spec, but they
give an idea of what features people have found useful.
Other information:
o API Reference:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/
APIReference/Welcome.html
o Visibility Timeouts:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/
SQSDeveloperGuide/sqs-visibility-timeout.html
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka is an Apache open source project based upon TCP for
distributed streaming. It prescribes some interesting general
purpose features that seem to extend far beyond the simpler streaming
model SECEVENTs is after. A comment from MS has been that Kafka does
an acknowledge with poll combination event which seems to be a
performance advantage. See: https://kafka.apache.org/intro
Google Pub/Sub The editors would like to thank the members of the SCIM working
group, which began discussions of provisioning events starting with:
draft-hunt-scim-notify-00 in 2015.
Google Pub Sub system favours a model whereby polling and The editors would like to thank Phil Hunt and the other the authors
acknowledgement of events is done as separate endpoints as separate of draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02, on which this draft is based.
functions.
Information: The editors would like to thank the participants in the the SECEVENTS
working group for their contributions to this specification.
o Cloud Overview - https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/ Appendix B. Change Log
o Subscriber Overview - https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/ [[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
subscriber
o Subscriber Pull(poll) - https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/pull Draft 00 - AB - Based on draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02 with the
following additions:
Appendix B. Acknowledgments o Renamed to "Poll-Based SET Token Delivery Using HTTP"
The editors would like to thanks the members of the SCIM WG which o Removed references to the HTTP Push delivery method.
began discussions of provisioning events starting with: draft-hunt-
scim-notify-00 in 2015.
The editors would like to thank the authors of draft-ietf-secevent- Draft 01 - mbj:
delivery-02, on which this draft is based.
The editors would like to thank the participants in the the SECEVENTS o Addressed problems identified in my 18-Jul-18 review message
working group for their support of this specification. titled "Issues for both the Push and Poll Specs".
Appendix C. Change Log o Changes to align terminology with RFC 8417, for instance, by using
the already defined term SET Recipient rather than SET Receiver.
Draft 00 - AB - Based on draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02 with the o Applied editorial and minor normative corrections.
following additions:
o Renamed to "Poll-Based SET Token Delivery Using HTTP" o Updated Marius' contact information.
o Removed references to the HTTP Push delivery method. o Begun eliminating redundanies between this specification and
"Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP"
[I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push], referencing, rather that
duplicating common normative text.
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/
Phil Hunt (editor)
Oracle Corporation
Email: phil.hunt@yahoo.com
Marius Scurtescu Marius Scurtescu
Google Coinbase
Email: mscurtescu@google.com
Email: marius.scurtescu@coinbase.com
Morteza Ansari Morteza Ansari
Cisco Cisco
Email: morteza.ansari@cisco.com Email: morteza.ansari@cisco.com
Anthony Nadalin Anthony Nadalin
Microsoft Microsoft
Email: tonynad@microsoft.com Email: tonynad@microsoft.com
 End of changes. 109 change blocks. 
361 lines changed or deleted 234 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/