draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-01.txt   draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-02.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: April 25, 2019 Microsoft Expires: September 11, 2019 Microsoft
M. Scurtescu M. Scurtescu
Coinbase Coinbase
M. Ansari M. Ansari
Cisco Cisco
A. Nadalin A. Nadalin
Microsoft Microsoft
October 22, 2018 March 10, 2019
Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP
draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-01 draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-02
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 April 25, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Polling HTTP Request Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Polling HTTP Response Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Polling HTTP Response Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.4. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors . . . . . . . . 10 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. TLS Support Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 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.
This specification defines a method of SET delivery in what is known
as Event Streams.
This specification does not define the method by which Event Streams
are defined, provisioned, managed, monitored, and configured and is
out of scope of this specification.
[[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.
Implementers MUST percent encode URLs as described in Section 2.1 of
[RFC3986].
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.
Similarly, some URIs contained within examples have been shortened
for space and readability reasons.
1.2. Definitions 1.2. Definitions
This specification utilizes terminology defined in [RFC8417], as well This specification utilizes terminology defined in [RFC8417], as well
as the terms defined below: as the terms defined below:
SET Transmitter SET Transmitter
An entity that delivers SETs in its possession to one or more SET An entity that delivers SETs in its possession to one or more SET
Recipients. Recipients.
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 an SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter When a SET is available for a SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter
attempts to deliver the SET based on the SET Recipient's registered attempts to deliver the SET by queueing s the SET in a buffer so that
delivery mechanism: a SET Recipient can poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST.
o The SET Transmitter queues the SET in a buffer so that an SET
Recipient MAY poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST.
o Or, the SET Transmitter delivers the Event through a different
method not defined by this specification.
In Poll-Based SET Delivery Using HTTP, multiple SETs are delivered in In Poll-Based SET Delivery Using HTTP, zero or more SETs are
a JSON document [RFC7159] to an SET Recipient in response to an HTTP delivered in a JSON [RFC8259] document to a SET Recipient in response
POST request to the SET Transmitter. Then in a following request, to an HTTP POST request to the SET Transmitter. Then in a following
the SET Recipient acknowledges received SETs and MAY poll for more. request, the SET Recipient acknowledges received SETs and can poll
All requests and responses are JSON documents and use a "Content- for more. All requests and responses are JSON documents and use a
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, Event Transmitters After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, SET Transmitters are
SHOULD NOT be required to maintain or record SETs for recovery. Once not be required to retain or record SETs for recovery. Once a SET is
a SET is acknowledged, the SET Recipient SHALL be responsible for acknowledged, the SET Recipient SHALL be responsible for retention
retention and recovery. 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 SET Transmitter at a
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. The SET Recipient MUST acknowledge receipt to the SET
Transmitter, using the defined acknowledgement or error method Transmitter.
depending on the method of transfer.
The SET Recipient 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.
2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP 2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP
This method allows an SET Recipient to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3 This method allows a SET Recipient to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3 of
of [RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero [RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero or
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 (see 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 Event 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 has successfully been delivered and attempts to re-deliver are that delivery has succeeded and redelivery is no longer required.
no longer required. Before acknowledgement, Event Recipients SHOULD Before acknowledgement, SET Recipients SHOULD ensure that received
ensure received SETs have been validated and retained in a manner SETs have been validated and retained in a manner appropriate to the
appropriate to the recipient's retention requirements. The level and recipient's requirements. The level and method of retention of SETs
method of retention of SETs by SET Recipients is out of scope of this by SET Recipients is out of scope of this specification.
specification.
2.2. Polling HTTP Request Attributes 2.2. Polling HTTP Request Attributes
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. acknowledgement parameters in the form of JSON attributes. The
request payloads are delivered in a JSON document, as described in
The request payloads are delivered in one of two forms as described Section 2.4 and Section 2.5.
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 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. When zero requests for acknowledgement and reception of SETs. If this
returned events is requested, the value of the attribute parameter is omitted, no limit is placed on the number of SETs
"returnImmediately" SHALL be ignored as an immediate response to be returned.
is expected.
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" indicates the request is to be treated as an HTTP Long
Poll (see Section 2 of [RFC6202]). The time out for the Poll, per Section 2 of [RFC6202]. The timeout for the request
request is part of the Stream configuration, which is out of is part of the configuration between the participants, which is
scope of this specification. 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" 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 SET 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 retry to obligation to retain the SET (e.g., for a future retry to
receive). receive).
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 24
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".
2.4. Poll Request 2.4. Poll Request
The SET Recipient performs an HTTP POST (see Section 4.3.4 of 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 SET Recipient 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 SET Transmitter and
and Recipient, an SET Transmitter MAY reissue SETs it has previously Recipient, a SET Transmitter MAY redeliver SETs it has previously
delivered. The SET Recipient SHOULD accept repeat SETs and delivered. The SET Recipient SHOULD accept repeat SETs and
acknowledge the SETs regardless of whether the Recipient believes it acknowledge the SETs regardless of whether the Recipient believes it
has already acknowledged the SETs previously. An SET Transmitter MAY has already acknowledged the SETs previously. A SET Transmitter MAY
limit the number of times it attempts to deliver a SET. limit the number of times it attempts to deliver a SET.
If the SET Recipient has received SETs from the SET Transmitter, the If the SET Recipient has received SETs from the SET Transmitter, the
SET Recipient SHOULD parse and validate received SETs to meet its own SET Recipient SHOULD parse and validate received SETs to meet its own
requirements and SHOULD acknowledge receipt in a timely (e.g., requirements and SHOULD acknowledge receipt in a timely fashion
minutes) fashion so that the Event Transmitter may mark the SETs as (e.g., seconds or minutes) so that the SET Transmitter can mark the
received. SET Recipients SHOULD acknowledge receipt before taking SETs as received. SET Recipients SHOULD acknowledge receipt before
any local actions based on the SETs to avoid unnecessary delay in taking any local actions based on the SETs to avoid unnecessary delay
acknowledgement, where possible. in acknowledgement, where possible.
Poll requests have three variations: Poll requests have three variations:
Poll Only Poll Only
In which an 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 an Event Recipient sets the "maxEvents" attribute to "0" In which a SET Recipient sets the "maxEvents" attribute to "0"
along with "ack" and "err" attributes indicating the SET Recipient along with "ack" and "err" attributes indicating the SET Recipient
is acknowledging previously received SETs and does not want to is 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 an SET Recipient is both acknowledging previously In which a SET Recipient is both acknowledging previously received
received SETs using the "ack" and "err" attributes and will wait SETs using the "ack" and "err" attributes and will wait for the
for the next group of SETs in the SET Transmitters response. next 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 an 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.
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 SET Recipient MAY poll with no parameters at all 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" attribute to "0".
This variation is typically used when an SET Recipient needs to This variation might be used, for instance, when a SET Recipient
acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g., on separate threads) needs to acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g., on separate
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 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
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
{ {
"ack":[ "ack": [
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8", "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8",
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
], ],
"maxEvents":0 "maxEvents": 0,
"returnImmediately": true
} }
Figure 3: Example Acknowledge Only equest 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. 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": [
"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 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 indicate errors the SET Recipient MAY use the "setErrs" attribute to communicate the
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
1 error and 1 receipt of two SETs received in Figure 6. one successfully received SET and one SET with an error from the two
SETs received in 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"],
"setErrs":{ "setErrs": {
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":{ "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8": {
"err":"jwtAud", "err": "jwtAud",
"description":"The audience value was incorrect." "description": "The audience value was invalid."
} }
}, },
"returnImmediately":true "returnImmediately": true
} }
Figure 5: Example Poll Acknowledgement With Error Figure 5: Example Poll Acknowledgement with Error
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 unless the poll request parameter responding until a SET is available or the timeout interval has
"returnImmediately" is "true". elapsed unless the poll request parameter "returnImmediately" is
"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 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 2.4. 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
1ODQ5NjQwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiYXVkIjpbIm 1ODQ5NjQwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiYXVkIjpbIm
h0dHBzOi8vc2NpbS5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MWZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M h0dHBzOi8vc2NpbS5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MWZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M
2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0ZlZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIx 2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0ZlZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIx
ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwiZXZlbnRzIjp7InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczpzY2ltOmV ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwiZXZlbnRzIjp7InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczpzY2ltOmV
2ZW50OmNyZWF0ZSI6eyJyZWYiOiJodHRwczovL3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVXNlcn 2ZW50OmNyZWF0ZSI6eyJyZWYiOiJodHRwczovL3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVXNlcn
MvNDRmNjE0MmRmOTZiZDZhYjYxZTc1MjFkOSIsImF0dHJpYnV0ZXMiOlsiaWQiLCJuY MvNDRmNjE0MmRmOTZiZDZhYjYxZTc1MjFkOSIsImF0dHJpYnV0ZXMiOlsiaWQiLCJuY
W1lIiwidXNlck5hbWUiLCJwYXNzd29yZCIsImVtYWlscyJdfX19.", W1lIiwidXNlck5hbWUiLCJwYXNzd29yZCIsImVtYWlscyJdfX19.",
skipping to change at page 12, line 14 skipping to change at page 12, line 14
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 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
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. An error
response SHALL include a JSON object which provides details about the response SHALL include a JSON object that provides details about the
error. The JSON object includes the JSON attributes: error. The JSON object includes the JSON attributes:
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.
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
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 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
Usage of basic authentication should be avoided due to its use of Use of HTTP BASIC authentication should be avoided due to its use
a single factor that is based upon a relatively static, symmetric of a single factor that is based upon a relatively static,
secret. Implementers SHOULD combine the use of basic symmetric secret. When used, implementers SHOULD combine the use
authentication with other factors. The security considerations of of basic authentication with other factors. The security
HTTP BASIC, are well documented in [RFC7617] and SHOULD be considerations of HTTP BASIC are well documented in [RFC7617] and
considered along with using signed SETs (see SET Payload SHOULD be considered along with using signed SETs (see SET Payload
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,
SET Recipients are free to ignore SETs that are not of interest. SET Recipients are free to ignore SETs that are not of interest after
acknowledging their receipt.
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 14, line 43 skipping to change at page 14, line 46
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. TLS Support Considerations
SETs may contain sensitive information that is considered PII (e.g., SETs may contain sensitive information that is considered PII (e.g.,
subject claims). In such cases, SET Transmitters and SET Recipients subject claims). In such cases, SET Transmitters and SET Recipients
MUST require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism. Event MUST encrypt the SET, either with a transport-layer security
delivery endpoints MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MAY support mechanism, with JWE [RFC7516], or both. Event delivery endpoints
additional transport-layer mechanisms meeting its security MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MAY support additional transport-
requirements. When using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL layer mechanisms meeting its security requirements. When using TLS,
server certificate check, per [RFC6125]. Implementation security the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check, per
considerations for TLS can be found in "Recommendations for Secure [RFC6125]. Implementation security considerations for TLS can be
Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525]. 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 [RFC6749],
implementers MUST take into account threats and countermeasures implementers MUST take into account threats and 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
continued authorized access. For example, in OAuth2, a client MAY continued authorized access. For example, in OAuth2, a client MAY
use OAuth token refresh to obtain a new bearer token after use an OAuth refresh token to obtain a new bearer token after
authenticating to an authorization server. See 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
[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
SETs, 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, a JWS signature MAY If a SET needs to be retained for audit purposes, a JWS signature MAY
be used to provide verification of its authenticity. be used to provide verification of its authenticity.
SET Transmitters SHOULD attempt to specialize Event Streams so that SET Transmitters SHOULD attempt to deliver SETs that are targeted to
the content is targeted to the specific business and protocol needs 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, SET
Transmitters and Recipients MUST have the appropriate legal Transmitters and Recipients MUST have the appropriate legal
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. There are no IANA considerations.
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-03 (work in Using HTTP", draft-ietf-secevent-http-push-04 (work in
progress), October 2018. progress), January 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>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5988>.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and [RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>. 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7517] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517, [RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015, Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token [RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[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>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8417] Hunt, P., Ed., Jones, M., Denniss, W., and M. Ansari, [RFC8417] Hunt, P., Ed., Jones, M., Denniss, W., and M. Ansari,
"Security Event Token (SET)", RFC 8417, "Security Event Token (SET)", RFC 8417,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8417, July 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8417, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8417>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8417>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[POSIX.1] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "The
Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7", IEEE Std 1003.1,
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,
"Known Issues and Best Practices for the Use of Long "Known Issues and Best Practices for the Use of Long
Polling and Streaming in Bidirectional HTTP", RFC 6202, Polling and Streaming in Bidirectional HTTP", RFC 6202,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6202, April 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6202, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6202>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6202>.
skipping to change at page 18, line 20 skipping to change at page 18, line 15
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
[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>.
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 draft is based.
The editors would like to thank the participants in the 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:
o Renamed to "Poll-Based SET Token Delivery Using HTTP" o Renamed to "Poll-Based SET Token Delivery Using HTTP"
skipping to change at page 19, line 28 skipping to change at page 19, line 12
o Addressed problems identified in my 18-Jul-18 review message o Addressed problems identified in my 18-Jul-18 review message
titled "Issues for both the Push and Poll Specs". titled "Issues for both the Push and Poll Specs".
o Changes to align terminology with RFC 8417, for instance, by using o Changes to align terminology with RFC 8417, for instance, by using
the already defined term SET Recipient rather than SET Receiver. the already defined term SET Recipient rather than SET Receiver.
o Applied editorial and minor normative corrections. o Applied editorial and minor normative corrections.
o Updated Marius' contact information. o Updated Marius' contact information.
o Begun eliminating redundanies between this specification and o Begun eliminating redundancies between this specification and
"Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP" "Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP"
[I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push], referencing, rather that [I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push], referencing, rather that
duplicating common normative text. duplicating common normative text.
Draft 02 - mbj:
o Removed vestigial language remaining from when the push and poll
delivery methods were defined in a common specification.
o Replaced remaining uses of the terms Event Transmitter and Event
Recipient with the correct terms SET Transmitter and SET
Recipient.
o Removed uses of the unnecessary term "Event Stream".
o Removed dependencies between the semantics of "maxEvents" and
"returnImmediately".
o Said that PII in SETs is to be encrypted with TLS, JWE, or both.
o Corrected grammar and spelling errors.
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
 End of changes. 79 change blocks. 
173 lines changed or deleted 159 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/