draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-03.txt   draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-04.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: January 9, 2020 Microsoft Expires: May 4, 2020 Microsoft
M. Scurtescu M. Scurtescu
Coinbase Coinbase
M. Ansari M. Ansari
Cisco Cisco
A. Nadalin A. Nadalin
Microsoft Microsoft
July 8, 2019 November 1, 2019
Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP
draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-03 draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-04
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 January 9, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Polling HTTP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Polling HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Polling HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Poll Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Poll Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.1. Poll Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4.1. Poll Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.2. Acknowledge Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4.2. Acknowledge Only Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.3. Poll with Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.4. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors . . . . . . . . 9 2.4.4. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors . . . . . . . . 9
2.5. Poll Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.5. Poll Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6. Error Response Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.6. Error Response Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. HTTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2. HTTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Confidentiality of SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3. Confidentiality of SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Access Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4. Access Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction and Overview 1. Introduction and Overview
This specification defines how a stream of Security Event Tokens This specification defines how a stream of Security Event Tokens
(SETs) [RFC8417] can be transmitted to an intended SET Recipient (SETs) [RFC8417] can be transmitted to an intended SET Recipient
using HTTP [RFC7231] over TLS. The specification defines a method to using HTTP [RFC7231] over TLS. The specification defines a method to
poll for SETs using HTTP POST. poll for SETs using HTTP POST.
A mechanism for exchanging configuration metadata such as endpoint A mechanism for exchanging configuration metadata such as endpoint
URLs and cryptographic key parameters between the transmitter and URLs and cryptographic key parameters between the transmitter and
recipient is out of scope for this specification. recipient is out of scope for this specification. How SETs are
defined and the process by which events are identified for SET
Recipients is also out of scope for this specification.
1.1. Notational Conventions 1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
Throughout this document, all figures MAY contain spaces and extra Throughout this document, all figures MAY contain spaces and extra
line wrapping for readability and due to space limitations. line wrapping for readability and due to space limitations.
1.2. Definitions 1.2. Definitions
This specification utilizes terminology defined in [RFC8417], as well This specification utilizes terminology defined in [RFC8417] and
as the terms defined below: [I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push].
SET Transmitter
An entity that delivers SETs in its possession to one or more SET
Recipients.
2. SET Delivery 2. SET Delivery
When an event occurs, the SET Transmitter constructs a SET [RFC8417]
that describes the event. The SET Transmitter determines the SET
Recipients that the SET should be distributed to.
How SETs are defined and the process by which events are identified
for SET Recipients is out of scope of this specification.
When a SET is available for a SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter When a SET is available for a SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter
attempts to deliver the SET by queueing the SET in a buffer so that a attempts to deliver the SET by queueing the SET in a buffer so that a
SET Recipient can poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST. SET Recipient can poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST.
In Poll-Based SET Delivery Using HTTP, zero or more SETs are In Poll-Based SET Delivery Using HTTP, zero or more SETs are
delivered in a JSON [RFC8259] document to a SET Recipient in response delivered in a JSON [RFC8259] document to a SET Recipient in response
to an HTTP POST request to the SET Transmitter. Then in a following to an HTTP POST request to the SET Transmitter. Then in a following
request, the SET Recipient acknowledges received SETs and can poll request, the SET Recipient acknowledges received SETs and can poll
for more. All requests and responses are JSON documents and use a for more. All requests and responses are JSON documents and use a
"Content-Type" of "application/json", as described in Section 2.1. "Content-Type" of "application/json", as described in Section 2.1.
After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, SET Transmitters are After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, SET Transmitters are
not be required to retain or record SETs for retransmission. Once a not required to retain or record SETs for retransmission. Once a SET
SET is acknowledged, the SET Recipient SHALL be responsible for is acknowledged, the SET Recipient SHALL be responsible for
retention, if needed. retention, if needed.
Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (signed) if there is a Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (signed) if there is a
requirement to verify they were issued by the SET Transmitter at a requirement to verify they were issued by the SET Transmitter at a
later date when de-coupled from the original delivery where later date when de-coupled from the original delivery where
authenticity could be checked via the HTTP or TLS mutual authenticity could be checked via the HTTP or TLS mutual
authentication. authentication.
Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates
it in the manner described in Section 2 of it in the manner described in Section 2 of
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at page 4, line 4
retention, if needed. retention, if needed.
Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (signed) if there is a Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (signed) if there is a
requirement to verify they were issued by the SET Transmitter at a requirement to verify they were issued by the SET Transmitter at a
later date when de-coupled from the original delivery where later date when de-coupled from the original delivery where
authenticity could be checked via the HTTP or TLS mutual authenticity could be checked via the HTTP or TLS mutual
authentication. authentication.
Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates
it in the manner described in Section 2 of it in the manner described in Section 2 of
[I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push]. The SET Recipient MUST acknowledge [I-D.ietf-secevent-http-push]. The SET Recipient MUST acknowledge
receipt to the SET Transmitter. The SET Recipient SHALL NOT use the receipt to the SET Transmitter. The SET Recipient SHALL NOT use the
event acknowledgement mechanism to report event errors other than event acknowledgement mechanism to report event errors other than
relating to the parsing and validation of the SET. those relating to the parsing and validation of the SET.
2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP 2.1. Polling Delivery using HTTP
This method allows a SET Recipient to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3 of This method allows a SET Recipient to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3 of
[RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero or [RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero or
more SETs. Requests MAY be made at a periodic interval (short more SETs. Requests MAY be made at a periodic interval (short
polling) or requests MAY wait, pending availability of new SETs using polling) or requests MAY wait, pending availability of new SETs using
long polling, per Section 2 of [RFC6202]. long polling, per Section 2 of [RFC6202].
The delivery of SETs in this method is facilitated by HTTP POST The delivery of SETs in this method is facilitated by HTTP POST
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 47
correspond to the errors described in Section 2.6. correspond to the errors described in Section 2.6.
2.3. Polling HTTP Response 2.3. Polling HTTP Response
In response to a poll request, the SET Transmitter checks for In response to a poll request, the SET Transmitter checks for
available SETs and responds with a JSON document containing the available SETs and responds with a JSON document containing the
following JSON object members: following JSON object members:
sets sets
A JSON object that contains zero or more nested JSON objects. A JSON object that contains zero or more nested JSON objects.
Each nested JSON object corresponds to the "jti" of a SET to be Each nested JSON object's key corresponds to the "jti" of a SET to
delivered and whose value is a JSON string containing the value of be delivered, and its value is a JSON string containing the value
the encoded corresponding SET. If there are no outstanding SETs of the encoded corresponding SET. If there are no outstanding
to be transmitted, the JSON object SHALL be empty. SETs 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".
2.4. Poll Request 2.4. Poll Request
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
In the case where no SETs were received in a previous poll (see In the case where no SETs were received in a previous poll (see
Figure 7), the SET Recipient simply polls without acknowledgement Figure 7), the SET Recipient simply polls without acknowledgement
parameters ("sets" and "setErrs"). parameters ("sets" and "setErrs").
The following is an example request made by a SET Recipient that has The following is an example request made by a SET Recipient that has
no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling for available SETs no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling for available SETs
at the endpoint "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events": at the endpoint "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events":
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Content-Type: application/json
Accept: application/json
{ {
"returnImmediately": true "returnImmediately": true
} }
Figure 1: Example Initial Poll Request Figure 1: Example Initial Poll Request
A SET Recipient can poll using default parameter values by passing an A SET Recipient can poll using default parameter values by passing an
empty JSON object. empty JSON object.
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 32
Figure 1: Example Initial Poll Request Figure 1: Example Initial Poll Request
A SET Recipient can poll using default parameter values by passing an A SET Recipient can poll using default parameter values by passing an
empty JSON object. empty JSON object.
The following is a non-normative example default poll request to the The following is a non-normative example default poll request to the
endpoint "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events": endpoint "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events":
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Content-Type: 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" value to "0". setting the "maxEvents" value to "0".
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 8, line 9
setting the "maxEvents" value to "0". setting the "maxEvents" value to "0".
This variation might be used, for instance, when a SET Recipient This variation might be used, for instance, when a SET Recipient
needs to acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g., on separate needs to acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g., on separate
threads) from the process of receiving SETs. threads) from the process of receiving SETs.
The following is a non-normative example poll request with The following is a non-normative example poll request with
acknowledgement of SETs received (for example as shown in Figure 6): acknowledgement of SETs received (for example as shown in Figure 6):
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
{ {
"ack": [ "ack": [
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8", "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8",
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
], ],
"maxEvents": 0, "maxEvents": 0,
"returnImmediately": true "returnImmediately": true
} }
skipping to change at page 9, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 33
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
the SETs received in Figure 6: the SETs received in Figure 6:
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
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
skipping to change at page 10, line 10 skipping to change at page 9, line 16
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" member to communicate the the SET Recipient MAY use the "setErrs" member to communicate the
errors in the following poll request. errors in the following poll request.
The following is a non-normative example of a response acknowledging The following is a non-normative example of a response acknowledging
one successfully received SET and one SET with an error from the two one successfully received SET and one SET with an error from the two
SETs received in 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 Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
{ {
"ack": ["3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"], "ack": ["3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"],
"setErrs": { "setErrs": {
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8": { "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8": {
"err": "jwtAud", "err": "jwtAud",
"description": "The audience value was invalid." "description": "The audience value was invalid."
} }
}, },
"returnImmediately": true "returnImmediately": true
skipping to change at page 11, line 10 skipping to change at page 10, line 10
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 members including "sets", which SHALL contain zero or more number of members including "sets", which SHALL contain zero or more
SETs. SETs.
The following is a non-normative example response to the request The following is a non-normative example response to the request
shown in Section 2.4. This example shows two SETs being returned: shown in Section 2.4. This example shows two SETs being returned:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events
{ {
"sets": { "sets": {
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8": "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":
"eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0. "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.
eyJqdGkiOiI0ZDM1NTllYzY3NTA0YWFiYTY1ZDQwYjAzNjNmYWFkOCIsImlhdCI6MTQ eyJqdGkiOiI0ZDM1NTllYzY3NTA0YWFiYTY1ZDQwYjAzNjNmYWFkOCIsImlhdCI6MTQ
1ODQ5NjQwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiYXVkIjpbIm 1ODQ5NjQwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiYXVkIjpbIm
h0dHBzOi8vc2NpbS5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MWZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M h0dHBzOi8vc2NpbS5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MWZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M
2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0ZlZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIx 2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0ZlZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIx
ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwiZXZlbnRzIjp7InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczpzY2ltOmV ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwiZXZlbnRzIjp7InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczpzY2ltOmV
skipping to change at page 12, line 11 skipping to change at page 11, line 11
In the above example, two SETs whose "jti" values are In the above example, two SETs whose "jti" values are
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8" and "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8" and
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" are delivered. "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" are delivered.
The following is a non-normative example response to the request The following is a non-normative example response to the request
shown in Section 2.4, which indicates that no new SETs or shown in Section 2.4, which indicates that no new SETs or
unacknowledged SETs are available: unacknowledged SETs are available:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json Content-Type: application/json
Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events
{ {
"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
skipping to change at page 12, line 45 skipping to change at page 11, line 44
registry that identifies the error. registry that identifies the error.
description description
A human-readable string that provides additional diagnostic A human-readable string that provides additional diagnostic
information. information.
When included as part of a batch of SETs, the above JSON is included When included as part of a batch of SETs, the above JSON is included
as part of the "setErrs" member, as defined in Section 2.3 and as part of the "setErrs" member, as defined in Section 2.3 and
Section 2.4.4. Section 2.4.4.
When the SET Recipient includes one or more error responses in a
request to the SET Transmitter, it must also include in the request a
"Content-Language" header whose value indicates the language of the
error descriptions included in the request. The method of language
selection in the case when the SET Recipient can provide error
messages in multiple languages is out of scope for this
specification.
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].
example, the following methodologies could be used among others:
TLS Client Authentication
Event delivery endpoints MAY request TLS mutual client
authentication, per Section 7.3 of [RFC5246].
Bearer Tokens
Bearer tokens [RFC6750] MAY be used when combined with TLS and a
token framework such as OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. For security
considerations regarding the use of bearer tokens in SET delivery,
see Section 4.4.1.
Basic Authentication
Use of HTTP BASIC authentication should be avoided due to its use
of a single factor that is based upon a relatively static,
symmetric secret. When used, implementers SHOULD combine the use
of basic authentication with other factors. The security
considerations of HTTP BASIC are well documented in [RFC7617] and
SHOULD be considered along with using signed SETs, as described in
Section 4.1.
As per Section 4.1 of [RFC7235], a SET delivery endpoint SHALL As per Section 4.1 of [RFC7235], a SET delivery endpoint SHALL
indicate supported HTTP authentication schemes via the "WWW- indicate supported HTTP authentication schemes via the "WWW-
Authenticate" header. Authenticate" header.
Authorization for the ability to pick-up or deliver SETs can be Authorization for the ability to pick-up or deliver SETs can be
determined by using the identity of the SET issuer, or via an determined by using the identity of the SET issuer, or via an
authentication method above. This specification considers authentication method above. This specification considers
authentication as a feature to prevent denial-of-service attacks. authentication as a feature to prevent denial-of-service attacks.
Because SETs are not commands, SET Recipients are free to ignore SETs Because SETs are not commands, SET Recipients are free to ignore SETs
that are not of interest after acknowledging their receipt. that are not of interest after acknowledging their receipt.
For illustrative purposes only, SET delivery examples show an OAuth
2.0 bearer token value [RFC6750] in the authorization header. This
is not intended to imply that bearer tokens are preferred. However,
the use of bearer tokens in the specification does reflect common
practice.
3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations 3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations
When using bearer tokens or proof-of-possession tokens that represent When using bearer tokens or proof-of-possession tokens that represent
an authorization grant such as issued by OAuth (see [RFC6749]), an authorization grant such as issued by OAuth (see [RFC6749]),
implementers SHOULD consider the type of authorization granted, any implementers SHOULD consider the type of authorization granted, any
authorized scopes (see Section 3.3 of [RFC6749]), and the security authorized scopes (see Section 3.3 of [RFC6749]), and the security
subject(s) that SHOULD be mapped from the authorization when subject(s) that SHOULD be mapped from the authorization when
considering local access control rules. Section 6 of the OAuth considering local access control rules. Section 6 of the OAuth
Assertion Framework specification [RFC7521] documents common Assertion Framework specification [RFC7521] documents common
scenarios for authorization including: scenarios for authorization including:
skipping to change at page 15, line 16 skipping to change at page 13, line 48
When using access tokens, such as those issued by OAuth 2.0 When using access tokens, such as those issued by OAuth 2.0
[RFC6749], implementers MUST take into account threats and [RFC6749], implementers MUST take into account threats and
countermeasures documented in Section 8 of [RFC7521]. countermeasures documented in Section 8 of [RFC7521].
4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations 4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations
Due to the possibility of interception, Bearer tokens MUST be Due to the possibility of interception, Bearer tokens MUST be
exchanged using TLS. exchanged using TLS.
Bearer tokens MUST have a limited lifetime that can be determined Bearer tokens SHOULD 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 OAuth 2.0, a client MAY continued authorized access. For example, in OAuth 2.0, a client MAY
use an OAuth refresh token to obtain a new bearer token after use an OAuth refresh token to obtain a new bearer token after
authenticating to an authorization server, per Section 6 of authenticating to an authorization server, per Section 6 of
[RFC6749]. [RFC6749].
Implementations supporting OAuth bearer tokens need to factor in Implementations supporting OAuth bearer tokens need to factor in
security considerations of this authorization method [RFC7521]. security considerations of this authorization method [RFC7521].
Since security is only as good as the weakest link, implementers also Since security is only as good as the weakest link, implementers also
need to consider authentication choices coupled with OAuth bearer need to consider authentication choices coupled with OAuth bearer
tokens. The security considerations of the default authentication tokens. The security considerations of the default authentication
method for OAuth bearer tokens, HTTP BASIC, are well documented in method for OAuth bearer tokens, HTTP Basic, are well documented in
[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.
skipping to change at page 19, line 42 skipping to change at page 18, line 37
o Corrected grammar and spelling errors. o Corrected grammar and spelling errors.
Draft 03 - mbj: Draft 03 - mbj:
o Corrected uses of "attribute" to "member" when describing JSON o Corrected uses of "attribute" to "member" when describing JSON
objects. objects.
o Further alignment with the push draft. o Further alignment with the push draft.
Draft 04 - AB + mbj
o Referenced SET Transmitter definition in http-push.
o Removed incorrect normative text regarding SET construction.
o Consolidated general out-of-scope items under Introduction.
o Removed unnecessary HTTP headers in examples and added Content-
Type.
o Added Content-Language requirement for error descriptions,
aligning with http-push.
o Stated that bearer tokens SHOULD have a limited lifetime.
o Minor editorial fixes.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Annabelle Backman (editor) Annabelle Backman (editor)
Amazon Amazon
Email: richanna@amazon.com Email: richanna@amazon.com
Michael B. Jones (editor) Michael B. Jones (editor)
Microsoft Microsoft
Email: mbj@microsoft.com Email: mbj@microsoft.com
URI: http://self-issued.info/ URI: http://self-issued.info/
Marius Scurtescu Marius Scurtescu
Coinbase Coinbase
Email: marius.scurtescu@coinbase.com Email: marius.scurtescu@coinbase.com
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
87 lines changed or deleted 66 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/