Security Events Working Group                            A. Backman, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Amazon
Intended status: Standards Track                           M. Jones, Ed.
Expires: August 8, 10, 2020                                       Microsoft
                                                            M. Scurtescu
                                                               M. Ansari
                                                              A. Nadalin
                                                        February 5, 7, 2020

       Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP


   This specification defines how a Security Event Token (SET) may be
   delivered to an intended recipient using HTTP POST.  The SET is
   transmitted in the body of an HTTP POST request to an endpoint
   operated by the recipient, and the recipient indicates successful or
   failed transmission via the HTTP response.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 10, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  SET Delivery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Transmitting a SET  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Success Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Failure Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Authentication and Authorization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Delivery Reliability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Authentication Using Signed SETs  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  HTTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  Confidentiality of SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.4.  Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.5.  Authenticating Persisted SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes . . . . . . . .  11
       7.1.1.  Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.1.2.  Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Other Streaming Specifications . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix C.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction and Overview

   This specification defines a mechanism by which a transmitter of a
   Security Event Token (SET) [RFC8417] may deliver the SET to an
   intended recipient via HTTP POST [RFC7231].

   Push-Based SET Delivery over HTTP POST is intended for scenarios
   where all of the following apply:

   o  The transmitter of the SET is capable of making outbound HTTP

   o  The recipient is capable of hosting an HTTP endpoint that is
      accessible to the transmitter.

   o  The transmitter and recipient are known to one another.

   A mechanism for exchanging configuration metadata such as endpoint
   URLs and cryptographic keys between the transmitter and recipient is
   out of scope for this specification.

1.1.  Notational Conventions

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

   Throughout this document, all figures may contain spaces and extra
   line wrapping for readability and due to space limitations.

1.2.  Definitions

   This specification utilizes the following terms defined in [RFC8417]:
   "Security Event Token (SET)", "SET Issuer", "SET Recipient", and
   "Event Payload".

   This specification utilizes terminology defined in [RFC8417], as well
   as the terms defined below:

   SET Transmitter  An entity that delivers SETs in its possession to
      one or more SET Recipients.

2.  SET Delivery

   To deliver a SET to a given SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter makes
   a SET transmission request to the SET Recipient, with the SET itself
   contained within the request.  The SET Recipient replies to this
   request with a response either acknowledging successful transmission
   of the SET or indicating that an error occurred while receiving,
   parsing, and/or validating the SET.

   Upon receipt of a SET, the SET Recipient SHALL validate that all of
   the following are true:

   o  The SET Recipient can parse the SET.

   o  The SET is authentic (i.e., it was issued by the issuer specified
      within the SET, and if signed, was signed by a key belonging to
      the issuer).

   o  The SET Recipient is identified as an intended audience of the

   o  The SET Issuer is recognized as an issuer that the SET Recipient
      is willing to receive SETs from (e.g., the issuer is whitelisted
      by the SET Recipient).

   o  The SET Recipient is willing to accept the SET when transmitted by
      the SET Transmitter (e.g., the SET Transmitter is expected to send
      SETs with the subject of the SET in question).

   The mechanisms by which the SET Recipient performs this validation
   are out of scope for this document.  SET parsing and issuer and
   audience identification are defined in [RFC8417].  The mechanism for
   validating the authenticity of a SET is deployment specific, and may
   vary depending on the authentication mechanisms in use, and whether
   the SET is signed and/or encrypted (See Section 3).

   SET Transmitters MAY transmit SETs issued by another entity.  The SET
   Recipient may accept or reject (i.e., return an error response such
   as "access_denied") a SET at its own discretion.

   The SET Recipient SHOULD ensure that the SET is persisted in a way
   that is sufficient to meet the SET Recipient's own reliability
   requirements, and MUST NOT expect or depend on a SET Transmitter to
   re-transmit or otherwise make available to the SET Recipient a SET
   once the SET Recipient acknowledges that it was received

   Once the SET has been validated and persisted, the SET Recipient
   SHOULD immediately return a response indicating that the SET was
   successfully delivered.  The SET Recipient SHOULD NOT perform
   extensive business logic that processes the event expressed by the
   SET prior to sending this response.  Such logic SHOULD be executed
   asynchronously from delivery, in order to minimize the expense and
   impact of SET delivery on the SET Transmitter.

   The SET Transmitter MAY re-transmit a SET if the responses from
   previous transmissions timed out or indicated potentially recoverable
   error (such as server unavailability that may be transient).  In all
   other cases, the SET Transmitter SHOULD NOT re-transmit a SET.  The
   SET Transmitter SHOULD delay retransmission for an appropriate amount
   of time to avoid overwhelming the SET Recipient (see Section 4).

2.1.  Transmitting a SET

   To transmit a SET to a SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter makes an
   HTTP POST request to an HTTP endpoint provided by the SET Recipient.
   The "Content-Type" header of this request MUST be "application/
   secevent+jwt" as defined in Sections 2.3 and 7.2 of [RFC8417], and
   the "Accept" header MUST be "application/json".  The request body
   MUST consist of the SET itself, represented as a JWT [RFC7519].

   The SET Transmitter MAY include in the request an "Accept-Language"
   header to indicate to the SET Recipient the preferred language(s) in
   which to receive error messages.

   The mechanisms by which the SET Transmitter determines the HTTP
   endpoint to use when transmitting a SET to a given SET Recipient are
   not defined by this specification and are deployment specific.

   The following is a non-normative example of a SET transmission

   POST /Events HTTP/1.1
   Accept: application/json
   Accept-Language: en-US, en;q=0.5
   Content-Type: application/secevent+jwt


                Figure 1: Example SET Transmission Request

2.2.  Success Response

   If the SET is determined to be valid, the SET Recipient SHALL
   acknowledge successful transmission by responding with HTTP Response
   Status Code 202 (Accepted) (see Section 6.3.3 of [RFC7231]).  The
   body of the response MUST be empty.

   The following is a non-normative example of a successful receipt of a

   HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted

              Figure 2: Example Successful Delivery Response

   Note that the purpose of the acknowledgement response is to let the
   SET Transmitter know that a SET has been delivered and the
   information no longer needs to be retained by the SET Transmitter.
   Before acknowledgement, SET Recipients SHOULD ensure they have
   validated received SETs and retained them in a manner appropriate to
   information retention requirements appropriate to the SET event types
   signaled.  The level and method of retention of SETs by SET
   Recipients is out of scope of this specification.

2.3.  Failure Response

   In the event of a general HTTP error condition, the SET Recipient
   SHOULD respond with an appropriate HTTP Status Code as defined in
   Section 6 of [RFC7231].

   When the SET Recipient detects an error parsing, validating validating, or
   authenticating a SET transmitted in a SET Transmission Request, the
   SET Recipient SHALL respond with an HTTP Response Status Code of 400
   (Bad Request).  The "Content-Type" header of this response MUST be
   "application/json", and the body MUST be a UTF-8 encoded JSON
   [RFC8259] object containing the following name/value pairs:

   err  A Security Event Token Error Code (see Section 2.4).

   description  A UTF-8 string containing a human-readable description
      of the error that MAY provide additional diagnostic information.
      The exact content of this field is implementation-specific. implementation specific.

   The response MUST include a "Content-Language" header, whose value
   indicates the language of the error descriptions included in the
   response body.  If the SET Recipient can provide error descriptions
   in multiple languages, they SHOULD choose the language to use
   according to the value of the "Accept-Language" header sent by the
   SET Transmitter in the transmission request, as described in
   Section 5.3.5 of [RFC7231].  If the SET Transmitter did not send an
   "Accept-Language" header, or if the SET Recipient does not support
   any of the languages included in the header, the SET Recipient MUST
   respond with messages that are understandable by an English-speaking
   person, as described in Section 4.5 of [RFC2277].

   The following is an example non-normative error response indicating
   that the key used to encrypt the SET has been revoked.

   HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
   Content-Language: en-US
   Content-Type: application/json

     "err": "invalid_key",
     "description": "Key ID 12345 has been revoked."

              Figure 3: Example Error Response (invalid_key)

   The following is an example non-normative error response indicating
   that the access token included in the request is expired.

   HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
   Content-Language: en-US
   Content-Type: application/json

     "err": "authentication_failed",
     "description": "Access token is expired."

         Figure 4: Example Error Response (authentication_failed)

   The following is an example non-normative error response indicating
   that the SET Receiver is not willing to accept SETs issued by the
   specified issuer from this particular SET Transmitter.

   HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
   Content-Language: en-US
   Content-Type: application/json

     "err": "access_denied",
     "description": "Not authorized for issuer"

             Figure 5: Example Error Response (access_denied)

2.4.  Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes

   Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes are strings that identify a
   specific category of error that may occur when parsing or validating
   a SET.  Every Security Event Token Delivery Error Code MUST have a
   unique name registered in the IANA "Security Event Token Delivery
   Error Codes" registry established by Section 7.1.

   The following table presents the initial set of Error Codes that are
   registered in the IANA "Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes"

   | Error Code            | Description                               |
   | invalid_request       | The request body cannot be parsed as a    |
   |                       | SET, or the Event Payload within the SET  |
   |                       | does not conform to the event's           |
   |                       | definition.                               |
   | invalid_key           | One or more keys used to encrypt or sign  |
   |                       | the SET is invalid or otherwise           |
   |                       | unacceptable to the SET Recipient. (e.g., |
   |                       | expired, revoked, failed certificate      |
   |                       | validation, etc.)                         |
   | authentication_failed | The SET Recipient could not authenticate  |
   |                       | the SET Transmitter.                      |
   | access_denied         | The SET Transmitter is not authorized to  |
   |                       | transmit the SET to the SET Recipient.    |

                     Table 1: SET Delivery Error Codes

   Implementations SHOULD expect that other Error Codes MAY also be
   received, as the set of Error Codes is extensible via the IANA
   "Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes" registry established in
   Section 7.1.

3.  Authentication and Authorization

   The SET delivery method described in this specification is based upon
   HTTP and and HTTP over TLS [RFC2818] and/or standard HTTP authentication
   and authorization schemes, as per [RFC7235].  The TLS server
   certificate MUST be validated, per [RFC6125].

   Authorization for the eligibility to provide actionable SETs can be
   determined by using the identity of the SET Issuer, the identity of
   the SET Transmitter, perhaps using mutual TLS, or via other employed
   authentication methods.  Because SETs are not commands, SET
   Recipients are free to ignore SETs that are not of interest.

4.  Delivery Reliability

   Delivery reliability requirements may vary depending upon the use
   cases.  This specification defines the response from the SET
   Recipient in such a way as to provide the SET Transmitter with the
   information necessary to determine what further action is required,
   if any, in order to meet their requirements.  SET Transmitters with
   high reliability requirements may be tempted to always retry failed
   transmissions, however, it should be noted that for many types of SET
   delivery errors, a retry is extremely unlikely to be successful.  For
   example, "invalid_request" indicates a structural error in the
   content of the request body that is likely to remain when re-
   transmitting the same SET.  Others such as "access_denied" may be
   transient, for example if the SET Transmitter refreshes expired
   credentials prior to re-transmission.

   Implementers SHOULD evaluate the reliability requirements of their
   use cases and the impact of various retry mechanisms on the
   performance of their systems to determine an appropriate strategy for
   handling various error conditions.

5.  Security Considerations

5.1.  Authentication Using Signed SETs

   In scenarios where HTTP authorization or TLS mutual authentication
   are not used or are considered weak, JWS signed SETs SHOULD be used
   (see [RFC7515] and Section 5 of [RFC8417]).  This enables the SET
   Recipient to validate that the SET Transmitter is authorized to
   deliver the SET.

5.2.  HTTP Considerations

   SET delivery depends on the use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol and is
   thus subject to the security considerations of HTTP Section 9 of
   [RFC7230] and its related specifications.

   As stated in Section 2.7.1 of [RFC7230], an HTTP requestor MUST NOT
   generate the "userinfo" (i.e., username and password) component (and
   its "@" delimiter) when an "http" URI reference is generated with a
   message, as they are now disallowed in HTTP.

5.3.  Confidentiality of SETs

   SETs may contain sensitive information that is considered Personally
   Identifiable Information (e.g., subject claims).  In such cases, SET
   Transmitters and SET Recipients MUST protect the confidentiality of
   the SET contents by encrypting the SET as described in JWE [RFC7516],
   using a transport-layer security mechanism such as TLS, or both.  If
   an Event delivery endpoint supports TLS, it MUST support at least TLS
   version 1.2 [RFC5246] and SHOULD support the newest version of TLS
   that meets its security requirements, which as of the time of this
   publication is TLS 1.3 [RFC8446].  When using TLS, the client MUST
   perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check using DNS-ID [RFC6125].
   Implementation security considerations for TLS can be found in
   "Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525].

5.4.  Denial of Service

   The SET Recipient may be vulnerable to a denial-of-service attack
   where a malicious party makes a high volume of requests containing
   invalid SETs, causing the endpoint to expend significant resources on
   cryptographic operations that are bound to fail.  This may be
   mitigated by authenticating SET Transmitters with a mechanism with
   low runtime overhead, such as mutual TLS.

5.5.  Authenticating Persisted SETs

   At the time of receipt, the SET Recipient can rely upon transport
   layer mechanisms, HTTP authentication methods, and/or other context
   from the transmission request to authenticate the SET Transmitter and
   validate the authenticity of the SET.  However, this context is
   typically unavailable to systems that the SET Recipient forwards the
   SET onto, or to systems that retrieve the SET from storage.  If the
   SET Recipient requires the ability to validate SET authenticity
   outside of the context of the transmission request, then the SET
   Recipient SHOULD ensure that such SETs have been signed in accordance
   with [RFC7515].

6.  Privacy Considerations

   When sharing personally identifiable information or information that
   is otherwise considered confidential to affected users, SET
   Transmitters and Recipients MUST have the appropriate legal
   agreements and user consent or terms of service in place.
   Furthermore, data that needs confidentiality protection MUST be
   encrypted, either via TLS or using JSON Web Encryption (JWE)
   [RFC7516], or both.

   In some cases, subject identifiers themselves may be considered
   sensitive information, such that their inclusion within a SET may be
   considered a violation of privacy.  SET Transmitters should consider
   the ramifications of sharing a particular subject identifier with a
   SET Recipient (e.g., whether doing so could enable correlation and/or
   de-anonymization of data), data) and choose appropriate subject identifiers
   for their use cases.

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes

   This document defines Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes, for
   which IANA is asked to create and maintain a new registry titled
   "Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes".  Initial values for the
   Security Event Token Delivery Error Codes registry are defined in
   Table 1 and registered below.  Future assignments are to be made
   through the Specification Required registration policy ([RFC8126])
   and shall follow the template presented in Section 7.1.1.

   Error Codes are intended to be interpreted by automated systems, and
   therefore SHOULD identify classes of errors to which an automated
   system could respond in a meaningfully distinct way (e.g., by
   refreshing authentication credentials and retrying the request).

7.1.1.  Registration Template

   Error Code
      The name of the Security Event Token Delivery Error Code, as
      described in Section 2.4.  The name MUST be a case-sensitive ASCII
      string consisting only of letters, digits digits, and underscore, underscore; these
      are the characters whose codes fall within the inclusive ranges
      0x30-39, 0x41-5A, 0x5F and 0x61-7A.

      A brief human-readable description of the Security Event Token
      Delivery Error Code.

   Change Controller
      For error codes registered by the IETF or its working groups, list
      "IETF SecEvent Working Group".  For all other error codes, list
      the name of the party responsible for the registration.  Contact
      information such as mailing address, email address, or phone
      number may also be provided.

   Defining Document(s)
      A reference to the document or documents that define the Security
      Event Token Delivery Error Code.  The definition MUST specify the
      name and description of the error code, code and explain under what
      circumstances the error code may be used.  URIs that can be used
      to retrieve copies of each document at no cost SHOULD be included.

7.1.2.  Initial Registry Contents

      Error Code: invalid_request
      Description: The request body cannot be parsed as a SET or the
      event payload within the SET does not conform to the event's
      Change Controller: IETF
      Defining Document(s): Section 2.4 of [[ this specification ]]

      Error Code: invalid_key
      Description: One or more keys used to encrypt or sign the SET is
      invalid or otherwise unacceptable to the SET Recipient. (e.g.,
      expired, revoked, failed certificate validation, etc.)
      Change Controller: IETF
      Defining Document(s): Section 2.4 of [[ this specification ]]

      Error Code: authentication_failed
      Description: The SET Recipient could not authenticate the SET
      Change Controller: IETF
      Defining Document(s): Section 2.4 of [[ this specification ]]

      Error Code: access_denied
      Description: The SET Transmitter is not authorized to transmit the
      SET to the SET Recipient.
      Change Controller: IETF
      Defining Document(s): Section 2.4 of [[ this specification ]]

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC2277]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
              January 1998, <>.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,

   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
              2011, <>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,

   [RFC7515]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
              Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
              2015, <>.

   [RFC7516]  Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
              RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,

   [RFC7525]  Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
              2015, <>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,

   [RFC8417]  Hunt, P., Ed., Jones, M., Denniss, W., and M. Ansari,
              "Security Event Token (SET)", RFC 8417,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8417, July 2018,

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7235]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,

Appendix A.  Other Streaming Specifications

   [[ NOTE TO THE RFC EDITOR: 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:

   Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP

   In addition to this specification, the WG is defining a polling-based
   SET delivery protocol.  That protocol's draft (draft-ietf-secevent-
   http-poll) describes it as:

   This specification defines how a series of Security Event Tokens
   (SETs) may be delivered to an intended recipient using HTTP POST over
   TLS initiated as a poll by the recipient.  The specification also
   defines how delivery can be assured, subject to the SET Recipient's
   need for assurance.

   XMPP Events

   The WG considered the XMPP events ands its Events and their 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 too far apart
   from the current capabilities of the SECEVENTs community community, which
   focuses in on HTTP based service delivery and authorization.

   Amazon Simple Notification Service

   Simple Notification Service, 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 does not 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, 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  I am
   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:

   o  Visibility Timeouts:

   Apache Kafka

   Apache Kafka is an Apache open source project based upon TCP for
   distributed streaming.  It prescribes some interesting general general-
   purpose features that seem to extend far beyond the simpler streaming
   model that 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:

   Google Pub/Sub

   The Google Pub Sub system favours favors a model whereby polling and
   acknowledgement of events is done as with separate endpoints and as
   separate functions.


   o  Cloud Overview -
   o  Subscriber Overview -

   o  Subscriber Pull(poll) -

Appendix B.  Acknowledgments

   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.

   The editors would like to thank Phil Hunt and the other authors of
   draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02, on which this draft is based.

   The editors would like to thank the participants in the the SecEvents
   working group for their contributions to this specification.

Appendix C.  Change Log

   [[ NOTE TO THE RFC EDITOR: This section to be removed prior to
   publication ]]

   Draft 00 - AB - Based on draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02 with the
   following changes:

   o  Renamed to "Push-Based SET Token Delivery Using HTTP"

   o  Removed references to the HTTP Polling delivery method.

   o  Removed informative reference to RFC6202.

   Draft 01 - AB:

   o  Fixed area and workgroup to match secevent.

   o  Removed unused definitions and definitions already covered by SET.

   o  Renamed Event Transmitter and Event Receiver to SET Transmitter
      and SET Receiver, respectively.

   o  Added IANA registry for SET Delivery Error Codes.

   o  Removed enumeration of HTTP authentication methods.

   o  Removed generally applicable guidance for HTTP, authorization
      tokens, and bearer tokens.

   o  Moved guidance for using authentication methods as DoS protection
      to Security Considerations.

   o  Removed redundant instruction to use WWW-Authenticate header.

   o  Removed further generally applicable guidance for authorization

   o  Removed bearer token from example delivery request, and text
      referencing it.

   o  Broke delivery method description into separate request/response

   o  Added missing empty line between headers and body in example

   o  Removed unapplicable inapplicable notes about example formatting.

   o  Removed text about SET creation and handling.

   o  Removed duplication in protocol description.

   o  Added "non-normative example" text to example transmission

   o  Fixed inconsistencies in use of Error Code term.

   Draft 02 - AB:

   o  Rewrote abstract and introduction.

   o  Rewrote definitions for SET Transmitter, SET Receiver.

   o  Renamed Event Delivery section to SET Delivery.

   o  Readability edits to Success Response and Failure Response

   o  Consolidated definition of error response under Failure Response

   o  Removed Event Delivery Process section and moved its content to
      parent section.

   o  Readability edits to SET Delivery section and its subsections.

   o  Added callout that SET Receiver HTTP endpoint configuration is

   o  Added callout that SET verification mechanisms are out-of-scope.

   o  Added retry guidance, notes regarding delivery reliability

   o  Added guidance around using JWS and/or JWE to authenticate
      persisted SETs.

   Draft 03 - mbj:

   o  Addressed problems identified in my 18-Jul-18 review message
      titled "Issues for both the Push and Poll Specs".

   o  Changes to align terminology with RFC 8417, for instance, by using
      the already defined term SET Recipient rather than SET Receiver.

   o  Applied editorial and minor normative corrections.

   o  Updated Marius' contact information.

   Draft 04 - AB:

   o  Replaced Error Codes with smaller set of meaningfully
      differentiated codes.

   o  Added more error response examples.

   o  Removed un-referenced normative references.

   o  Added normative reference to JSON in error response definition.

   o  Added text clarifying that the value of the "description"
      attribute in error responses is implementation specific.

   o  Added requirement that error descriptions and responses are UTF-8

   o  Added error description language preferences and specification via
      "Accept-Language" and "Content-Language" headers.

   o  Added "recognized issuer" validation requirement in section 2.

   o  Added time outs timeouts as an acceptable reason to resend a SET in section

   o  Edited text in section 1 to clarify that configuration is out of

   o  Made minor editorial corrections.

   Draft 05 - AB:

   o  Made minor editorial corrections.

   o  Updated example request with a correct SET header and signature.

   o  Revised TLS guidance to allow implementers to provide
      confidentiality protection via JWE.

   o  Revised TLS guidance to require *at least* TLS 1.2.

   o  Revised TLS guidance to recommend supporting the newest version of
      TLS that meets security requirements.

   o  Revised SET Delivery Error Code format to allow the same set of
      characters as is allowed in error codes in RFC6749.

   o  Added mention of HTTP Poll spec to list of other streaming specs
      in appendix.

   o  Added validation step requiring SET Recipient to verify that the
      SET is one which the SET Transmitter is expected to send to the
      SET Recipient.

   o  Changed responding to errors with an appropriate HTTP status code
      from optional to recommended.

   o  Changed Error Codes registry change policy from Expert Review to
      First Come First Served; added guidance that error codes are meant
      to be consumed by automated systems.

   o  Added text making clear that it is up to SET Recipients whether or
      not they will accept SETs where the SET Issuer is different from
      the SET Transmitter.

   o  Reworded guidance around signing and/or encrypting SETs for
      integrity protection.

   o  Renamed TLS "Support Considerations" section to "Confidentiality
      of SETs".

   o  Reworded guidance around subject identifier selection and privacy

   Draft 06 - mbj, MS:

   o  Made minor editorial corrections.

   o  Updated to indicate that failure response should be returned if
      errors occur in authenticating the SET.

   o  Updated reference for JSON from RFC 7159 to RFC 8259.

   o  Fixed Authentication Using Signed SETs to indicate the SET
      Transmitter must be authorized to deliver the SET, not the SET

   o  Fixed Authenticating Persisted SETs to put the responsibility for
      ensuring the SET is signed on the SET Recipient.

   o  Fixed error code format definition to match error codes defined in

   Draft 07 - AB:

   o  Made minor editorial corrections.

   o  Removed "SET Recipient" definition and added explicit list of
      terms used from RFC8417.

   Draft 08 - mbj

   o  Addressed area director review comments by Benjamin Kaduk.

   Draft 09 - mbj + AB

   o  Corrected editorial nits.

Authors' Addresses

   Annabelle Backman (editor)


   Michael B. Jones (editor)

   Marius Scurtescu


   Morteza Ansari


   Anthony Nadalin