idnits 2.17.1 draft-backman-secevent-subject-identifiers-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([JSON], [JWT], [SET]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 01, 2018) is 2155 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'E164' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IDTOKEN' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (ref. 'JSON') (Obsoleted by RFC 8259) -- Duplicate reference: RFC7519, mentioned in 'RFC7519', was also mentioned in 'JWT'. == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-secevent-token-01 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Security Events Working Group A. Backman 3 Internet-Draft Amazon 4 Intended status: Standards Track M. Scurtescu 5 Expires: December 3, 2018 Google 6 June 01, 2018 8 Subject Identifiers for Security Event Tokens 9 draft-backman-secevent-subject-identifiers-00 11 Abstract 13 Security events communicated within Security Event Tokens may support 14 a variety of identifiers to identify the subject and/or other 15 principals related to the event. This specification formalizes the 16 notion of subject identifiers as named sets of well-defined claims 17 describing the subject, a mechanism for representing subject 18 identifiers within a [JSON] object such as a JSON Web Token (JWT) 19 [JWT] or Security Event Token (SET) [SET], and a registry for 20 defining and allocating names for these claim sets. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2018. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3. Subject Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3.1. Email Subject Identifier Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3.2. Phone Number Subject Identifier Type . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3.3. Issuer and Subject Subject Identifier Type . . . . . . . 4 62 3.4. ID Token Claims Subject Identifier Type . . . . . . . . . 5 63 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 4.1. Security Event Subject Identifier Types Registry . . . . 5 65 4.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 4.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 4.1.3. Guidance for Exper Reviewers {#iana-sub-id-types- 68 expert } . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76 1. Introduction 78 As described in section 1.2 of [SET], the subject of a security event 79 may take a variety of forms, including but not limited to a JWT 80 principal, an IP address, a URL, etc. Furthermore, even in the case 81 where the subject of an event is more narrowly scoped, there may be 82 multiple ways by which a given subject may be identified. For 83 example, an account may be identified by an opaque identifier, an 84 email address, a phone number, a JWT iss claim and sub claim, etc., 85 depending on the nature and needs of the transmitter and receiver. 86 Even within the context of a given transmitter and receiver 87 relationship, it may be appropriate to identify different accounts in 88 different ways, for example if some accounts only have email 89 addresses assoicated with them while others only have phone numbers. 90 Therefore it can be necessary to indicate within a SET the mechanism 91 by which the subject of the security event is being identified. 93 2. Notational Conventions 95 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 96 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 97 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 99 3. Subject Identifiers 101 A Subject Identifier Type is a light-weight schema that describes a 102 set of claims that identifies a subject. Every Subject Identifier 103 Type MUST have a unique name registered in the IANA "Security Event 104 Subject Identifier Types" registry established by Section 4.1. A 105 Subject Identifier Type MAY describe more claims than are strictly 106 necessary to uniquely identify a subject, and MAY describe conditions 107 under which those claims are required, optional, or prohibited. 109 A Subject Identifier is a [JSON] object containing a "subject_type" 110 claim whose value is the unique name of a Subject Identifier Type, 111 and a set of additional "payload claims" which are to be interpreted 112 according to the rules defined by that Subject Identifier Type. 113 Payload claim values MUST match the format specified for the claim by 114 the Subject Identifier Type. A Subject Identifier MUST NOT contain 115 any payload claims prohibited or not described by its Subject 116 Identifier Type, and MUST contain all payload claims required by its 117 Subject Identifier Type. 119 The following Subject Identifier Types are registered in the IANA 120 "Security Event Subject Identifier Types" registry established by 121 Section 4.1. 123 3.1. Email Subject Identifier Type 125 The Email Subject Identifier Type describes a subject by email 126 address. Subject Identifiers of this type MUST contain an "email" 127 claim whose value is a string containing the email address of the 128 subject. The "email" claim MUST NOT be null or empty. The Email 129 Subject Identifier Type is identified by the name "email". 131 Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier for the Email 132 Subject Identifier Type: 134 { 135 "subject_type": "email", 136 "email": "user@example.com", 137 } 139 Figure 1: Example: Subject Identifier for the Email Subject 140 Identifier Type. 142 3.2. Phone Number Subject Identifier Type 144 The Phone Number Subject Identifier Type describes a subject by 145 telephone number. Subject Identifiers of this type MUST contain a 146 "phone" claim whose value is a string containing the full telephone 147 number of the subject, including international dialing prefix, 148 formatted according to E.164 [E164]. The "phone" claim MUST NOT be 149 null or empty. The Phone Number Subject Identifier Type is 150 identified by the name "phone". 152 Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier for the Email 153 Subject Identifier Type: 155 { 156 "subject_type": "phone", 157 "phone": "+1 (206) 555-0100", 158 } 160 Figure 2: Example: Subject Identifier for the Phone Number Subject 161 Identifier Type. 163 3.3. Issuer and Subject Subject Identifier Type 165 The Issuer and Subject Subject Identifier Type describes a subject by 166 an issuer and a subject. Subject Identifiers of this type MUST 167 contain an "iss" claim whose value identifies the issuer, and a "sub" 168 claim whose value identifies the subject with respect to the issuer. 169 These claims MUST follow the formats of the "iss" claim and "sub" 170 claim defined by [RFC7519], respectively. Both the "iss" claim and 171 the "sub" claim MUST NOT be null or empty. The Issuer and Subject 172 Subject Identifier Type is identified by the name "iss_sub". 174 Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier for the Issuer 175 and Subject Subject Identifier Type: 177 { 178 "subject_type": "iss_sub", 179 "iss": "http://issuer.example.com/", 180 "sub": "145234573", 181 } 183 Figure 3: Example: Subject Identifier for the Issuer and Subject 184 Subject Identifier Type. 186 3.4. ID Token Claims Subject Identifier Type 188 The ID Token Claims Subject Identifier Type describes a subject by a 189 subset of the claims from an ID token. Subject Identifiers of this 190 type MUST contain at least one of the following claims: 192 email 193 An "email" claim, as defined in [IDTOKEN]. 195 phone_number 196 A "phone_number" claim, as defined in [IDTOKEN]. 198 sub 199 A "sub" claim, as defined in [RFC7519]. 201 If the Subject Identifier contains a "sub" claim, it MUST also 202 contain an "iss" claim, as defined in [RFC7519]. The ID Token Claims 203 Subject Identifier Type is identified by the name "id_token_claims". 205 Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier for the ID Token 206 Claims Subject Identifier Type: 208 { 209 "subject_type": "id_token_claims", 210 "iss": "http://issuer.example.com/", 211 "sub": "145234573", 212 "email": "user@example.com", 213 } 215 Figure 4: Example: Subject Identifier for the ID Token Claims Subject 216 Identifier Type. 218 4. IANA Considerations 220 4.1. Security Event Subject Identifier Types Registry 222 This document defines Subject Identifier Types, for which IANA is 223 asked to create and maintain a new registry titled "Security Event 224 Subject Identifier Types". Initial values for the Security Event 225 Subject Identifier Types registry are given in Section 3. Future 226 assignments are to be made through the Expert Review registration 227 policy [BCP26] and shall follow the template presented in 228 Section 4.1.1. 230 4.1.1. Registration Template 232 Type Name 233 The name of the Subject Identifier Type, as described in 234 Section 3. The name MUST be an ASCII string consisting only of 235 lower-case characters ("a" - "z"), digits ("0" - "9"), and hyphens 236 ("-"), and SHOULD NOT exceed 20 characters in length. 238 Type Description 239 A brief description of the Subject Identifier Type. 241 Change Controller 242 For types defined in documents published by the OpenID Foundation 243 or its working groups, list "OIDF RISC Working Group". For all 244 other types, list the name of the party responsible for the 245 registration. Contact information such as mailing address, email 246 address, or phone number may also be provided. 248 Defining Document(s) 249 A reference to the document or documents that define the Subject 250 Identifier Type. The definition MUST specify the name, format, 251 and meaning of each claim that may occur within a Subject 252 Identifier of the defined type, as well as whether each claim is 253 optional or required, or the circumstances under which the claim 254 is optional or required. URIs that can be used to retrieve copies 255 of each document SHOULD be included. 257 4.1.2. Initial Registry Contents 259 4.1.2.1. Email Subject Identifier Type 261 o Type Name: "email" 263 o Type Description: Subject identifier based on email address. 265 o Change Controller: IETF secevent Working Group 267 o Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document. 269 4.1.2.2. ID Token Claims Subject Identifier Type 271 o Type Name: "id_token_claims" 273 o Type Description: Subject identifier based on OpenID Connect ID 274 Token claims. 276 o Change Controller: IETF secevent Working Group 277 o Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document. 279 4.1.2.3. Issuer and Subject Subject Identifier Type 281 o Type Name: "iss_sub" 283 o Type Description: Subject identifier based on an issuer and 284 subject. 286 o Change Controller: IETF secevent Working Group 288 o Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document. 290 4.1.2.4. Phone Number Subject Identifier Type 292 o Type Name: "phone" 294 o Type Description: Subject identifier based on an phone number. 296 o Change Controller: IETF secevent Working Group 298 o Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document. 300 4.1.3. Guidance for Exper Reviewers {#iana-sub-id-types-expert } 302 The Expert Reviewer is expected to review the documentation 303 referenced in a registration request to verify its completeness. The 304 Expert Reviewer must base their decision to accept or reject the 305 request on a fair and impartial assessment of the request. If the 306 Expert Reviewer has a conflict of interest, such as being an author 307 of a defining document referenced by the request, they must recuse 308 themselves from the approval process for that request. In the case 309 where a request is rejected, the Expert Reviewer should provide the 310 requesting party with a written statement expressing the reason for 311 rejection, and be prepared to cite any sources of information that 312 went into that decision. 314 Subject Identifier Types need not be generally applicable and may be 315 highly specific to a particular domain; it is expected that types may 316 be registered for niche or industry-specific use cases. The Expert 317 Reviewer should focus on whether the type is thoroughly documented, 318 and whether its registration will promote or harm interoperability. 319 In most cases, the Expert Reviewer should not approve a request if 320 the registration would contribute to confusion, or amount to a 321 synonym for an existing type. 323 5. Privacy Considerations 325 There are no privacy considerations. 327 6. Security Considerations 329 There are no security considerations. 331 7. Normative References 333 [BCP26] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 334 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 335 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 336 . 338 [E164] International Telecommunication Union, "The international 339 public telecommunication numbering plan", 2010, 340 . 342 [IDTOKEN] Sakamura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and 343 C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0 - ID Token", April 344 2017, . 347 [JSON] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data 348 Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March 349 2014, . 351 [JWT] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token 352 (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, 353 . 355 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 356 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 357 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 358 . 360 [RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token 361 (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, 362 . 364 [SET] "Security Event Token (SET)", n.d., 365 . 368 Acknowledgements 370 This document is based on work developed within the OpenID RISC 371 Working Group. The authors would like to thank the members of this 372 group for their hard work and contributions. 374 Change Log 376 (This sectcion to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as 377 an RFC.) 379 Draft 00 - AB - First draft 381 Authors' Addresses 383 Annabelle Backman 384 Amazon 386 Email: richanna@amazon.com 388 Marius Scurtescu 389 Google 391 Email: mscurtescu@google.com