idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-repute-query-http-08.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 3, 2013) is 3951 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (ref. 'HTTP') (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) -- No information found for draft-iet-repute-model - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.REPUTE-MODEL' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5785 (ref. 'WELL-KNOWN-URI') (Obsoleted by RFC 8615) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 REPUTE Working Group N. Borenstein 3 Internet-Draft Mimecast 4 Intended status: Standards Track M. Kucherawy 5 Expires: January 4, 2014 July 3, 2013 7 A Reputation Query Protocol 8 draft-ietf-repute-query-http-08 10 Abstract 12 This document defines a mechanism to conduct queries for reputation 13 information over the Hypertext Transfer Protocol using JSON as the 14 payload meta-format. 16 Status of this Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2014. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 2.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2.2. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3.2. URI Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 3.3. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 3.4. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 3.5. Protocol Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 1. Introduction 71 This document defines a method to query a reputation data service for 72 information about an entity, using the HyperText Transfer Protocol 73 (HTTP) as the transport mechanism and JSON as the payload meta- 74 format. 76 2. Terminology and Definitions 78 This section defines terms used in the rest of the document. 80 2.1. Key Words 82 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 83 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 84 document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. 86 2.2. Other Definitions 88 Other terms of importance in this document are defined in 89 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] and [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]. 91 3. Description 93 3.1. Overview 95 The components to the question being asked comprise the following: 97 o The subject of the query; 99 o The name of the host, or the IP address, at which the reputation 100 service is available; 102 o The name of the reputation application, i.e., the context within 103 which the subject is being evaluated; 105 o Optionally, name(s) of the specific reputation assertions or 106 attributies that are being requested. 108 Assertions are discussed in [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]. 110 The name of the application, if given, is expected to be one 111 registered with IANA in the Reputation Applications Registry, which 112 is defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]. A server receiving a query 113 about an application it does not recognize or explicitly support 114 support (e.g., by virtue of private agreements or experimental 115 extensions) MUST return a 404 error code. 117 A reputation query made via [HTTP] encodes the question being asked 118 in an HTTP GET method. The specific syntax of the query itself is 119 specified by retrieving a URI template from the reputation service, 120 completing the template, and then issuing the query. 122 3.2. URI Template 124 The template file is retrieved by requesting the [WELL-KNOWN-URI] 125 "repute-template" from the host providing reputation service, using 126 HTTP. (The registration for this well-known URI is in Section 4.) 127 The server returns the template file in a reply that MUST use the 128 text/plain media type (see [MIME]), and SHOULD include an Expires 129 field (see Section 14.21 of [HTTP]) indicating a duration for which 130 the template is to be considered valid by clients and not re-queried. 132 Clients SHOULD NOT repeat the query prior to the timestamp in the 133 Expires field, or wait no less than one day if the Expires field is 134 not present. 136 The template file might contain more than one template. Such a file 137 MUST have each template separated by a newline (ASCII 0x0D) 138 character. 140 Each template in the file is expanded using the variables that are 141 the parameters to the query. These parameters are either the subject 142 about which reputation information is sought (or details associated 143 with it), or other parameters that are established out-of-band with 144 the reputation service; they are not established by any automated 145 discovery described here. The client then attempts to query each 146 expanded template that uses a scheme it is cable of querying, in the 147 order presented in the file, until finds one to which it can 148 establish a usable connection and issue the query. 150 For example, given the following template: 152 http://{service}/{application}/{subject}/{assertion} 154 A query about the use of the domain "example.org" in the "email-id" 155 application context to a service run at "example.com", where that 156 application declares a required "subject" parameter, requesting the 157 "SPAM" reputation assertion, would be formed as follows: 159 http://example.com/email-id/example.org/spam 161 3.3. Syntax 163 The syntax for the [URI] of the query is constructed using a template 164 as per [URI-TEMPLATE]. (See Section 3.2.) Clients MUST provide the 165 following values in the expansion of the template: 167 application: The name of the application reputation in whose context 168 the request is being made. 170 service: The hostname or IP address to which the query is being 171 sent. This MUST be the same as the host to which the template 172 query was issued. 174 subject: The subject of the query, extracted from some content to be 175 evaluated. 177 The following variable can also be provided. It is not mandatory in 178 this model, but a specific application (defined in its own extension 179 document) might declare it mandatory in a specific context: 181 assertion: The name of the specific assertion of interest to the 182 client. If absent, the client is indicating that it requests all 183 available assertion information. 185 Every application space has a set of assertions applicable to its own 186 context. [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE] defines a single assertion assumed 187 to exist in any application that does not define its own assertion 188 set. 190 Reputation applications can extend the set of optional or required 191 query parameters as part of their IANA registration actions. The set 192 enumerated above establishes the base set common to all of them. 193 Further, additional required or optional extension query parameters 194 might be defined by specific reputation service providers, though 195 these are private arrangements between client and server and will not 196 be registered with IANA. 198 Authentication between reputation client and server is outside the 199 scope of this specification. It could be provided through a variety 200 of available transport-based or object-based mechanisms, including a 201 later extension of this specification. 203 3.4. Response 205 The response is expected to be contained in a media type designed to 206 deliver reputons. An media type designed for this purpose, 207 "application/reputon+json", is defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]. 209 3.5. Protocol Support 211 A client has to implement HTTP in order to retrieve the query 212 template as described in Section 3.2. Accordingly, a server can 213 assume the client will be able to handle a URI template that produces 214 a URI for the query using the "http" scheme. The template could 215 yield a query string that uses some other URI scheme, in which case 216 the client could try that URI as well if it supports issuing queries 217 with that scheme. 219 A server SHOULD include support for providing service over HTTP, and 220 publish templates indicating support for this, as a baseline for 221 interoperability with arbitrary clients. 223 4. IANA Considerations 225 This document registers the "repute-template" well-known URI in the 226 Well-Known URI registry as defined by [WELL-KNOWN-URI], as follows: 228 URI suffix: repute-template 230 Change controller: IETF 232 Specification document(s): [this document] 234 Related information: none 236 5. Security Considerations 238 This document defines particular uses of existing protocols for a 239 specific application. In particular, the basic protocol used for 240 this service to retrieve a URI template from a well-known location is 241 basic HTTP, which is not secure without certain extensions. Security 242 issues relevant to use of URI templates are discussed in 243 [URI-TEMPLATE], and those relevant to well-known URI definitions and 244 retrieval are discussed in [WELL-KNOWN-URI]. 246 The reputation service itself will use HTTP or other transport 247 methods to issue queries and receive replies. Those protocols have 248 registered URI schemes and, as such, presumably have documented 249 security considerations. The protocol described here operates atop 250 those schemes, and does not itself present new security 251 considerations. 253 Reputation mechanisms represent an obvious security concern, in terms 254 of the validity and use of the reputation information. These issues 255 are beyond the scope of this specification. General information 256 pertaining to using or providing reputation services can be found in 257 [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS]. 259 6. References 261 6.1. Normative References 263 [HTTP] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 264 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 265 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 267 [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE] 268 Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for 269 Reputation Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-media-type 270 (work in progress), November 2012. 272 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] 273 Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation 274 Interchange", draft-iet-repute-model (work in progress), 275 November 2012. 277 [KEYWORDS] 278 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 279 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 281 [MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail 282 Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message 283 Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996. 285 [URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 286 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986, 287 January 2005. 289 [URI-TEMPLATE] 290 Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M., 291 and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, March 2012. 293 [WELL-KNOWN-URI] 294 Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known 295 Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785, 296 April 2010. 298 6.2. Informative References 300 [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS] 301 Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding 302 Reputation Services", draft-ietf-repute-considerations 303 (work in progress), November 2012. 305 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 307 The authors would like to thank the following for their contributions 308 to this work: Simon Hunt, Mark Nottingham, David F. Skoll, and Mykyta 309 Yevstifeyev. 311 Appendix B. Public Discussion 313 Public discussion of this set of documents takes place on the 314 domainrep@ietf.org mailing list. See 315 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep. 317 Authors' Addresses 319 Nathaniel Borenstein 320 Mimecast 321 203 Crescent St., Suite 303 322 Waltham, MA 02453 323 USA 325 Phone: +1 781 996 5340 326 Email: nsb@guppylake.com 328 Murray S. Kucherawy 329 270 Upland Drive 330 San Francisco, CA 94127 331 USA 333 Email: superuser@gmail.com