idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-repute-query-http-10.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 (August 29, 2013) is 3894 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: March 2, 2014 August 29, 2013 7 A Reputation Query Protocol 8 draft-ietf-repute-query-http-10 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 March 2, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 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 The mechanism is a two-stage query: 78 1. A client retrieves a template from a server that describes the 79 construction of a Universal Resource Identifier (URI) which will 80 be the actual query; 82 2. The client then uses the constructed URI to request the 83 reputation data from the server. 85 2. Terminology and Definitions 87 This section defines terms used in the rest of the document. 89 2.1. Key Words 91 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 92 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 93 document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. 95 2.2. Other Definitions 97 Other terms of importance in this document are defined in 98 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] and [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]. 100 3. Description 102 3.1. Overview 104 The components to the question being asked comprise the following: 106 o The subject of the query; 108 o The name of the host, or the IP address, at which the reputation 109 service is available; 111 o The name of the reputation application, i.e., the context within 112 which the subject is being evaluated; 114 o Optionally, name(s) of the specific reputation assertions or 115 attributes that are being requested. 117 Assertions are discussed in [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]. 119 The name of the application, if given, is expected to be one 120 registered with IANA in the Reputation Applications Registry, which 121 is defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]. A server receiving a query 122 about an application it does not recognize or explicitly support 123 (e.g., by virtue of private agreements or experimental extensions) 124 MUST return a 404 error code. 126 A reputation query made via [HTTP] encodes the question being asked 127 in an HTTP GET method. The specific syntax of the query itself is 128 specified by retrieving a URI template from the reputation service, 129 completing the template, and then issuing the query. 131 3.2. URI Template 133 The template file is retrieved by requesting the [WELL-KNOWN-URI] 134 "repute-template" from the host providing reputation service, using 135 HTTP. (The registration for this well-known URI is in Section 4.) 136 The server returns the template file in a reply that MUST use the 137 text/plain media type (see [MIME]), and SHOULD include an Expires 138 field (see Section 14.21 of [HTTP]) indicating a duration for which 139 the template is to be considered valid by clients and not re-queried. 141 Clients SHOULD NOT repeat the query prior to the timestamp in the 142 Expires field, or wait no less than one day if the Expires field is 143 not present. 145 The template file might contain more than one template. Such a file 146 MUST have each template separated by a carriage return (ASCII 0x0D) 147 and newline (ASCII 0x0A) character, as is typical for most text-based 148 Internet protocols. 150 Each template in the file is expanded using the variables that are 151 the parameters to the query. These parameters are either the subject 152 about which reputation information is sought (or details associated 153 with it), or other parameters that are established out-of-band with 154 the reputation service; they are not established by any automated 155 discovery described here. The client then attempts to query each 156 expanded template that uses a scheme it is capable of querying, in 157 the order presented in the file, until the client finds one to which 158 it can establish a usable connection and issue the query. 160 For example, given the following template: 162 http://{service}/{application}/{subject}/{assertion} 164 A query about the use of the domain "example.org" in the "email-id" 165 application context to a service run at "example.com", where that 166 application declares a required "subject" parameter, requesting the 167 "SPAM" reputation assertion, would be formed as follows: 169 http://example.com/email-id/example.org/spam 171 3.3. Syntax 173 The syntax for the [URI] of the query is constructed using a template 174 as per [URI-TEMPLATE]. (See Section 3.2.) Clients MUST provide the 175 following values in the expansion of the template: 177 application: The name of the application reputation in whose context 178 the request is being made. 180 service: The hostname or IP address to which the query is being 181 sent. This MUST be the same as the host to which the template 182 query was issued. 184 subject: The subject of the query, extracted from some content to be 185 evaluated. 187 The following variable can also be provided. It is not mandatory in 188 this model, but a specific application (defined in its own extension 189 document) might declare it mandatory in a specific context: 191 assertion: The name of the specific assertion of interest to the 192 client. If absent, the client is indicating that it requests all 193 available assertion information. 195 Every application space has a set of assertions applicable to its own 196 context. [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE] defines a single assertion assumed 197 to exist in any application that does not define its own assertion 198 set. 200 Reputation applications can extend the set of optional or required 201 query parameters as part of their IANA registration actions. The set 202 enumerated above establishes the base set common to all of them. 203 Further, additional required or optional extension query parameters 204 might be defined by specific reputation service providers, though 205 these are private arrangements between client and server and will not 206 be registered with IANA. 208 Authentication between reputation client and server is outside the 209 scope of this specification. It could be provided through a variety 210 of available transport-based or object-based mechanisms, including a 211 later extension of this specification. 213 3.4. Response 215 The response is expected to be contained in a media type designed to 216 deliver reputons. An media type designed for this purpose, 217 "application/reputon+json", is defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]. 219 3.5. Protocol Support 221 A client has to implement HTTP in order to retrieve the query 222 template as described in Section 3.2. Accordingly, a server can 223 assume the client will be able to handle a URI template that produces 224 a URI for the query using the "http" scheme. The template could 225 yield a query string that uses some other URI scheme, in which case 226 the client could try that URI as well if it supports issuing queries 227 with that scheme. 229 A server SHOULD include support for providing service over HTTP, and 230 publish templates indicating support for this, as a baseline for 231 interoperability with arbitrary clients. 233 4. IANA Considerations 235 This document registers the "repute-template" well-known URI in the 236 Well-Known URI registry as defined by [WELL-KNOWN-URI], as follows: 238 URI suffix: repute-template 240 Change controller: IETF 242 Specification document(s): [this document] 244 Related information: none 246 5. Security Considerations 248 This document defines particular uses of existing protocols for a 249 specific application. In particular, the basic protocol used for 250 this service to retrieve a URI template from a well-known location is 251 basic HTTP, which is not secure without certain extensions. Security 252 issues relevant to use of URI templates are discussed in 253 [URI-TEMPLATE], and those relevant to well-known URI definitions and 254 retrieval are discussed in [WELL-KNOWN-URI]. 256 The reputation service itself will use HTTP or other transport 257 methods to issue queries and receive replies. Those protocols have 258 registered URI schemes and, as such, presumably have documented 259 security considerations. The protocol described here operates atop 260 those schemes, and does not itself present new security 261 considerations. 263 Reputation mechanisms represent an obvious security concern, in terms 264 of the validity and use of the reputation information. These issues 265 are beyond the scope of this specification. General information 266 pertaining to using or providing reputation services can be found in 267 [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS]. 269 6. References 271 6.1. Normative References 273 [HTTP] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 274 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 275 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 277 [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE] 278 Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for 279 Reputation Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-media-type 280 (work in progress), November 2012. 282 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] 283 Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation 284 Interchange", draft-iet-repute-model (work in progress), 285 November 2012. 287 [KEYWORDS] 288 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 289 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 291 [MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail 292 Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message 293 Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996. 295 [URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 296 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986, 297 January 2005. 299 [URI-TEMPLATE] 300 Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M., 301 and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, March 2012. 303 [WELL-KNOWN-URI] 304 Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known 305 Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785, 306 April 2010. 308 6.2. Informative References 310 [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS] 311 Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding 312 Reputation Services", draft-ietf-repute-considerations 313 (work in progress), November 2012. 315 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 317 The authors would like to thank the following for their contributions 318 to this work: Simon Hunt, Mark Nottingham, David F. Skoll, and Mykyta 319 Yevstifeyev. 321 Appendix B. Public Discussion 323 [RFC Editor: Please delete before publication] 325 Public discussion of this set of documents takes place on the 326 domainrep@ietf.org mailing list. See 327 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep. 329 Authors' Addresses 331 Nathaniel Borenstein 332 Mimecast 333 203 Crescent St., Suite 303 334 Waltham, MA 02453 335 USA 337 Phone: +1 781 996 5340 338 Email: nsb@guppylake.com 340 Murray S. Kucherawy 341 270 Upland Drive 342 San Francisco, CA 94127 343 USA 345 Email: superuser@gmail.com