idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 6 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 28, 2017) is 2457 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5988' is defined on line 1036, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7517' is defined on line 1056, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7516' is defined on line 1112, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-secevent-token-00 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5988 (Obsoleted by RFC 8288) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6125 (Obsoleted by RFC 9525) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (Obsoleted by RFC 8259) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7231 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7525 (Obsoleted by RFC 9325) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7230 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110, RFC 9112) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7235 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Hunt, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Oracle 4 Intended status: Standards Track M. Scurtescu 5 Expires: January 29, 2018 Google 6 M. Ansari 7 Cisco 8 A. Nadalin 9 Microsoft 10 A. Backman 11 Amazon 12 July 28, 2017 14 SET Token Delivery Using HTTP 15 draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-00 17 Abstract 19 This specification defines how a series of security event tokens 20 (SETs) may be delivered to a previously registered receiver using 21 HTTP POST over TLS initiated as a push to the receiver, or as a poll 22 by the receiver. The specification also defines how delivery can be 23 assured subject to the SET Token Receiver's need for assurance. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2018. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2. SET Event Stream Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 2.1. Event Delivery Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 2.2. Push Delivery using HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 2.3. Polling Delivery using HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 2.3.1. Polling HTTP Request Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 2.3.2. Polling HTTP Response Attributes . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 2.3.3. Poll Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 2.3.4. Poll Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 70 2.4. Error Response Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 71 2.5. Event Stream Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 72 3. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 73 3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 74 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 75 4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 76 4.2. HTTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 77 4.3. TLS Support Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 78 4.4. Authorization Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 21 79 4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 80 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 81 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 82 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 83 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 84 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 85 Appendix A. Other Streaming Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . 25 86 Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 87 Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 88 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 90 1. Introduction and Overview 92 This specification defines how a stream of SETs (see 93 [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]) can be transmitted to a previously 94 registered Event Receiver using HTTP [RFC7231] over TLS. The 95 specification defines a method to push SETs via HTTP POST and to poll 96 for SETs using HTTP POST. 98 This specification defines to methods of SET delivery in what is 99 known as Event Streams. The specification includes a verification 100 process which tests and validates Event Stream configuration. 102 This specification does not define the method by which Event Streams 103 are defined, provisioned, managed, monitored, and configured and is 104 out of scope of this specification. 105 [[This work is TBD by the SECEVENTS WG]] 107 1.1. Notational Conventions 109 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 110 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 111 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] . These 112 keywords are capitalized when used to unambiguously specify 113 requirements of the protocol or application features and behavior 114 that affect the inter-operability and security of implementations. 115 When these words are not capitalized, they are meant in their 116 natural-language sense. 118 For purposes of readability examples are not URL encoded. 119 Implementers MUST percent encode URLs as described in Section 2.1 of 120 [RFC3986] . 122 Throughout this documents all figures MAY contain spaces and extra 123 line-wrapping for readability and space limitations. Similarly, some 124 URI's contained within examples, have been shortened for space and 125 readability reasons. 127 1.2. Definitions 129 This specification assumes terminology defined in the Security Event 130 Token specification[I-D.ietf-secevent-token] . 132 The following definitions are defined for Security Event 133 distribution: 135 Identity Provider 136 An Identity Provider is a service provider that issues 137 authentication assertions that may be used by Relying Party 138 service providers to establish login sessions with users. 139 Examples of Identity Providers are defined in: OpenID Connect 140 [openid-connect-core] and SAML2 [saml-core-2.0]. For the purpose 141 of this specification an Identity Provider also includes any 142 provider of services where the compromise of an account may open 143 up relying parties to attack. For example for the purposes of 144 security events, an email service provider could be considered an 145 "implicit" Identity Provider. 147 Relying Party 148 Relying Parties come in multiple forms generally classified as 149 "Explicit" or "Implicit". An Explicit Relying Party is a service 150 provider that accepts a standard security assertion (e.g. a JWT 151 access tokens [RFC7519]) from an Identity Provider to establish a 152 session or authorization. An Implicit Relying Party (implicit) 153 uses a personal identifier such as an email address or telephone 154 number from another provider to establish a Subject's identity. 155 Examples of Explicit Relying Parties are defined in: OpenID 156 Connect [openid-connect-core] and SAML2 [saml-core-2.0]. Implicit 157 relying parties are verified by a common channel associated with 158 the identifier. For example, an email or a text message is sent 159 with a unique link to establish ownership of the identifier by the 160 Subject. 162 Event Transmitter 163 A service provider that delivers SETs to other providers known as 164 Event Receivers. Some examples of Event Transmitters are Identity 165 Providers and Relying Parties. An Event Transmitter is 166 responsible for offering a service that allows the Event Receiver 167 to check the Event Stream configuration and status known as the 168 "Control Plane". 170 Event Receiver 171 A service provider that registers to receive SETs from an Event 172 Transmitter and provides an endpoint to receive SETs via HTTP POST 173 (known as the "Data Plane"). Some examples of Event Receivers are 174 Identity Providers and Relying Parties. Event Receivers can check 175 current Event Stream configuration and status by accessing the 176 Event Transmitters "Control Plane". 178 Event Stream 179 An Event Stream is a defined location, distribution method and 180 whereby an Event Transmitter and Event Receiver exchange a pre- 181 defined family of SETs. A Stream is assumed to have configuration 182 data such as HTTP endpoints, timeouts, public key sets for signing 183 and encryption, and Event Families. 185 Event Family 186 An Event Family is a URI that describes the set of Events types be 187 issued in an Event Stream. 189 Subject 190 The security subject around which a security event has occurred. 191 For example, a security subject might per a user, a person, an 192 email address, a service provider entity, an IP address, an OAuth 193 Client, a mobile device, or any identifiable thing referenced in 194 security and authorization systems. 196 Event 197 An Event is defined to be an event as represented by a security 198 event token (SET). See [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]. 200 NumericDate 201 A JSON numeric value representing the number of seconds from 202 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z UTC until the specified UTC date/time, 203 ignoring leap seconds. This is equivalent to the IEEE Std 1003.1, 204 2013 Edition [POSIX.1] definition "Seconds Since the Epoch", in 205 which each day is accounted for by exactly 86400 seconds, other 206 than that non-integer values can be represented. See [RFC3339] 207 for details regarding date/times in general and UTC in particular. 209 2. SET Event Stream Protocol 211 An Event Stream represents the communication channel over which a 212 series of SETs are delivered to a configured Event Receiver. 214 2.1. Event Delivery Process 216 When an Event occurs, the Feed Provider constructs a SET token 217 [I-D.ietf-secevent-token] that describes the Event. The SET issuer 218 determines the Event Streams over which the SET should be distributed 219 to. 221 How SET Events are defined and the process by which Events are 222 identified for Event Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification. 224 When a SET is available for a Event Receiver, the Feed Transmitter 225 attempts to deliver the SET based on the Event Receiver's registered 226 delivery mechanism: 228 o The Event Transmitter uses an HTTP/1.1 POST to the Event Receiver 229 endpoint to deliver the SET; 231 o The Event Transmitter queues up the SET in a buffer so that an 232 Event Receiver MAY poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST. 234 o Or, the Feed Transmitter delivers the Event through a different 235 method not defined by this specification. 237 Delivery of SETs MAY be delivered using one of two modes: 239 PUSH 240 In which SETs are delivered one at a time using HTTP POST requests 241 by an Event Transmitter to an Event Receiver. The HTTP request 242 body is a JSON Web Token [RFC7519] with a "Content-Type" header of 243 "application/secevent+jwt" as defined in Section 2.2 and 6.2 of 245 [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]. Upon receipt, the Event Receiver 246 acknowledges receipt with an HTTP response which is a JSON 247 document with a "Content-Type" header of "application/json" (see 248 Section 11 of [RFC7159]) as described below in Section 2.2. 250 POLLING Where multiple SETs are delivered in a JSON document 251 [RFC7159] to an Event Receiver in response to an HTTP POST request 252 to the Event Transmitter. Then in a following request, the Event 253 Receiver acknowledges received SETs and MAY poll for more. In 254 POLLING mode, all requests and responses are JSON documents and 255 use a "Content-Type" of "application/json" as described in 256 Section 2.3. 258 After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, Event Transmitters 259 SHOULD NOT be required to maintain or record SETs for recovery. Once 260 a SET is acknowledged, the Event Receiver SHALL be responsible for 261 retention and recovery. 263 Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (e.g. signed) if there is 264 a requirement to verify they were issued by the Event Transmitter at 265 a later date when de-coupled from the original delivery where 266 authenticity could be checked via the HTTP or TLS mutual 267 authentication. 269 Upon receiving a SET, the Event Receiver reads the SET and validates 270 it. The receiver MUST acknowledge receipt to the Event transmitter, 271 using the defined acknowledgement or error method depending on the 272 method of transfer. 274 The Event Receiver SHALL NOT use the Event acknowledgement mechanism 275 to report Event errors other than relating to the parsing and 276 validation of the SET token. 278 2.2. Push Delivery using HTTP 280 This method allows an Event Transmitter to use HTTP POST 281 (Section 4.3.3 [RFC7231]) to deliver SETs to a previously registered 282 web callback URI supplied by the Event Receiver as part of an Event 283 Stream configuration process (not defined by this document). 285 The SET to be delivered MAY be signed and/or encrypted as defined in 286 [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]. 288 The Event Stream configuration defines a URI the of an Event Receiver 289 provided endpoint which accepts HTTP POST requests (e.g. 290 "https://notify.examplerp.com/Events"). 292 The HTTP Content-Type (see Section 3.1.1.5 [RFC7231]) for the HTTP 293 POST is "application/jwt" and SHALL consist of a single SET token 294 (see [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]). As per Section 5.3.2 [RFC7231], the 295 expected media type ("Accept" header) response is "application/json". 297 To deliver an Event, the Event Transmitter generates an event 298 delivery message and uses HTTP POST to the configured endpoint with 299 the appropriate "Accept" and "Content-Type" headers. 301 POST /Events HTTP/1.1 303 Host: notify.examplerp.com 304 Accept: application/json 305 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 306 Content-Type: application/secevent+jwt 307 eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0 308 . 309 eyJwdWJsaXNoZXJVcmkiOiJodHRwczovL3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJmZWV 310 kVXJpcyI6WyJodHRwczovL2podWIuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vRmVlZHMvOThkNTI0Nj 311 FmYTViYmM4Nzk1OTNiNzc1NCIsImh0dHBzOi8vamh1Yi5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZ 312 WVkcy81ZDc2MDQ1MTZiMWQwODY0MWQ3Njc2ZWU3Il0sInJlc291cmNlVXJpcyI6 313 WyJodHRwczovL3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVXNlcnMvNDRmNjE0MmRmOTZiZDZ 314 hYjYxZTc1MjFkOSJdLCJldmVudFR5cGVzIjpbIkNSRUFURSJdLCJhdHRyaWJ1dG 315 VzIjpbImlkIiwibmFtZSIsInVzZXJOYW1lIiwicGFzc3dvcmQiLCJlbWFpbHMiX 316 SwidmFsdWVzIjp7ImVtYWlscyI6W3sidHlwZSI6IndvcmsiLCJ2YWx1ZSI6Impk 317 b2VAZXhhbXBsZS5jb20ifV0sInBhc3N3b3JkIjoibm90NHUybm8iLCJ1c2VyTmF 318 tZSI6Impkb2UiLCJpZCI6IjQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkiLCJuYW 319 1lIjp7ImdpdmVuTmFtZSI6IkpvaG4iLCJmYW1pbHlOYW1lIjoiRG9lIn19fQ 320 . 322 Figure 1: Example HTTP POST Request 324 Upon receipt of the request, the Event Receiver SHALL validate the 325 JWT structure of the SET as defined in Section 7.2 [RFC7519]. The 326 Event Receiver SHALL also validate the SET information as described 327 in Section 2 [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]. 329 If the SET is determined to be valid, the Event Receiver SHALL 330 "acknowledge" successful submission by responding with HTTP Status 331 202 as "Accepted" (see Section 6.3.3 [RFC7231]). 333 In order to maintain compatibility with other methods of 334 transmission, the Event Receiver SHOULD NOT include an HTTP response 335 body representation of the submitted SET or what the SET's pending 336 status is when acknowledging success. In the case of an error (e.g. 337 HTTP Status 400), purpose of the HTTP response body is to indicate 338 any SET parsing, validation, or cryptographic errors. 340 The following is a non-normative example of a successful receipt of a 341 SET. 343 HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted 345 Figure 2: Example Successful Delivery Response 347 Note that the purpose of the "acknowledgement" response is to let the 348 Event Transmitter know that a SET has been delivered and the 349 information no longer needs to be retained by the Event Transmitter. 350 Before acknowledgement, Event Receivers SHOULD ensure they have 351 validated received SETs and retained them in a manner appropriate to 352 information retention requirements appropriate to the SET event types 353 signaled. The level of retention and method of SETs by Event 354 Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification. 356 In the Event of a general HTTP error condition, the Event Receiver 357 MAY respond with an appropriate HTTP Status code as defined in 358 Section 6 [RFC7231]. 360 When the Event Receiver detects an error parsing or validating a 361 received SET (as defined by [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]), the Event 362 Receiver SHALL indicate an HTTP Status 400 error with an error code 363 as described in Section 2.4. 365 The following is an example non-normative error response. 367 HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request 368 Content-Type: application/json 370 { 371 "err":"dup", 372 "description":"SET already received. Ignored." 374 } 376 Figure 3: Example HTTP Status 400 Response 378 2.3. Polling Delivery using HTTP 380 This method allows an Event Receiver to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3 381 [RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero or 382 more SETs. Requests MAY be made at a periodic interval (short 383 polling) or requests MAY wait pending availability of new SETs using 384 long polling (see Section 2 [RFC6202]). 386 The delivery of SETs in this method is facilitated by HTTP POST 387 requests initiated by the Event Receiver in which: 389 o The Event Receiver makes an request for available SETs using an 390 HTTP POST to a pre-arranged endpoint provided by the Event 391 Transmitter. Or, 393 o After validating previously received SETs, the Event Receiver 394 initiates another poll request using HTTP POST that includes 395 acknowledgement of previous SETs, and waits for the next batch of 396 SETs. 398 The purpose of the "acknowledgement" is to inform the Event 399 Transmitter that has successfully been delivered and attempts to re- 400 deliver are no longer required. Before acknowledgement, Event 401 Receivers SHOULD ensure received SETs have been validated and 402 retained in a manner appropriate to the receiver's retention 403 requirements. The level and method of retention of SETs by Event 404 Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification. 406 2.3.1. Polling HTTP Request Attributes 408 When initiating a poll request, the Event Receiver constructs a JSON 409 document that consists of polling request parameters and SET 410 acknowledgement parameters in the form of JSON attributes. 412 The request payloads are delivered in one of two forms as described 413 in Section 2.3.3 and Section 2.3.4 415 When making a request, the HTTP header "Content-Type" is set to 416 "application/json". 418 The following JSON Attributes are used in a polling request: 420 Request Processing Parameters 422 maxEvents 423 an OPTIONAL JSON integer value indicating the maximum number of 424 unacknowledged SETs that SHOULD be returned. If more than the 425 maximum number of SETs are available, the oldest SETs available 426 SHOULD be returned first. A value of "0" MAY be used by Event 427 Receivers that would like to perform an acknowledge only 428 request. This enables the Receiver to use separate HTTP 429 requests for acknowledgement and reception of SETs. When zero 430 returned events is requested, the value of the attribute 431 "returnImmediately" SHALL be ignored as an immediate response 432 is expected. 434 returnImmediately 435 An OPTIONAL JSON boolean value that indicates the Event 436 Transmitter SHOULD return an immediate response even if no 437 results are available (short polling). The default value is 438 "false" indicates the request is to be treated as an HTTP Long 439 Poll (see Section 2 [RFC6202]). The time out for the request 440 is part of the Stream configuration which is out of scope of 441 this specification. 443 SET Acknowledgment Parameters 445 ack 446 Which is an array of Strings that each correspond to the "jti" 447 of a successfully received SET. If there are no outstanding 448 SETs to acknowledge, the attribute MAY be omitted. When 449 acknowledging a SET, the Event Transmitter is released from any 450 obligation to retain the SET (e.g. for a future re-try to 451 receive). 453 setErrs 454 A JSON Object that contains one or more nested JSON attributes 455 that correspond to the "jti" of each invalid SET received. The 456 value of each is a JSON object whose contents is an "err" 457 attribute and "description" attribute whose value correspond to 458 the errors described in Section 2.4. 460 2.3.2. Polling HTTP Response Attributes 462 In response to a poll request, the Event Transmitter checks for 463 available SET events and responds with a JSON document containing the 464 following JSON attributes: 466 sets 467 A JSON object that contains zero or more nested JSON attributes. 468 Each nested attribute corresponds to the "jti" of a SET to be 469 delivered and whose value is a JSON String containing the value of 470 the encoded corresponding SET. If there are no outstanding SETs 471 to be transmitted, the JSON object SHALL be empty. 473 moreAvailable 474 A JSON boolean value that indicates if more unacknowledged SETs 475 are available to be returned. 477 When making a response, the HTTP header "Content-Type" is set to 478 "application/json". 480 2.3.3. Poll Request 482 The Event Receiver performs an HTTP POST (see Section 4.3.4 483 [RFC7231]) to a pre-arranged polling endpoint URI to check for SETs 484 that are available. Because the Event Receiver has no prior SETs to 485 acknowledge, the "ack" and "errs" request parameters are omitted. 487 If after a period of time, negotiated between the Event Transmitter 488 and Receiver, an Event Transmitter MAY re-issue SETs it has 489 previously delivered. The Event Receiver SHOULD accept repeat SETs 490 and acknowledge the SETs regardless of whether the Receiver believes 491 it has already acknowledged the SETs previously. An Event 492 Transmitter MAY limit the number of times it attempts to deliver a 493 SET. Upon abandoning delivery of a SET, the Event Transmitter SHOULD 494 have a method to notify the Event Receiver of the loss such as 495 through a status service (not defined by this specification). 497 If the Event Receiver has received SETs from the Event Transmitter, 498 the Event Receiver SHOULD parse and validate received SETs to meet 499 its own requirements and SHOULD acknowledge receipt in a timely (e.g. 500 minutes) fashion so that the Event Transmitter may mark the SETs as 501 received. Event Receivers SHOULD acknowledge receipt before taking 502 any local actions based on the SETs to avoid unnecessary delay in 503 acknowledgement where possible. 505 Poll requests have three variations: 507 Poll Only 508 In which an Event Receiver asks for the next set of Events where 509 no previous SET deliveries are acknowledged (such as in the 510 initial poll request). 512 Acknowledge Only 513 In which an Event Receiver sets the "maxEvents" attribute to "0" 514 along with "ack" and "err" attributes indicating the Event 515 Receiver is acknowledging previously received SETs and does not 516 want to receive any new SETs in response to the request. 518 Combined Acknowledge and Poll 519 In which an Event Receiver is both acknowledging previously 520 received SETs using the "ack" and "err" attributes and will wait 521 for the next group of SETs in the Event Transmitters response. 523 2.3.3.1. Poll Only Request 525 In the case where no SETs were received in a previous poll (see 526 Figure 10), the Event Receiver simply polls without acknowledgement 527 parameters ("sets" and "setErrs"). 529 The following is an example request made by an Event Receiver that 530 has no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling for available 531 SETs. 533 The following is a non-normative example poll request to the 534 endpoint: "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events". 536 POST /Events HTTP/1.1 538 Host: notify.exampleidp.com 539 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 540 Accept: application/json 542 { 543 "returnImmediately":true 544 } 546 Figure 4: Example Initial Poll Request 548 An Event Receiver MAY poll with no parameters at all by passing an 549 empty JSON object. 551 The following is a non-normative example default poll request to the 552 endpoint: "https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events". 554 POST /Events HTTP/1.1 556 Host: notify.exampleidp.com 557 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 558 Accept: application/json 560 {} 562 Figure 5: Example Default Poll Request 564 2.3.3.2. Acknowledge Only Request 566 In this variation, the Event Receiver acknowledges previously 567 received SETs and indicates it does not want to receive SETs in 568 response by setting the "maxEvents" attribute to "0". 570 This variation is typically used when an Event Receiver needs to 571 acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g. on separate threads) 572 from the process of receiving SETs. 574 The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement of 575 SETs received (for example as shown in Figure 9). 577 POST /Events HTTP/1.1 579 Host: notify.exampleidp.com 580 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 581 Content-Type: application/json 582 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 584 { 585 "ack":[ 586 "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8", 587 "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" 588 ], 589 "maxEvents":0 590 } 592 Figure 6: Example Acknowledge Only equest 594 2.3.3.3. Poll with Acknowledgement 596 This variation allows a receiver thread to simultaneously acknowledge 597 previously received SETs and wait for the next group of SETs in a 598 single request. 600 The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement of 601 SETs received in Figure 9. 603 POST /Events HTTP/1.1 605 Host: notify.exampleidp.com 606 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 607 Content-Type: application/json 608 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 610 { 611 "ack":[ 612 "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8", 613 "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" 614 ], 615 "returnImmediately":false 616 } 618 Figure 7: Example Poll With Acknowledgement and No Errors 620 In the above acknowledgement, the Event Receiver has acknowledged 621 receipt of two SETs and has indicated it wants to wait until the next 622 SET is available. 624 2.3.3.4. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors 626 In the case where errors were detected in previously delivered SETs, 627 the Event Receiver MAY use the "setErrs" attribute to indicate errors 628 in the following poll request. 630 The following is a non-normative example of a response acknowledging 631 1 error and 1 receipt of two SETs received in Figure 9. 633 POST /Events HTTP/1.1 635 Host: notify.exampleidp.com 636 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 637 Content-Type: application/json 638 Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 640 { 641 "ack":["3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"], 642 "setErrs":{ 643 "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":{ 644 "err":"jwtAud", 645 "description":"The audience value was incorrect." 646 } 647 }, 648 "returnImmediately":true 649 } 651 Figure 8: Example Poll Acknowledgement With Error 653 2.3.4. Poll Response 655 In response to a poll request, the service provider MAY respond 656 immediately if SETs are available to be delivered. If no SETs are 657 available at the time of the request, the Event Transmitter SHALL 658 delay responding until a SET is available unless the poll request 659 parameter "returnImmediately" is "true". 661 As described in Section 2.3.2 a JSON document is returned containing 662 a number of attributes including "sets" which SHALL contain zero or 663 more SETs. 665 The following is a non-normative example response to the request 666 shown Section 2.3.3. This example shows two SETs are returned. 668 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 669 Content-Type: application/json 670 Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events 672 { 673 "sets":{ 674 "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8": 675 "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0. 676 eyJqdGkiOiI0ZDM1NTllYzY3NTA0YWFiYTY1ZDQwYjAzNjNmYWFkOCIsImlhdCI6MTQ 677 1ODQ5NjQwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiYXVkIjpbIm 678 h0dHBzOi8vc2NpbS5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MWZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M 679 2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0ZlZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIx 680 ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwiZXZlbnRzIjp7InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczpzY2ltOmV 681 2ZW50OmNyZWF0ZSI6eyJyZWYiOiJodHRwczovL3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVXNlcn 682 MvNDRmNjE0MmRmOTZiZDZhYjYxZTc1MjFkOSIsImF0dHJpYnV0ZXMiOlsiaWQiLCJuY 683 W1lIiwidXNlck5hbWUiLCJwYXNzd29yZCIsImVtYWlscyJdfX19.", 684 "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30": 685 "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0. 686 eyJqdGkiOiIzZDBjM2NmNzk3NTg0YmQxOTNiZDBmYjFiZDRlN2QzMCIsImlhdCI6MTQ 687 1ODQ5NjAyNSwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiYXVkIjpbIm 688 h0dHBzOi8vamh1Yi5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MWZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M 689 2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9qaHViLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0ZlZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIx 690 ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwic3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL1V 691 zZXJzLzQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkiLCJldmVudHMiOnsidXJuOmlldG 692 Y6cGFyYW1zOnNjaW06ZXZlbnQ6cGFzc3dvcmRSZXNldCI6eyJpZCI6IjQ0ZjYxNDJkZ 693 jk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkifSwiaHR0cHM6Ly9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9zY2ltL2V2ZW50 694 L3Bhc3N3b3JkUmVzZXRFeHQiOnsicmVzZXRBdHRlbXB0cyI6NX19fQ." 695 } 696 } 698 Figure 9: Example Poll Response 700 In the above example, a two SETs whose "jti" are 701 "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8" and 702 "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" are delivered. 704 The following is a non-normative example response to the request 705 shown Section 2.3.3 showing no new SETs or unacknowledged SETs are 706 available. 708 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 709 Content-Type: application/json 710 Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events 712 { 713 "sets":{ } 714 } 716 Figure 10: Example No SETs Poll Response 718 Upon receiving the JSON document (e.g. as shown in Figure 9), the 719 Event Receiver parses and verifies the received SETs and notifies the 720 Event Transmitter via the next poll request to the Event Transmitter 721 as described in Section 2.3.3.3 or Section 2.3.3.4. 723 2.4. Error Response Handling 725 If a SET is invalid, the following error codes are defined: 727 +-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+ 728 | Err Value | Description | 729 +-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+ 730 | json | Invalid JSON object. | 731 | jwtParse | Invalid or unparsable JWT or JSON structure. | 732 | jwtHdr | In invalid JWT header was detected. | 733 | jwtCrypto | Unable to parse due to unsupported algorithm. | 734 | jws | Signature was not validated. | 735 | jwe | Unable to decrypt JWE encoded data. | 736 | jwtAud | Invalid audience value. | 737 | jwtIss | Issuer not recognized. | 738 | setType | An unexpected Event type was received. | 739 | setParse | Invalid structure was encountered such as an | 740 | | inability to parse or an incomplete set of Event | 741 | | claims. | 742 | setData | SET event claims incomplete or invalid. | 743 | dup | A duplicate SET was received and has been ignored. | 744 +-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+ 746 Table 1: SET Errors 748 An error response SHALL include a JSON object which provides details 749 about the error. The JSON object includes the JSON attributes: 751 err 752 A value which is a keyword that describes the error (see Table 1). 754 description 755 A human-readable text that provides additional diagnostic 756 information. 758 When included as part of an HTTP Status 400 response, the above JSON 759 is the HTTP response body (see Figure 3). When included as part of a 760 batch of SETs, the above JSON is included as part of the "setErrs" 761 attribute as defined in Section 2.3.2 and Section 2.3.3.4 763 2.5. Event Stream Verification 765 In the verify process, the Event Receiver organization initiates a 766 request to the Event Transmitter to verify the Stream. The Event 767 Receiver provides a "confirm" value and a "nonce" value that the 768 Event Transmitter is expected to return in the body of a Verify Event 769 so that the Event Receiver can confirm end-to-end configuration of 770 SET delivery including proper signing and encryption depending on the 771 configuration of the Stream. For example, can the Event Transmitter 772 send a encrypted SET that the Receiver can decode? The method by 773 which this is initiated is out-of-scope of this specification and MAY 774 be provided by a profiling specification, or by administrative 775 interfaces offered by the Event Transmitter. 777 To confirm an Event Stream configuration, the Event Transmitter SHALL 778 send a Verify SET to the Event Receiver using the registered 779 "methodUri" mechanism. 781 The Verify SET contains the following attributes: 783 events 784 Set with a value of "[[this RFC URL]]#verify". 786 iss 787 Set to the URI defined in the Event Stream configuration. 789 aud 790 MUST be set to a value that matches the EventStream "aud" value 791 agreed to. 793 exp 794 A value that indicates the time the verification request will 795 expire. Once expired, the server will set the Event Stream state 796 to "fail". 798 confirm 799 The value given by the Event Receiver to the Event Transmitter to 800 return in the Verify Event. 802 nonce 803 A value given by the Event Receiver or otherwise agreed up to 804 return which SHOULD be unique to the Stream and SHOULD change with 805 each test in order to distinguish tests uniquely. 807 If the Event Stream is configured to encrypt SETs for the Event 808 Receiver, then the SET SHOULD be encrypted with the provided key. 809 Successful parsing of the message confirms that provides confirmation 810 of correct configuration and possession of keys. 812 A non-normative JSON representation of an Event to be sent to a Event 813 Receiver as a Event Stream confirmation. Note the Event is not yet 814 encoded as a JWT token: 816 { 817 "jti": "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8", 818 "events":["[[this RFC URL]]#verify"], 819 "iat": 1458496404, 820 "iss": "https://scim.example.com", 821 "exp": 1458497000, 822 "aud":[ 823 "https://event.example.com/Feeds/98d52461fa5bbc879593b7754" 824 ], 825 "[[this RFC URL]]#verify":{ 826 "confirm":"ca2179f4-8936-479a-a76d-5486e2baacd7", 827 "nonce":"1668c993e95849869e4b3506cccdf9bf" 828 } 829 } 831 Figure 11: Example Verification SET with Challenge 833 The above SET is encoded as a JWT and transmitted to the Event 834 Receiver using the configured delivery method. 836 Upon receiving a verify SET, the Event Receiver SHALL parse the SET 837 and verify its claims. In particular, the Event Receiver SHALL 838 confirm that the values for "confirm" and "nonce" are as expected. 839 If they do not match, an error response of "setData" SHOULD be 840 returned (see Section 2.4). 842 In many cases, Event Transmitters MAY disable or suspend an Event 843 Stream that fails to successfully verify based on the acknowledgement 844 or lack of acknowledgement by the Event Receiver. 846 3. Authentication and Authorization 848 The SET delivery methods described in this specification are based 849 upon HTTP and depend on the use of TLS and/or standard HTTP 850 authentication and authorization schemes as per [RFC7235]. For 851 example, the following methodologies could be used among others: 853 TLS Client Authentication 854 Event delivery endpoints MAY request TLS mutual client 855 authentication. See Section 7.3 [RFC5246]. 857 Bearer Tokens 858 Bearer tokens [RFC6750] MAY be used when combined with TLS and a 859 token framework such as OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. For security 860 considerations regarding the use of bearer tokens in SET delivery 861 see Section 4.4.1. 863 Basic Authentication 864 Usage of basic authentication should be avoided due to its use of 865 a single factor that is based upon a relatively static, symmetric 866 secret. Implementers SHOULD combine the use of basic 867 authentication with other factors. The security considerations of 868 HTTP BASIC, are well documented in [RFC7617] and SHOULD be 869 considered along with using signed SETs (see SET Payload 870 Authentication below). 872 SET Payload Authentication 873 In scenarios where SETs are signed and the delivery method is HTTP 874 POST (see Section 2.2), Event Receivers MAY elect to use Basic 875 Authentication or not to use HTTP or TLS based authentication at 876 all. See Section 4.1 for considerations. 878 As per Section 4.1 of [RFC7235], a SET delivery endpoint SHALL 879 indicate supported HTTP authentication schemes via the "WWW- 880 Authenticate" header. 882 Because SET Delivery describes a simple function, authorization for 883 the ability to pick-up or deliver SETs can be derived by considering 884 the identity of the SET issuer, or via an authentication method 885 above. This specification considers authentication as a feature to 886 prevent denial-of-service attacks. Because SETs are not commands 887 (see ), Event Receivers are free to ignore SETs that are not of 888 interest. 890 For illustrative purposes only, SET delivery examples show an OAuth2 891 bearer token value [RFC6750] in the authorization header. This is 892 not intended to imply that bearer tokens are preferred. However, the 893 use of bearer tokens in the specification does reflect common 894 practice. 896 3.1. Use of Tokens as Authorizations 898 When using bearer tokens or proof-of-possession tokens that represent 899 an authorization grant such as issued by OAuth (see [RFC6749]), 900 implementers SHOULD consider the type of authorization granted, any 901 authorized scopes (see Section 3.3 of [RFC6749]), and the security 902 subject(s) that SHOULD be mapped from the authorization when 903 considering local access control rules. Section 6 of the OAuth 904 Assertions draft [RFC7521], documents common scenarios for 905 authorization including: 907 o Clients using an assertion to authenticate and/or act on behalf of 908 itself; 910 o Clients acting on behalf of a user; and, 912 o A Client acting on behalf of an anonymous user (e.g., see next 913 section). 915 When using OAuth authorization tokens, implementers MUST take into 916 account the threats and countermeasures documented in the security 917 considerations for the use of client authorizations (see Section 8 of 918 [RFC7521]). When using other token formats or frameworks, 919 implementers MUST take into account similar threats and 920 countermeasures, especially those documented by the relevant 921 specifications. 923 4. Security Considerations 925 4.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs 927 In scenarios where HTTP authorization or TLS mutual authentication 928 are not used or are considered weak, JWS signed SETs SHOULD be used 929 (see [RFC7515] and Security Considerations 930 [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]). This enables the Event Receiver to 931 validate that the SET issuer is authorized to deliver SETs. 933 4.2. HTTP Considerations 935 SET delivery depends on the use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol and 936 thus subject to the security considerations of HTTP Section 9 937 [RFC7230] and its related specifications. 939 As stated in Section 2.7.1 [RFC7230], an HTTP requestor MUST NOT 940 generate the "userinfo" (i.e., username and password) component (and 941 its "@" delimiter) when an "http" URI reference is generated with a 942 message as they are now disallowed in HTTP. 944 4.3. TLS Support Considerations 946 SETs contain sensitive information that is considered PII (e.g. 947 subject claims). Therefore, Event Transmitters and Event Receivers 948 MUST require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism. Event 949 delivery endpoints MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MAY support 950 additional transport-layer mechanisms meeting its security 951 requirements. When using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL 952 server certificate check, per [RFC6125]. Implementation security 953 considerations for TLS can be found in "Recommendations for Secure 954 Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525]. 956 4.4. Authorization Token Considerations 958 When using authorization tokens such as those issued by OAuth 2.0 959 [RFC6749], implementers MUST take into account threats and 960 countermeasures documented in Section 8 of [RFC7521]. 962 4.4.1. Bearer Token Considerations 964 Due to the possibility of interception, Bearer tokens MUST be 965 exchanged using TLS. 967 Bearer tokens MUST have a limited lifetime that can be determined 968 directly or indirectly (e.g., by checking with a validation service) 969 by the service provider. By expiring tokens, clients are forced to 970 obtain a new token (which usually involves re-authentication) for 971 continued authorized access. For example, in OAuth2, a client MAY 972 use OAuth token refresh to obtain a new bearer token after 973 authenticating to an authorization server. See Section 6 of 974 [RFC6749]. 976 Implementations supporting OAuth bearer tokens need to factor in 977 security considerations of this authorization method [RFC7521]. 978 Since security is only as good as the weakest link, implementers also 979 need to consider authentication choices coupled with OAuth bearer 980 tokens. The security considerations of the default authentication 981 method for OAuth bearer tokens, HTTP BASIC, are well documented in 982 [RFC7617], therefore implementers are encouraged to prefer stronger 983 authentication methods. Designating the specific methods of 984 authentication and authorization are out-of-scope for the delivery of 985 SET tokens, however this information is provided as a resource to 986 implementers. 988 5. Privacy Considerations 990 If a SET needs to be retained for audit purposes, JWS MAY be used to 991 provide verification of its authenticity. 993 Event Transmitters SHOULD attempt to specialize Event Streams so that 994 the content is targeted to the specific business and protocol needs 995 of subscribers. 997 When sharing personally identifiable information or information that 998 is otherwise considered confidential to affected users, Event 999 Transmitters and Receivers MUST have the appropriate legal agreements 1000 and user consent or terms of service in place. 1002 The propagation of subject identifiers can be perceived as personally 1003 identifiable information. Where possible, Event Transmitters and 1004 Receivers SHOULD devise approaches that prevent propagation -- for 1005 example, the passing of a hash value that requires the subscriber to 1006 already know the subject. 1008 6. IANA Considerations 1010 There are no IANA considerations. 1012 7. References 1014 7.1. Normative References 1016 [I-D.ietf-secevent-token] 1017 Hunt, P., Denniss, W., Ansari, M., and M. Jones, "Security 1018 Event Token (SET)", draft-ietf-secevent-token-00 (work in 1019 progress), January 2017. 1021 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1022 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1023 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1024 . 1026 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1027 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1028 RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 1029 . 1031 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 1032 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 1033 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 1034 . 1036 [RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, 1037 DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010, 1038 . 1040 [RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and 1041 Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity 1042 within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 1043 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer 1044 Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March 1045 2011, . 1047 [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data 1048 Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March 1049 2014, . 1051 [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer 1052 Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, 1053 DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, 1054 . 1056 [RFC7517] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517, 1057 DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015, 1058 . 1060 [RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token 1061 (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, 1062 . 1064 [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, 1065 "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer 1066 Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security 1067 (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May 1068 2015, . 1070 7.2. Informative References 1072 [openid-connect-core] 1073 NRI, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0", Nov 2014. 1075 [POSIX.1] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "The 1076 Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7", IEEE Std 1003.1, 1077 2013 Edition, 2013. 1079 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 1080 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 1081 . 1083 [RFC6202] Loreto, S., Saint-Andre, P., Salsano, S., and G. Wilkins, 1084 "Known Issues and Best Practices for the Use of Long 1085 Polling and Streaming in Bidirectional HTTP", RFC 6202, 1086 DOI 10.17487/RFC6202, April 2011, 1087 . 1089 [RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", 1090 RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012, 1091 . 1093 [RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization 1094 Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750, 1095 DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012, 1096 . 1098 [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer 1099 Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", 1100 RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, 1101 . 1103 [RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer 1104 Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, 1105 DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014, 1106 . 1108 [RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web 1109 Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May 1110 2015, . 1112 [RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)", 1113 RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015, 1114 . 1116 [RFC7521] Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland, 1117 "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication 1118 and Authorization Grants", RFC 7521, DOI 10.17487/RFC7521, 1119 May 2015, . 1121 [RFC7617] Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme", 1122 RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015, 1123 . 1125 [saml-core-2.0] 1126 Internet2, "Assertions and Protocols for the OASIS 1127 Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", March 1128 2005. 1130 Appendix A. Other Streaming Specifications 1132 [[EDITORS NOTE: This section to be removed prior to publication]] 1134 The following pub/sub, queuing, streaming systems were reviewed as 1135 possible solutions or as input to the current draft: 1137 XMPP Events 1139 The WG considered the XMPP events ands its ability to provide a 1140 single messaging solution without the need for both polling and push 1141 modes. The feeling was the size and methodology of XMPP was to far 1142 apart from the current capabilities of the SECEVENTs community which 1143 focuses in on HTTP based service delivery and authorization. 1145 Amazon Simple Notification Service 1147 Simple Notification Service, is a pub/sub messaging product from AWS. 1148 SNS supports a variety of subscriber types: HTTP/HTTPS endpoints, AWS 1149 Lambda functions, email addresses (as JSON or plain text), phone 1150 numbers (via SMS), and AWS SQS standard queues. It doesn't directly 1151 support pull, but subscribers can get the pull model by creating an 1152 SQS queue and subscribing it to the topic. Note that this puts the 1153 cost of pull support back onto the subscriber, just as it is in the 1154 push model. It is not clear that one way is strictly better than the 1155 other; larger, sophisticated developers may be happy to own message 1156 persistence so they can have their own internal delivery guarantees. 1157 The long tail of OIDC clients may not care about that, or may fail to 1158 get it right. Regardless, I think we can learn something from the 1159 Delivery Policies supported by SNS, as well as the delivery controls 1160 that SQS offers (e.g. Visibility Timeout, Dead-Letter Queues). I'm 1161 not suggesting that we need all of these things in the spec, but they 1162 give an idea of what features people have found useful. 1164 Other information: 1166 o API Reference: 1167 http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/ 1168 APIReference/Welcome.html 1170 o Visibility Timeouts: 1171 http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/ 1172 SQSDeveloperGuide/sqs-visibility-timeout.html 1174 Apache Kafka 1176 Apache Kafka is an Apache open source project based upon TCP for 1177 distributed streaming. It prescribes some interesting general 1178 purpose features that seem to extend far beyond the simpler streaming 1179 model SECEVENTs is after. A comment from MS has been that Kafka does 1180 an acknowledge with poll combination event which seems to be a 1181 performance advantage. See: https://kafka.apache.org/intro 1183 Google Pub/Sub 1185 Google Pub Sub system favours a model whereby polling and 1186 acknowledgement of events is done as separate endpoints as separate 1187 functions. 1189 Information: 1191 o Cloud Overview - https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/ 1193 o Subscriber Overview - https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/ 1194 subscriber 1196 o Subscriber Pull(poll) - https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/pull 1198 Appendix B. Acknowledgments 1200 The editors would like to thanks the members of the SCIM WG which 1201 began discussions of provisioning events starting with: draft-hunt- 1202 scim-notify-00 in 2015. 1204 The editor would like to thank the participants in the the SECEVENTS 1205 working group for their support of this specification. 1207 Appendix C. Change Log 1209 Draft 00 - PH - Based on draft-hunt-secevent.distribution with the 1210 following additions: 1212 o Removed Control Plane from specification 1214 o Added new HTTP Polling delivery method 1216 o Added general HTTP security considerations 1218 o Added authentication and authorization 1220 o Revised Verify Event to work with both types of delivery 1222 draft-hunt-secevent.distribution revision history: 1224 o Draft 00 - PH - First Draft based on reduced version of draft- 1225 hunt-idevent-distribution 1227 o Draft 01 - PH - 1229 * Reworked terminology to match new WG Transmitter/Receiver terms 1231 * Reworked sections into Data Plane vs. Control Plane 1233 * Removed method transmission registry in order to simplify the 1234 specification 1236 * Made Create, Update operations optional for Control Plane (Read 1237 is MTI) 1239 o Draft 02 - PH 1241 * Added iss metadata for Event Stream 1243 * Changed to using JWKS_uri for issuer and receiver. 1245 * Control Plane sections moved to draft-hunt-secevent-stream-mgmt 1247 * Added support for delivering multiple events using HTTP POST 1248 polling 1250 Authors' Addresses 1252 Phil Hunt (editor) 1253 Oracle Corporation 1255 Email: phil.hunt@yahoo.com 1257 Marius Scurtescu 1258 Google 1260 Email: mscurtescu@google.com 1262 Morteza Ansari 1263 Cisco 1265 Email: morteza.ansari@cisco.com 1267 Anthony Nadalin 1268 Microsoft 1270 Email: tonynad@microsoft.com 1271 Annabelle Richard Backman 1272 Amazon 1274 Email: richanna@amazon.com