| Network Working Group | P. Hunt, Ed. |
| Internet-Draft | Oracle |
| Intended status: Standards Track | M. Scurtescu |
| Expires: September 5, 2018 | |
| M. Ansari | |
| Cisco | |
| A. Nadalin | |
| Microsoft | |
| A. Backman | |
| Amazon | |
| March 4, 2018 |
SET Token Delivery Using HTTP
draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02
This specification defines how a series of security event tokens (SETs) may be delivered to a previously registered receiver using HTTP POST over TLS initiated as a push to the receiver, or as a poll by the receiver. The specification also defines how delivery can be assured subject to the SET Token Receiver's need for assurance.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This specification defines how a stream of SETs (see [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]) can be transmitted to a previously registered Event Receiver using HTTP [RFC7231] over TLS. The specification defines a method to push SETs via HTTP POST and another method to poll for SETs using HTTP POST.
This specification defines two methods of SET delivery in what is known as Event Streams.
This specification does not define the method by which Event Streams are defined, provisioned, managed, monitored, and configured and is out of scope of this specification.
[[This work is TBD by the SECEVENTS WG]]
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
For purposes of readability examples are not URL encoded. Implementers MUST percent encode URLs as described in Section 2.1 of .
Throughout this documents all figures MAY contain spaces and extra line-wrapping for readability and space limitations. Similarly, some URI's contained within examples, have been shortened for space and readability reasons.
This specification assumes terminology defined in the Security Event Token specification[I-D.ietf-secevent-token] .
The following definitions are defined for Security Event distribution:
An Event Stream represents the communication channel over which a series of SETs are delivered to a configured Event Receiver.
When an Event occurs, the Event Transmitter constructs a SET token [I-D.ietf-secevent-token] that describes the Event. The Event Transmitter determines the Event Streams over which the SET should be distributed to.
How SETs are defined and the process by which Events are identified for Event Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification.
When a SET is available for an Event Receiver, the Event Transmitter attempts to deliver the SET based on the Event Receiver's registered delivery mechanism:
Delivery of SETs MAY be delivered using one of two modes:
After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, Event Transmitters SHOULD NOT be required to maintain or record SETs for recovery. Once a SET is acknowledged, the Event Receiver SHALL be responsible for retention and recovery.
Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (e.g. signed) if there is a requirement to verify they were issued by the Event Transmitter at a later date when de-coupled from the original delivery where authenticity could be checked via the HTTP or TLS mutual authentication.
Upon receiving a SET, the Event Receiver reads the SET and validates it. The Event Receiver MUST acknowledge receipt to the Event Transmitter, using the defined acknowledgement or error method depending on the method of transfer.
The Event Receiver SHALL NOT use the Event acknowledgement mechanism to report Event errors other than relating to the parsing and validation of the SET.
This method allows an Event Transmitter to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3) to deliver SETs to a previously registered web callback URI supplied by the Event Receiver as part of an Event Stream configuration process (not defined by this document).
The SET to be delivered MAY be signed and/or encrypted as defined in [I-D.ietf-secevent-token].
The Event Stream configuration defines a URI of an Event Receiver provided endpoint which accepts HTTP POST requests (e.g. https://rp.example.com/Events).
The HTTP Content-Type (see Section 3.1.1.5) for the HTTP POST is application/secevent+jwt and SHALL consist of a single SET (see [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]). As per Section 5.3.2, the expected media type (Accept header) response is application/json.
To deliver an Event, the Event Transmitter generates an event delivery message and uses HTTP POST to the configured endpoint with the appropriate Accept and Content-Type headers.
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 Host: notify.examplerp.com Accept: application/json Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8 Content-Type: application/secevent+jwt eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0 . eyJwdWJsaXNoZXJVcmkiOiJodHRwczovL3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJmZWV kVXJpcyI6WyJodHRwczovL2podWIuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vRmVlZHMvOThkNTI0Nj FmYTViYmM4Nzk1OTNiNzc1NCIsImh0dHBzOi8vamh1Yi5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZ WVkcy81ZDc2MDQ1MTZiMWQwODY0MWQ3Njc2ZWU3Il0sInJlc291cmNlVXJpcyI6 WyJodHRwczovL3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVXNlcnMvNDRmNjE0MmRmOTZiZDZ hYjYxZTc1MjFkOSJdLCJldmVudFR5cGVzIjpbIkNSRUFURSJdLCJhdHRyaWJ1dG VzIjpbImlkIiwibmFtZSIsInVzZXJOYW1lIiwicGFzc3dvcmQiLCJlbWFpbHMiX SwidmFsdWVzIjp7ImVtYWlscyI6W3sidHlwZSI6IndvcmsiLCJ2YWx1ZSI6Impk b2VAZXhhbXBsZS5jb20ifV0sInBhc3N3b3JkIjoibm90NHUybm8iLCJ1c2VyTmF tZSI6Impkb2UiLCJpZCI6IjQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkiLCJuYW 1lIjp7ImdpdmVuTmFtZSI6IkpvaG4iLCJmYW1pbHlOYW1lIjoiRG9lIn19fQ .
Figure 1: Example HTTP POST Request
Upon receipt of the request, the Event Receiver SHALL validate the JWT structure of the SET as defined in Section 7.2. The Event Receiver SHALL also validate the SET information as described in Section 2.
If the SET is determined to be valid, the Event Receiver SHALL "acknowledge" successful submission by responding with HTTP Status 202 as Accepted (see Section 6.3.3).
In order to maintain compatibility with other methods of transmission, the Event Receiver SHOULD NOT include an HTTP response body representation of the submitted SET or what the SET's pending status is when acknowledging success. In the case of an error (e.g. HTTP Status 400), the purpose of the HTTP response body is to indicate any SET parsing, validation, or cryptographic errors.
The following is a non-normative example of a successful receipt of a SET.
HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted
Figure 2: Example Successful Delivery Response
Note that the purpose of the "acknowledgement" response is to let the Event Transmitter know that a SET has been delivered and the information no longer needs to be retained by the Event Transmitter. Before acknowledgement, Event Receivers SHOULD ensure they have validated received SETs and retained them in a manner appropriate to information retention requirements appropriate to the SET event types signaled. The level and method of retention of SETs by Event Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification.
In the Event of a general HTTP error condition, the Event Receiver MAY respond with an appropriate HTTP Status code as defined in Section 6.
When the Event Receiver detects an error parsing or validating a received SET (as defined by [I-D.ietf-secevent-token]), the Event Receiver SHALL indicate an HTTP Status 400 error with an error code as described in Section 2.4.
The following is an example non-normative error response.
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
{
"err":"dup",
"description":"SET already received. Ignored."
}
Figure 3: Example HTTP Status 400 Response
This method allows an Event Receiver to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero or more SETs. Requests MAY be made at a periodic interval (short polling) or requests MAY wait pending availability of new SETs using long polling (see Section 2).
The delivery of SETs in this method is facilitated by HTTP POST requests initiated by the Event Receiver in which:
The purpose of the "acknowledgement" is to inform the Event Transmitter that has successfully been delivered and attempts to re-deliver are no longer required. Before acknowledgement, Event Receivers SHOULD ensure received SETs have been validated and retained in a manner appropriate to the receiver's retention requirements. The level and method of retention of SETs by Event Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification.
When initiating a poll request, the Event Receiver constructs a JSON document that consists of polling request parameters and SET acknowledgement parameters in the form of JSON attributes.
The request payloads are delivered in one of two forms as described in Section 2.3.3 and Section 2.3.4
When making a request, the HTTP header Content-Type is set to application/json.
The following JSON Attributes are used in a polling request:
In response to a poll request, the Event Transmitter checks for available SET events and responds with a JSON document containing the following JSON attributes:
When making a response, the HTTP header Content-Type is set to application/json.
The Event Receiver performs an HTTP POST (see Section 4.3.4) to a pre-arranged polling endpoint URI to check for SETs that are available. Because the Event Receiver has no prior SETs to acknowledge, the ack and errs request parameters are omitted.
If after a period of time, negotiated between the Event Transmitter and Receiver, an Event Transmitter MAY re-issue SETs it has previously delivered. The Event Receiver SHOULD accept repeat SETs and acknowledge the SETs regardless of whether the Receiver believes it has already acknowledged the SETs previously. An Event Transmitter MAY limit the number of times it attempts to deliver a SET. Upon abandoning delivery of a SET, the Event Transmitter SHOULD have a method to notify the Event Receiver of the loss such as through a status service (not defined by this specification).
If the Event Receiver has received SETs from the Event Transmitter, the Event Receiver SHOULD parse and validate received SETs to meet its own requirements and SHOULD acknowledge receipt in a timely (e.g. minutes) fashion so that the Event Transmitter may mark the SETs as received. Event Receivers SHOULD acknowledge receipt before taking any local actions based on the SETs to avoid unnecessary delay in acknowledgement where possible.
Poll requests have three variations:
In the case where no SETs were received in a previous poll (see Figure 10), the Event Receiver simply polls without acknowledgement parameters (sets and setErrs).
The following is an example request made by an Event Receiver that has no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling for available SETs.
The following is a non-normative example poll request to the endpoint: https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events.
POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Accept: application/json
{
"returnImmediately":true
}
Figure 4: Example Initial Poll Request
An Event Receiver MAY poll with no parameters at all by passing an empty JSON object.
The following is a non-normative example default poll request to the endpoint: https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events.
POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Accept: application/json
{}
Figure 5: Example Default Poll Request
In this variation, the Event Receiver acknowledges previously received SETs and indicates it does not want to receive SETs in response by setting the maxEvents attribute to 0.
This variation is typically used when an Event Receiver needs to acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g. on separate threads) from the process of receiving SETs.
The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement of SETs received (for example as shown in Figure 9).
POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
{
"ack":[
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8",
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
],
"maxEvents":0
}
Figure 6: Example Acknowledge Only equest
This variation allows a receiver thread to simultaneously acknowledge previously received SETs and wait for the next group of SETs in a single request.
The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement of SETs received in Figure 9.
POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
{
"ack":[
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8",
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
],
"returnImmediately":false
}
Figure 7: Example Poll With Acknowledgement and No Errors
In the above acknowledgement, the Event Receiver has acknowledged receipt of two SETs and has indicated it wants to wait until the next SET is available.
In the case where errors were detected in previously delivered SETs, the Event Receiver MAY use the setErrs attribute to indicate errors in the following poll request.
The following is a non-normative example of a response acknowledging 1 error and 1 receipt of two SETs received in Figure 9.
POST /Events HTTP/1.1
Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
{
"ack":["3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"],
"setErrs":{
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":{
"err":"jwtAud",
"description":"The audience value was incorrect."
}
},
"returnImmediately":true
}
Figure 8: Example Poll Acknowledgement With Error
In response to a poll request, the service provider MAY respond immediately if SETs are available to be delivered. If no SETs are available at the time of the request, the Event Transmitter SHALL delay responding until a SET is available unless the poll request parameter returnImmediately is true.
As described in Section 2.3.2 a JSON document is returned containing a number of attributes including sets which SHALL contain zero or more SETs.
The following is a non-normative example response to the request shown Section 2.3.3. This example shows two SETs are returned.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events
{
"sets":{
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":
"eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.
eyJqdGkiOiI0ZDM1NTllYzY3NTA0YWFiYTY1ZDQwYjAzNjNmYWFkOCIsImlhdCI6MTQ
1ODQ5NjQwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiYXVkIjpbIm
h0dHBzOi8vc2NpbS5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MWZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M
2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0ZlZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIx
ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwiZXZlbnRzIjp7InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczpzY2ltOmV
2ZW50OmNyZWF0ZSI6eyJyZWYiOiJodHRwczovL3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVXNlcn
MvNDRmNjE0MmRmOTZiZDZhYjYxZTc1MjFkOSIsImF0dHJpYnV0ZXMiOlsiaWQiLCJuY
W1lIiwidXNlck5hbWUiLCJwYXNzd29yZCIsImVtYWlscyJdfX19.",
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30":
"eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.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."
}
}
Figure 9: Example Poll Response
In the above example, a two SETs whose jti are 4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8 and 3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30 are delivered.
The following is a non-normative example response to the request shown Section 2.3.3 showing no new SETs or unacknowledged SETs are available.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events
{
"sets":{ }
}
Figure 10: Example No SETs Poll Response
Upon receiving the JSON document (e.g. as shown in Figure 9), the Event Receiver parses and verifies the received SETs and notifies the Event Transmitter via the next poll request to the Event Transmitter as described in Section 2.3.3.3 or Section 2.3.3.4.
If a SET is invalid, the following error codes are defined:
| Err Value | Description |
|---|---|
| json | Invalid JSON object. |
| jwtParse | Invalid or unparsable JWT or JSON structure. |
| jwtHdr | In invalid JWT header was detected. |
| jwtCrypto | Unable to parse due to unsupported algorithm. |
| jws | Signature was not validated. |
| jwe | Unable to decrypt JWE encoded data. |
| jwtAud | Invalid audience value. |
| jwtIss | Issuer not recognized. |
| setType | An unexpected Event type was received. |
| setParse | Invalid structure was encountered such as an inability to parse or an incomplete set of Event claims. |
| setData | SET event claims incomplete or invalid. |
| dup | A duplicate SET was received and has been ignored. |
An error response SHALL include a JSON object which provides details about the error. The JSON object includes the JSON attributes: Figure 3). When included as part of a batch of SETs, the above JSON is included as part of the setErrs attribute as defined in Section 2.3.2 and Section 2.3.3.4
When included as part of an HTTP Status 400 response, the above JSON is the HTTP response body (see
The SET delivery methods described in this specification are based upon HTTP and depend on the use of TLS and/or standard HTTP authentication and authorization schemes as per [RFC7235]. For example, the following methodologies could be used among others:
As per Section 4.1 of, a SET delivery endpoint SHALL indicate supported HTTP authentication schemes via the WWW-Authenticate header.
Because SET Delivery describes a simple function, authorization for the ability to pick-up or deliver SETs can be derived by considering the identity of the SET issuer, or via an authentication method above. This specification considers authentication as a feature to prevent denial-of-service attacks. Because SETs are not commands (see ), Event Receivers are free to ignore SETs that are not of interest.
For illustrative purposes only, SET delivery examples show an OAuth2 bearer token value [RFC6750] in the authorization header. This is not intended to imply that bearer tokens are preferred. However, the use of bearer tokens in the specification does reflect common practice.
When using bearer tokens or proof-of-possession tokens that represent an authorization grant such as issued by OAuth (see [RFC6749]), implementers SHOULD consider the type of authorization granted, any authorized scopes (see Section 3.3 of [RFC6749]), and the security subject(s) that SHOULD be mapped from the authorization when considering local access control rules. Section 6 of the OAuth Assertions draft [RFC7521], documents common scenarios for authorization including:[RFC7521]). When using other token formats or frameworks, implementers MUST take into account similar threats and countermeasures, especially those documented by the relevant specifications.
When using OAuth authorization tokens, implementers MUST take into account the threats and countermeasures documented in the security considerations for the use of client authorizations (see Section 8 of
In scenarios where HTTP authorization or TLS mutual authentication are not used or are considered weak, JWS signed SETs SHOULD be used (see [RFC7515] and Security Considerations). This enables the Event Receiver to validate that the SET issuer is authorized to deliver SETs.
SET delivery depends on the use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol and thus subject to the security considerations of HTTP Section 9 and its related specifications.
As stated in Section 2.7.1, an HTTP requestor MUST NOT generate the userinfo (i.e., username and password) component (and its "@" delimiter) when an "http" URI reference is generated with a message as they are now disallowed in HTTP.
SETs contain sensitive information that is considered PII (e.g. subject claims). Therefore, Event Transmitters and Event Receivers MUST require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism. Event delivery endpoints MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MAY support additional transport-layer mechanisms meeting its security requirements. When using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check, per [RFC6125]. Implementation security considerations for TLS can be found in "Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525].
When using authorization tokens such as those issued by OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749], implementers MUST take into account threats and countermeasures documented in Section 8 of [RFC7521].
Due to the possibility of interception, Bearer tokens MUST be exchanged using TLS.
Bearer tokens MUST have a limited lifetime that can be determined directly or indirectly (e.g., by checking with a validation service) by the service provider. By expiring tokens, clients are forced to obtain a new token (which usually involves re-authentication) for continued authorized access. For example, in OAuth2, a client MAY use OAuth token refresh to obtain a new bearer token after authenticating to an authorization server. See Section 6 of [RFC6749].
Implementations supporting OAuth bearer tokens need to factor in security considerations of this authorization method [RFC7521]. Since security is only as good as the weakest link, implementers also need to consider authentication choices coupled with OAuth bearer tokens. The security considerations of the default authentication method for OAuth bearer tokens, HTTP BASIC, are well documented in [RFC7617], therefore implementers are encouraged to prefer stronger authentication methods. Designating the specific methods of authentication and authorization are out-of-scope for the delivery of SET tokens, however this information is provided as a resource to implementers.
If a SET needs to be retained for audit purposes, JWS MAY be used to provide verification of its authenticity.
Event Transmitters SHOULD attempt to specialize Event Streams so that the content is targeted to the specific business and protocol needs of subscribers.
When sharing personally identifiable information or information that is otherwise considered confidential to affected users, Event Transmitters and Receivers MUST have the appropriate legal agreements and user consent or terms of service in place.
The propagation of subject identifiers can be perceived as personally identifiable information. Where possible, Event Transmitters and Receivers SHOULD devise approaches that prevent propagation -- for example, the passing of a hash value that requires the subscriber to already know the subject.
There are no IANA considerations.
[[EDITORS NOTE: This section to be removed prior to publication]]
The following pub/sub, queuing, streaming systems were reviewed as possible solutions or as input to the current draft:
XMPP Events
The WG considered the XMPP events ands its ability to provide a single messaging solution without the need for both polling and push modes. The feeling was the size and methodology of XMPP was to far apart from the current capabilities of the SECEVENTs community which focuses in on HTTP based service delivery and authorization.
Amazon Simple Notification Service
Simple Notification Service, is a pub/sub messaging product from AWS. SNS supports a variety of subscriber types: HTTP/HTTPS endpoints, AWS Lambda functions, email addresses (as JSON or plain text), phone numbers (via SMS), and AWS SQS standard queues. It doesn’t directly support pull, but subscribers can get the pull model by creating an SQS queue and subscribing it to the topic. Note that this puts the cost of pull support back onto the subscriber, just as it is in the push model. It is not clear that one way is strictly better than the other; larger, sophisticated developers may be happy to own message persistence so they can have their own internal delivery guarantees. The long tail of OIDC clients may not care about that, or may fail to get it right. Regardless, I think we can learn something from the Delivery Policies supported by SNS, as well as the delivery controls that SQS offers (e.g. Visibility Timeout, Dead-Letter Queues). I’m not suggesting that we need all of these things in the spec, but they give an idea of what features people have found useful.
Other information:
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka is an Apache open source project based upon TCP for distributed streaming. It prescribes some interesting general purpose features that seem to extend far beyond the simpler streaming model SECEVENTs is after. A comment from MS has been that Kafka does an acknowledge with poll combination event which seems to be a performance advantage. See: https://kafka.apache.org/intro
Google Pub/Sub
Google Pub Sub system favours a model whereby polling and acknowledgement of events is done as separate endpoints as separate functions.
Information:
The editors would like to thanks the members of the SCIM WG which began discussions of provisioning events starting with: draft-hunt-scim-notify-00 in 2015.
The editor would like to thank the participants in the the SECEVENTS working group for their support of this specification.
Draft 00 - PH - Based on draft-hunt-secevent.distribution with the following additions:
Draft 01 - PH - Removed Verification section per feedback from IETF99.
Draft 02 - MS -
This draft was based on draft-hunt-secevent.distribution revision history: