Internet DRAFT - draft-hallambaker-json-web-service
draft-hallambaker-json-web-service
Network Working Group P. Hallam-Baker
Internet-Draft Comodo Group Inc.
Intended status: Informational April 11, 2018
Expires: October 13, 2018
JSON Web Service Binding Version 1.0
draft-hallambaker-json-web-service-10
Abstract
The JSON Web Binding (JWB) describes a standardized approach to
implementing Web Services. Services are advertised using the DNS SRV
and HTTP Well Known Service conventions. Messages may be
authenticated or authenticated and encrypted at the message layer in
addition to any transport and/or network layer security. Service
messages are encoded in JSON using Internet time format for Date-Time
fields and Base64urlencoding for binary objects.
This document specifies Version 1.0 of JWB which uses HTTP/1.1 for
transport. Use of the multiple stream capabilities of HTTP/2 or QUIC
is outside the scope of this document.
This document is also available online at
http://mathmesh.com/Documents/draft-hallambaker-json-web-service.html
[1] .
Status of This Memo
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 October 13, 2018.
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
Copyright Notice
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Defined Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Related Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Host Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. SRV Host discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. DNS Fallback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. TXT Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. HTTP host processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Use of TLS transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Fallback Processing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Service Continuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. HTTP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Error handling and response codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Content Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Direct Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Content-Encoding: jose-jwb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Authenticated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4. Authenticated Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Content Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. JSON Data Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.3. Data Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
9.1. Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1.1. DNS Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1.2. TLS Downgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1.3. TLS Service Impersonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1.4. Request Replay Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1.5. Response Replay Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2.1. Side Channel Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2.2. Session Key Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
The JSON Web Binding (JWB) specifies one approach to using DNS
Discovery [RFC1035] , the HTTP [RFC7230] protocol and the JSON data
encoding [RFC7159] in a Web Service.
JWB is not the only approach possible, but developing a standard
means making choices that don?t matter to developers that build on
it. While there are infinitely many ways that a Web Service might
employ HTTP and JSON to implement a Web Service, a client and a
server can only interoperate if they both agree to use the same one.
Discovery Beginning with a DNS address of the service (e.g.
example.com), the client identifies a specific HTTP URL at which
to access the service. DNS-Based Service Discovery [RFC6763]
using the TXT and SRV records [RFC2782] and the HTTP Well Known
Service [RFC5785] mechanisms are used for this purpose.
Authentication and Encryption Web Services MAY require
authentication and encryption services at the message level even
if transport layer security (e.g. TLS [RFC5264] ) is used. Use
of such enhancements is signaled using the HTTP Content-Encoding
header.
Content Mapping The mapping of data types described in the
specification (integer, string, etc.) to JSON data types.
[RFC3339] Date time encoding and BASE64-url encoding [RFC4648] are
used to map date-time and binary data types to JSON encoding
values.
JWB establishes an intermediate layer between the Web Service and the
network layer (Figure 1).
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
[[This figure is not viewable in this format. The figure is
available at http://mathmesh.com/Documents/draft-hallambaker-json-
web-service.html [2].]]
JWB Defines Presentation and Encoding Layers.
A key architectural principle that guides the design of JWB is that
the Web Service implementation should be as independent of the HTTP
presentation layer as is possible. Thus:
Message semantics are not affected by HTTP headers or the request
line URL.
The use of HTTP response codes is limited to reporting errors and
warnings that arise from the HTTP transport.
If message layer authentication or authenticated encryption are used,
this is applied within the HTTP content payload and not through a
combination of payload and header data.
This specification describes a mechanism for accessing a collection
of hosts as a single undifferentiated service with provision for load
balancing and fault tolerance. This has important consequences for
state management. Web Services typically involve some form of
stateful interaction or real world side effect. Otherwise, it is
likely that the Web Service would be better written as a traditional
Web interaction mapping the stateless resources to URIs.
The mechanism described in this specification is intended for the
initial discovery of a host with which to engage in a Web Service
transaction which may or may not consist of a series of message
exchanges. Since sharing state between hosts supporting a virtual
service requires resources and typically introduces latency, a
service specification MAY require that a transaction begun on one
host be completed with the same host and the time period in which a
transaction that is accepted by one host will be regarded as ?final?
by the virtual service.
For example, a file upload protocol for a photograph sharing service
might have separate messages for checking that there is space to
store the photograph ?Check?, uploading the file ?Store? and
reporting that the data is safely stored at multiple locations. When
responding to the Check command, the host is reporting that there is
space at that local node. It is obviously undesirable for a client
to verify that host1 has enough space to store the file and then
attempt to upload the file to host2. Equally, having uploaded the
file to host1, it might be minutes, hours or even days before the
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
photograph could be retrieved through host2. Such questions are left
for the Web Service protocol designer to address.
2. Definitions
This section presents the related specifications and standard, the
terms that are used as terms of art within the documents and the
terms used as requirements language.
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2.2. Defined Terms
No terms of art are defined.
2.3. Related Specifications
JSON Web Service Binding is used extensively in the Mathematical Mesh
and related protocols [draft-hallambaker-mesh-architecture] .
2.4. Implementation Status
The implementation status of the reference code base is described in
the companion document [draft-hallambaker-mesh-developer] .
3. Service Discovery
Service discovery is the process of resolving the address of a Web
Service to a Web Service Endpoint, a URI [RFC3986] at which the
service is provided.
A JWB Web Service is specified by giving the DNS Address of the
service <domain>, and Well Known Service name <service>.
3.1. Host Identification
The first step in service discovery is to resolve the <domain> and
<service> identifiers to the IP address of a host that provides that
service.
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
3.1.1. SRV Host discovery
A client attempting to connect to the service first attempts to
locate an SRV record [RFC2782] for the specified service:
_<service>._tcp._<domain> SRV <priority> <weight> <port> <host>
Figure 1
Where <priority> and <weight> are the SRV priority and weight
parameters specified in [RFC2782] , <port> is the TCP port number and
<host> is the DNS name of the host for which the service
advertisement is made. Standard A/AAAA/CNAME resolution is used to
obtain the IP address of the host from <mapping>.
If a match is found, the client uses the mechanism specified in
[RFC2782] to choose hosts and attempts to contact each host in turn
until a successful HTTP connection is established or the maximum
number of attempts threshold is reached.
3.1.2. DNS Fallback
Despite the fact that SRV records have been a part of the DNS
standard for 20 years, it is not uncommon for network intermediaries
to implement SRV record resolution incorrectly or block it entirely.
If no SRV record is found, a client MAY perform fallback discovery if
explicitly authorized to do so by the corresponding Web Service
protocol specification. The client attempts to connect to the host
<service>.<domain> using the standard A/AAAA/CNAME resolution rules
to obtain the IP address of the host.
3.1.3. TXT Service Description
A service MAY advertise service and/or host description information
using TXT records as described in DNS-Based Service Discovery
[RFC6763] . These have the following format:
_<service>._tcp._<domain> TXT "<tag>=<value> [<tag>=<value>]*"
_<service>._tcp._<host> TXT "<tag>=<value> [<tag>=<value>]*"
Figure 2
Service descriptions specified under the domain address of the
service apply to all host instances of the service. Descriptions
specified under the domain address of a host instance apply only to
that host instance and take precedence over values specified at the
service level.
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
The following tags are defined:
path The path to use to construct the Web Service Endpoint.
version The service version(s) supported in the format <max>-<min>
3.2. HTTP host processing
Having identified the IP address, the client performs a HTTP or HTTPS
Web Service POST request at the default Web Service Endpoint
specified by the Well Known Service name and the DNS address of the
host instance.
http://<host>:<port>/.well-known/<service>
Figure 3
Note that a given host MAY provide multiple instances of a Web
Service under different discovery addresses. Therefore it is
essential to use the original <domain> value rather than the
<mapping> returned in the SRV record.
3.2.1. Use of TLS transport
This document does not describe a mechanism for mandating use of TLS.
If TLS is used, the Web Service client MUST use the service address
(<domain>) as the basis for certificate subjectAltName validation.
3.2.2. Fallback Processing Rules
If a client?s attempt to connect to a host selected from an SRV
connection redirection results in a HTTP (3xx), Client error (4xx) or
Server error (5xx) code, the client MUST process the HTTP error
response and not simply attempt a connection to a different host. If
a client request is rejected for lack of authentication (511) or
because the request is too large (413) at one host, the client should
assume that the request will be rejected for the same reason at
another. If the attempt to create a TCP connection fails or the
server returns Service Unavailable (503), the client MAY use the SRV
fallback rules to select an alternative host.
3.2.3. Service Continuation
Once the initial service discovery mechanism has been used to
establish contact with a host, the service protocol MAY specify that
further interactions be directed to another host and/or using a
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
different protocol. Such mechanisms are outside the scope of this
specification.
3.3. Example
The Mathematical Mesh has the Well Known Service name of ?MMM'.
Accounts used in the Mathematical Mesh follow the [RFC5322] format of
<user>@<domain>.
Alice has the account alice@example.com and the DNS configuration
file for example.com has the following entries:
_mmm._tcp.example.com SRV host1.example.com 0 10 80 host1.example.com
_mmm._tcp.example.com SRV host2.example.com 0 40 80 host2.example.com
_mmm._tcp.example.com TXT "version=1.0-2.0"
mmm.example.com CNAME host3.example.com
host1.example.com A 10.0.1.1
host2.example.com A 10.0.1.2
_mmm._tcp.host2.example.com TXT "path=/service"
host3.example.com A 10.0.1.1
host3.example.com A 10.0.1.2
Figure 4
The client attempts to resolve the address alice@example.com as
follows:
1. Client attempts to resolve SRV and TXT records for
_mmm._tcp.example.com
2. DNS resolver returns two SRV entries and one TXT entry
3. Client makes a random selection between host1 (20% weighting)
and host2 (80% weighting). Chooses host1.
4. Client resolves A/AAAA for host1.example.com and TXT for
_mmm._tcp.host1.example.com
5. DNS resolver returns A=10.0.1.1 and TXT=none
6. Client attempts to POST Web Service request to
http://host1example.com/.well-known/mmm at host address 10.0.1.1
7. The host at 10.0.1.1 returns 503 Service Unavailable
8. Client resolves A/AAAA for host2.example.com and TXT for
_mmm._tcp.host2.example.com
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
9. DNS resolver returns A=10.0.1.2 and TXT "path=/service"
10. Client attempts to POST Web Service request to
http://host2example.com/service at host address 10.0.1.2
11. Request succeeds, session proceeds.
If the same client is used in a network location where the SRV record
resolution fails due to a faulty firewall configuration, the
resolution proceeds as follows:
1. Client attempts to resolve SRV record for _mmm._tcp.example.com
2. DNS resolver returns ?not found?
3. Client attempts to resolve A and AAAA record
4. DNS resolver returns 10.0.1.1, 10.0.1.2
5. Client makes a random selection between 10.0.1.1 (50% weighting)
and 10.0.1.2 (50% weighting). Chooses host1.
6. Client attempts to POST Web Service request to
http://example.com/.well-known/mmm at host address 10.0.1.1
7. The host at 10.0.1.1 returns 503 Service Unavailable
8. Client attempts to POST Web Service request to
http://example.com/.well-known/mmm at host address 10.0.1.2
9. Request succeeds, session proceeds.
Note that the main differences between these two scenarios is that
the use of the SRV record allows the service configuration to account
for load balancing with tiers of fallback support and use of service
description information while the use of round robin A/AAAA records
does not.
4. HTTP Messages
JWB messages are exchanged as HTTP POST transactions. Support for
and use of HTTP/1.1 [RFC7230] is REQUIRED unless otherwise specified
by the Web Service Specification.
While the use of HTTP/2 [RFC7540] offers the potential benefit of
multiple concurrent transaction streams, the means of making use of
such capabilities is outside the scope of JWB v1.0 but is likely to
be the main incentive for defining a revision.
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
In contrast to other approaches to the design of Web Services, the
only use made of the HTTP transport is to distinguish between
different services on the same host using the Host header and .well-
known convention and for message framing.
No use is made of the URI request line to identify commands, nor are
the caching or proxy capabilities of HTTP relied on. One of the main
design objectives of JWB is to enable message level authentication.
Since HTTP headers are mutable and may be changed by intermediaries,
any attempt to make use of HTTP features requires a mechanism to
canonicalize or duplicate the headers. Furthermore, the
implementation of authentication and encryption features at the
message level is liable to be incompatible with the HTTP caching
model and any attempt to implement caching is moot when TLS is in
use.
4.1. Request
The HTTP request MAY contain any valid HTTP header specified in
[RFC7230] .
Request Line URI /well-known/<service> (unless overridden using a
TXT path attribute)
Request Line Method POST
Host: Header <domain>
Content-Encoding As specified in section yy below.
Content-Type As specified in section zz below.
Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding As specified in [RFC7230] .
Payload The content payload as specified in section XX below.
Example: The HTTP request for the mmm service in the previous example
would be:
POST /.well-known/mmm HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 16
{ ?hello? : {} }
Figure 5
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
4.2. Response
The response MAY contain any HTTP response header but since JWB
services do not make use of HTTP caching and messages are not
intended to be modified by HTTP intermediaries, only a limited number
of headers have significance:
Response Code The HTTP response code. This is processed as
described in section zz below.
Content-Type As specified in section zz below.
Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding As specified in [RFC7230] .
Cache-Control Since the only valid HTTP method for a JWB request is
POST, JWB responses are not cacheable. The use of the cache-
control header is therefore unnecessary. However, experience
suggests that reviewers find it easier to understand protocol
specifications if they are reminded of the fact that caching is
neither supported nor desired.
Example: The HTTP response for the mmm service in the previous
example would be:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: no-store
Content-Length: 43
{ ?hello-response? : { ?Version? : ?1.0? }}
Figure 6
5. Error handling and response codes
A JWB Web Service is effectively using a three layer protocol stack
with the potential for an error to occur at any of the three layers:
Transport Layer
HTTP Layer
Web Service Layer
Services SHOULD always attempt to return error codes at the highest
level possible. However, it is clearly impossible for a connection
that is refused at the Transport layer to return an error code at the
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
HTTP layer. It is however possible for a HTTP layer error response
to contain a content body.
In the case that a JWB response contains both a HTTP response code
and a well formed JWB payload containing a response, the JWB payload
response SHALL have precedence.
6. Content Encoding
The HTTP Content-Encoding header specifies transformations performed
on the content before the HTTP Transfer encoding was applied. This
is commonly used for specifying compression. In JWB the Content-
Encoding header MAY be used to specify that the content that follows
contains a payload that is either authenticated [RFC7515] or
authenticated and encrypted [RFC7516] using the JOSE specification.
6.1. Direct Encoding
If the Content-Encoding header is absent or empty, the HTTP content
is the message payload as specified by the Content-Type header.
6.2. Content-Encoding: jose-jwb
The Content-Encoding type jose-jwb is a serialization format for JSON
Web Signature and JSON Web Encryption objects. Each message consists
of the following sequence:
Preamble: A JSON object in UTF-8 encoding
ASCII Record Separator Character (%x1E)
Payload
ASCII Record Separator Character (%x1E)
Postscript: A JSON object in UTF-8 encoding
The payload data consists of all the data that appears between the
first and the last occurrence of the record separator character %x1E
in the HTTP content. Since the UTF-8 encoding does not permit the
octet %0x1E to occur within a well formed JSON object, the use of
this character as a record separator is unambiguous even if the
character occurs within the payload (as is possible with a binary
content-type or if the payload is encrypted).
The contents of the Preamble, Payload and Postscript vary according
to whether the message is authenticated or authenticated and
encrypted.
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
6.3. Authenticated
Authenticated messages are signed using Jose Web Signature [RFC7515]
. The Preamble, Payload and Postscript are formed as follows:
Preamble A JSON Object containing the JWS Protected Header
Payload The binary data over which the signature value is calculated
Postscript The JWS Signature header
Note that a jose-jwb message is only permitted to have a single
header and there is no provision for providing data that is not
integrity protected.
6.4. Authenticated Encryption
Encrypted messages are signed using Jose Web Signature [RFC7516] .
The Preamble, Payload and Postscript are formed as follows:
Preamble A JSON Object containing the JWS Protected Header
Payload The binary data over which the signature value is calculated
Postscript The JWS Encryption header
Note that a jose-jwb message is only permitted to have a single
header and there is no provision for providing data that is not
integrity protected.
7. Content Type
The Content Type header specifies the plaintext payload media type as
specified in [RFC6838] .
For version1.0 of this specification, the only supported payload
media type is application/json as specified in [RFC7159] .
Future versions of this specification may include support for binary
encodings such as JSON-B [draft-hallambaker-jsonbcd] and/or CBOR
[RFC7049] .
8. JSON Data Bindings
Note that this is the only part of this specification that is
strictly limited to JSON encoding. The rest of the specification is
equally applicable to Web Services using XML and/or CBOR encoding.
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
8.1. Request Message
Each JWBv1.0 request contains exactly one Web Service Command.
[Future versions MAY specify a mechanism that permits multiple
commands to be sent in parallel]
The request payload contains a JSON object that contains exactly one
member whose name is the name of the command that is requested and
whose value is an object that contains the command parameters (if
any).
{ ?hello? : {} }
Figure 7
8.2. Response Message
The response payload contains a JSON object that contains the members
specified by the Web Service specification.
Future versions of this specification MAY reserve particular fields
in the response payload for particular purposes (e.g. returning
status values).
{ ?hello-response? : { ?Version? : ?1.0? }}
Figure 8
8.3. Data Fields
JSON was originally developed to provide a serialization format for
the JavaScript programming language [ECMA-262] . While this approach
is generally applicable to the type systems of scripting programming
languages, it is less well matched to the richer type systems of
modern object oriented programming languages such as Java and C#.
Working within a subset of the capabilities of JSON allows a Web
Service protocol to be accessed with equal ease from either platform
type. The following capabilities of JSON are avoided:
The ability to use arbitrary strings as field names.
The use of JSON objects to define maps directly
The following data field types are used:
Integer Integer values are encoded as JSON number values.
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
String Test strings are encoded as JSON text strings.
Boolean Boolean values are encoded as JSON ?false?, ?true? or ?null?
tokens according to value.
Sequence Sequences of data items that are encoded as JSON arrays
Object of known type Objects whose type is known to the receiver are
encoded as JSON objects
Object of variable type Objects whose type is not known to the
receiver are encoded as JSON objects containing a single field
whose name describes the type of the object value and whose value
contains the value.
Binary Data Byte sequences are converted to BASE64-url encoding
[RFC4648] and encoded as JSON string values.
Date Time Date Time values are converted to Internet time format as
described in [RFC3339] and encoded as JSON string values.
9. Security Considerations
A fuller treatment of the security considerations will follow.
9.1. Integrity
9.1.1. DNS Spoofing
9.1.2. TLS Downgrade
9.1.3. TLS Service Impersonation
9.1.4. Request Replay Attack
9.1.5. Response Replay Attack
9.2. Confidentiality
9.2.1. Side Channel Attack
9.2.2. Session Key Leakage
10. IANA Considerations
The following registrations are required:
HTTP Content Coding Registry jose-jwb
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
Well-Known URIs /.well-known/srv/
[Or change registry to FCFS]
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[draft-hallambaker-mesh-architecture]
Hallam-Baker, P., "Mathematical Mesh: Architecture",
draft-hallambaker-mesh-architecture-04 (work in progress),
September 2017.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006.
[RFC5264] Niemi, A., Lonnfors, M., and E. Leppanen, "Publication of
Partial Presence Information", RFC 5264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5264, September 2008.
[RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5785, April 2010.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013.
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015.
11.2. Informative References
[draft-hallambaker-jsonbcd]
Hallam-Baker, P., "Binary Encodings for JavaScript Object
Notation: JSON-B, JSON-C, JSON-D", draft-hallambaker-
jsonbcd-10 (work in progress), April 2018.
[draft-hallambaker-mesh-developer]
Hallam-Baker, P., "Mathematical Mesh: Reference
Implementation", draft-hallambaker-mesh-developer-06 (work
in progress), April 2018.
[ECMA-262]
Ecma International, "ECMAScript? 2017 Language
Specification", June 2017.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015.
11.3. URIs
[1] http://mathmesh.com/Documents/draft-hallambaker-json-web-
service.html
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft JSON Web Service Binding v1.0 April 2018
[2] http://mathmesh.com/Documents/draft-hallambaker-json-web-
service.html
Author's Address
Phillip Hallam-Baker
Comodo Group Inc.
Email: philliph@comodo.com
Hallam-Baker Expires October 13, 2018 [Page 18]
