| RFC 8936 | Poll-Based SET Delivery Using HTTP | November 2020 |
| Backman, et al. | Standards Track | [Page] |
This specification defines how a series of Security Event Tokens (SETs) can be delivered to an intended recipient using HTTP POST over TLS initiated as a poll by the recipient. The specification also defines how delivery can be assured, subject to the SET Recipient's need for assurance.¶
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8936.¶
Copyright (c) 2020 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 Security Event Tokens (SETs)[RFC8417] can be transmitted to an intended SET Recipient using HTTP[RFC7231] over TLS. The specification defines a method to poll for SETs using HTTP POST. This is an alternative SET delivery method to the one defined in[RFC8935].¶
Poll-based SET delivery is intended for scenarios where all of the following apply:¶
In some scenarios, either push-based or poll-based delivery could be used, and in others, only one of them would be applicable.¶
A mechanism for exchanging configuration metadata such as endpoint URLs, cryptographic keys, and possible implementation constraints such as buffer size limitations between the transmitter and recipient is out of scope for this specification. How SETs are defined and the process by which security events are identified for SET Recipients are specified in[RFC8417].¶
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.¶
Throughout this document, all figures may contain spaces and extra line wrapping for readability and due to space limitations.¶
This specification utilizes terminology defined in[RFC8417] and[RFC8935].¶
When a SET is available for a SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter queues the SET in a buffer so that a SET Recipient can poll for SETs using HTTP POST.¶
In poll-based SET delivery using HTTP over TLS, zero or more SETs are delivered in a JSON[RFC8259] document to a SET Recipient in response to an HTTP POST request to the SET Transmitter. Then in a following request, the SET Recipient acknowledges received SETs and can poll for more. All requests and responses are JSON documents and use aContent-Type ofapplication/json, as described inSection 2.2.¶
After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, SET Transmitters are not required to retain or record SETs for retransmission. Once a SET is acknowledged, the SET RecipientSHALL be responsible for retention, if needed. Transmitters may also discard undelivered SETs under deployment-specific conditions, such as if they have not been polled for over too long a period of time or if an excessive amount of storage is needed to retain them.¶
Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates it in the manner described inSection 2 of [RFC8935]. The SET RecipientMUST acknowledge receipt to the SET Transmitter, andSHOULD do so in a timely fashion, as described inSection 2.4. The SET RecipientSHALL NOT use the event acknowledgement mechanism to report event errors other than those relating to the parsing and validation of the SET.¶
This method allows a SET Recipient to use HTTP POST (Section 4.3.3 of [RFC7231]) to acknowledge SETs and to check for and receive zero or more SETs. RequestsMAY be made at a periodic interval (short polling) or requestsMAY wait, pending availability of new SETs using long polling, perSection 2 of [RFC6202]. Note that short polling will result in retrieving zero or more SETs whereas long polling will typically result in retrieving one or more SETs unless a timeout occurs.¶
The delivery of SETs in this method is facilitated by HTTP POST requests initiated by the SET Recipient in which:¶
The purpose of the acknowledgement is to inform the SET Transmitter that delivery has succeeded and redelivery is no longer required. Before acknowledgement, SET Recipients validate the received SETs and retain them in a manner appropriate to the recipient's requirements. The level and method of retention of SETs by SET Recipients is out of scope of this specification.¶
When initiating a poll request, the SET Recipient constructs a JSON document that consists of polling request parameters and SET acknowledgement parameters in the form of JSON objects.¶
When making a request, the HTTPContent-Type header field is set toapplication/json.¶
The following JSON object members are used in a polling request:¶
0MAY be used by SET Recipients that would like to perform an acknowledge-only request. This enables the Recipient to use separate HTTP requests for acknowledgement and reception of SETs. If this parameter is omitted, no limit is placed on the number of SETs to be returned.¶false, which indicates the request is to be treated as an HTTP long poll, perSection 2 of [RFC6202]. The timeout for the request is part of the configuration between the participants, which is out of scope of this specification.¶jti[RFC7519] values of successfully received SETs that are being acknowledged. If there are no outstanding SETs to acknowledge, this member is omitted or contains an empty array. Once a SET has been acknowledged, the SET Transmitter is released from any obligation to retain the SET.¶jti values of invalid SETs received. The values of these objects are themselves JSON objects that describe the errors detected using theerr anddescription values specified inSection 2.6. If there are no outstanding SETs with errors to report, this member is omitted or contains an empty JSON object.¶In response to a poll request, the SET Transmitter checks for available SETs and responds with a JSON document containing the following JSON object members:¶
jti of a SET to be delivered, and its value is a JSON string representing the corresponding SET. If there are no outstanding SETs to be transmitted, the JSON objectSHALL be empty. Note that both SETs being transmitted for the first time and SETs that are being retransmitted after not having been acknowledged are communicated here.¶false.¶When making a response, the HTTPContent-Type header field is set toapplication/json.¶
The SET Recipient performs an HTTP POST (seeSection 4.3.4 of [RFC7231]) to a pre-arranged polling endpoint URI to check for SETs that are available. Because the SET Recipient has no prior SETs to acknowledge, theack andsetErrs request parameters are omitted.¶
After a period of time configured in an out-of-band manner between the SET Transmitter and Recipient, a SET TransmitterMAY redeliver SETs it has previously delivered. The SET RecipientSHOULD accept repeat SETs and acknowledge the SETs regardless of whether the Recipient believes it has already acknowledged the SETs previously. A SET TransmitterMAY limit the number of times it attempts to deliver a SET.¶
If the SET Recipient has received SETs from the SET Transmitter, the SET Recipient parses and validates that received SETs meet its own requirements andSHOULD acknowledge receipt in a timely fashion (e.g., seconds or minutes) so that the SET Transmitter can mark the SETs as received. SET RecipientsSHOULD acknowledge receipt before taking any local actions based on the SETs to avoid unnecessary delay in acknowledgement, where possible.¶
maxEvents value to0 along withack andsetErrs members indicating the SET Recipient is acknowledging previously received SETs and does not want to receive any new SETs in response to the request.¶ack andsetErrs members and will wait for the next group of SETs in the SET Transmitters response.¶In the case where no SETs were received in a previous poll (seeFigure 7), the SET Recipient simply polls without acknowledgement parameters (ack andsetErrs).¶
The following is a non-normative example request made by a SET Recipient that has no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling for available SETs at the endpointhttps://notify.idp.example.com/Events:¶
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 Host: notify.idp.example.com Content-Type: application/json { "returnImmediately": true }A SET Recipient can poll using default parameter values by passing an empty JSON object.¶
The following is a non-normative example default poll request to the endpointhttps://notify.idp.example.com/Events:¶
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 Host: notify.idp.example.com Content-Type: application/json {}In this variation, the SET Recipient acknowledges previously received SETs and indicates it does not want to receive SETs in response by setting themaxEvents value to0. This variation might be used, for instance, when a SET Recipient needs to acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g., on separate threads) from the process of receiving SETs.¶
If the poll needs to return immediately, thenreturnImmediatelyMUST also be present with the valuetrue. If it isfalse, then a long poll will still occur until an event is ready to be returned, even though no events will be returned.¶
The following is a non-normative example poll request with acknowledgement of SETs received (for example, as shown inFigure 6):¶
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 Host: notify.idp.example.com Content-Type: application/json { "ack": [ "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8", "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" ], "maxEvents": 0, "returnImmediately": true }This variation allows a recipient 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 the SETs received inFigure 6:¶
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 Host: notify.idp.example.com Content-Type: application/json { "ack": [ "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8", "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30" ], "returnImmediately": false }In the above acknowledgement, the SET Recipient 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 SET RecipientMAY use thesetErrs member to communicate the errors in the following poll request.¶
The following is a non-normative example of a response acknowledging one successfully received SET and one SET with an error from the two SETs received inFigure 6:¶
POST /Events HTTP/1.1 Host: notify.idp.example.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: application/json { "ack": ["3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"], "setErrs": { "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8": { "err": "authentication_failed", "description": "The SET could not be authenticated" } }, "returnImmediately": true }In response to a valid poll request, the service providerMAY respond immediately if SETs are available to be delivered. If no SETs are available at the time of the request, the SET TransmitterSHALL delay responding until a SET is available or the timeout interval has elapsed unless the poll request parameterreturnImmediately is present with the valuetrue.¶
As described inSection 2.3, a JSON document is returned containing members includingsets, whichSHALL contain zero or more SETs.¶
The following is a non-normative example response to the request shown inSection 2.4. This example shows two SETs being returned:¶
HTTP/1.1 200 OKContent-Type: application/json{ "sets": { "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8": "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0. eyJqdGkiOiI0ZDM1NTllYzY3NTA0YWFiYTY1ZDQwYjAzNjNmYWFkOCIsImlhdC I6MTQ1ODQ5NjQwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwi YXVkIjpbImh0dHBzOi8vc2NpbS5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MW ZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0Zl ZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIxZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwiZXZlbnRzIjp7InVybj ppZXRmOnBhcmFtczpzY2ltOmV2ZW50OmNyZWF0ZSI6eyJyZWYiOiJodHRwczov L3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVXNlcnMvNDRmNjE0MmRmOTZiZDZhYjYxZTc1Mj FkOSIsImF0dHJpYnV0ZXMiOlsiaWQiLCJuYW1lIiwidXNlck5hbWUiLCJwYXNz d29yZCIsImVtYWlscyJdfX19.", "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30": "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0. eyJqdGkiOiIzZDBjM2NmNzk3NTg0YmQxOTNiZDBmYjFiZDRlN2QzMCIsImlhdC I6MTQ1ODQ5NjAyNSwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwi YXVkIjpbImh0dHBzOi8vamh1Yi5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MW ZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9qaHViLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0Zl ZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIxZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwic3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly 9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL1VzZXJzLzQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIx ZDkiLCJldmVudHMiOnsidXJuOmlldGY6cGFyYW1zOnNjaW06ZXZlbnQ6cGFzc3 dvcmRSZXNldCI6eyJpZCI6IjQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkifSwi aHR0cHM6Ly9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9zY2ltL2V2ZW50L3Bhc3N3b3JkUmVzZXRFeH QiOnsicmVzZXRBdHRlbXB0cyI6NX19fQ." }}In the above example, two SETs whosejti values are4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8 and3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30 are delivered.¶
The following is a non-normative example response to the request shown inSection 2.4.1, which indicates that no new SETs or unacknowledged SETs are available:¶
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: application/json { "sets": {} }Upon receiving the JSON document (e.g., as shown inFigure 6), the SET Recipient parses and verifies the received SETs and notifies the SET Transmitter of successfully received SETs and SETs with errors via the next poll request to the SET Transmitter, as described in Sections2.4.3 and2.4.4.¶
In the event of a general HTTP error condition in the context of processing a poll request, the service provider responds with the applicable HTTP response status code, as defined inSection 6 of [RFC7231].¶
Service providersMAY respond to any invalid poll request with an HTTP response status code of 400 (Bad Request) even when a more specific code might apply, for example, if the service provider deemed that a more specific code presented an information disclosure risk. When no more specific code might apply, the service providerSHALL respond to an invalid poll request with an HTTP status code of 400.¶
The response body for responses to invalid poll requests is left undefined, and its contentsSHOULD be ignored.¶
The following is a non-normative example of a response to an invalid poll request:¶
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
If a SET is invalid, error codes from the IANA "Security Event Token Error Codes" registry established by[RFC8935] are used in error responses. As described inSection 2.3 of [RFC8935], an error response is a JSON object providing details about the error that includes the following name/value pairs:¶
When included as part of a batch of SETs, the above JSON is included as part of thesetErrs member, as defined in Sections2.2 and2.4.4.¶
When the SET Recipient includes one or more error responses in a request to the SET Transmitter, it must also include in the request aContent-Language header field whose value indicates the language of the error descriptions included in the request. The method of language selection in the case when the SET Recipient can provide error messages in multiple languages is out of scope for this specification.¶
The SET delivery method described in this specification is based upon HTTP over TLS[RFC2818] and standard HTTP authentication and authorization schemes, as per[RFC7235]. The TLS server certificateMUST be validated using DNS-ID[RFC6125] and/or DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)[RFC6698]. As perSection 4.1 of [RFC7235], a SET delivery endpointSHALL indicate supported HTTP authentication schemes via theWWW-Authenticate header field when using HTTP authentication.¶
Authorization for the eligibility to provide actionable SETs can be determined by using the identity of the SET Issuer, validating the identity of the SET Transmitter, or via other employed authentication methods. Likewise, the SET Transmitter may choose to validate the identity of the SET Recipient, perhaps using mutual TLS. Because SETs are not commands, SET Recipients are free to ignore SETs that are not of interest after acknowledging their receipt.¶
JWS signed SETs can be used (see[RFC7515] andSection 5 of [RFC8417]) to enable the SET Recipient to validate that the SET Issuer is authorized to provide actionable SETs.¶
SET delivery depends on the use of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol and is thus subject to the security considerations of HTTP (Section 9 of [RFC7230]) and its related specifications.¶
SETs may contain sensitive information, including Personally Identifiable Information (PII), or be distributed through third parties. In such cases, SET Transmitters and SET RecipientsMUST protect the confidentiality of the SET contents. In some use cases, using TLS to secure the transmitted SETs will be sufficient. In other use cases, encrypting the SET as described in JSON Web Encryption (JWE)[RFC7516] will also be required. The Event delivery endpointMUST support at least TLS version 1.2[RFC5246] andSHOULD support the newest version of TLS that meets its security requirements, which as of the time of this publication is TLS 1.3[RFC8446]. The clientMUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check using DNS-ID[RFC6125] and/or DANE[RFC6698]. How a SET Recipient determines the expected service identity to match the SET Transmitter's server certificate against is out of scope for this document. The implementation security considerations for TLS in "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)"[RFC7525]MUST be followed.¶
If HTTP Authentication is performed using OAuth access tokens[RFC6749], implementersMUST take into account the threats and countermeasures documented inSection 8 of [RFC7521].¶
Transmitting bearer tokens[RFC6750] using TLS helps prevent their interception.¶
Bearer tokensSHOULD 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 OAuth 2.0, a clientMAY use an OAuth refresh token to obtain a new bearer token after authenticating to an authorization server, perSection 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.¶
SET Transmitters should attempt to deliver SETs that are 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, SET Transmitters and RecipientsMUST have the appropriate legal agreements and user consent or terms of service in place. Furthermore, data that needs confidentiality protectionMUST be encrypted, at least with TLS and sometimes also using JSON Web Encryption (JWE)[RFC7516].¶
In some cases, subject identifiers themselves may be considered sensitive information, such that their inclusion within a SET may be considered a violation of privacy. SET Issuers and SET Transmitters should consider the ramifications of sharing a particular subject identifier with a SET Recipient (e.g., whether doing so could enable correlation and/or de-anonymization of data) and choose appropriate subject identifiers for their use cases.¶
This document has no IANA actions.¶
Earlier versions of this specification made the use of TLS optional and described security and privacy considerations resulting from use of unencrypted HTTP as the underlying transport. When the working group decided to mandate usage of HTTP over TLS, it also decided to preserve the description of these considerations in a non-normative manner.¶
The considerations for using unencrypted HTTP with this protocol are the same as those described inAppendix A of [RFC8935], and are therefore not repeated here.¶
The editors would like to thank the members of the SCIM Working Group, which began discussions of provisioning events starting with draft-hunt-scim-notify-00 in 2015. We would like to thankPhil Hunt and the other authors of draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02, upon which this specification is based. We would like to thank the participants in the SecEvents Working Group for their contributions to this specification.¶
Additionally, we would like to thank the following individuals for their reviews of this specification:Roman Danyliw,Martin Duke,Benjamin Kaduk,Erik Kline,Murray Kucherawy,Warren Kumari,Barry Leiba,Mark Nottingham,Alvaro Retana,Yaron Sheffer,Valery Smyslov,Robert Sparks,Éric Vyncke, andRobert Wilton.¶