Push And Pull Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery
draft-tulshibagwale-saag-pushpull-delivery-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Atul Tulshibagwale | ||
| Last updated | 2024-09-05 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-tulshibagwale-saag-pushpull-delivery-00
saag A. Tulshibagwale
Internet-Draft SGNL
Intended status: Informational 5 September 2024
Expires: 9 March 2025
Push And Pull Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery
draft-tulshibagwale-saag-pushpull-delivery-00
Abstract
In situations where a transmitter of Security Event Tokens (SETs) to
a network peer is also a receiver of SETs from the same peer, it is
helpful to have an efficient way of sending and receiving SETs in one
HTTP transaction. Using current mechanisms such as "Push-Based
Delivery of Security Event Tokens (SETs) Using HTTP" or "Poll-Based
Delivery of Security Event Tokens (SETs) Using HTTP" both require two
or more HTTP connections to exchange SETs between peers. In many
cases, such as when using the OpenID Shared Signals Framework (SSF),
the situation where each entity is both a transmitter and receiver is
getting increasingly common. In addition, this specification enables
the transmission and reception of multiple SETs in one HTTP
connection.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://sgnl-
ai.github.io/pushpull/. Status information for this document may be
found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tulshibagwale-saag-
pushpull-delivery/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/SGNL-ai/pushpull.
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/.
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
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 9 March 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Pushpull Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Communication Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. HTTP Request Response Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Initiating Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Response Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2.1. Success Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2.2. Error Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2.3. Out Of Order Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. Example Request and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3.1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3.2. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. WebSocket Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Using WebSockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.1. Pushpull Subprotocol Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Delivery Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. All SETs Accounted For . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Uniqueness of SETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.1. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.2. HTTP and TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
12.3. Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.4. Temporary Disconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Workloads that exchange SETs [RFC8417] with each other
("Transceivers") can do so efficiently using the protocol defined in
this specification. Although this specification works along the
lines of the DeliveryPush [RFC8935] and DeliveryPoll [RFC8936]
specifications, it makes a few important additions:
* A Transceiver initiating a communication can send multiple SETs in
one HTTP connection to a Peer
* The Transceiver initiating communication can acknowledge
previously received SETs in the same HTTP connection to the Peer
* The Peer responding to the communication can send multiple SETs in
its response to a connection from the Transceiver
* The Peer responding to the communication can acknowledge
previously received SETs in its response to the Transceiver
2. Notational Conventions
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.
3. Terminology
Transceiver A networked workload that can act both as a transmitter
of SETs and a receiver of SETs. It communicates with other
trusted Transceivers to transmit and receive SETs using the
protocol defined herein.
Peer Another name for a Transceiver, used to signify the other end
of the communication from a Transceiver.
Initiator A Transceiver initiating communication with a Peer.
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
Responder A Transceiver responding to communication from a Peer.
DeliveryPush The IETF RFC titled "Push-Based Delivery of Security
Event Tokens (SETs) Using HTTP" [RFC8935].
DeliveryPoll The IETF RFC titled "Poll-Based Delivery of Security
Event Tokens (SETs) Using HTTP" [RFC8936].
4. Pushpull Endpoint
Each Transceiver that supports this specification MUST support a
"Pushpull" endpoint. This endpoint MUST be capable of serving HTTP
[RFC9110] requests. This endpoint MUST be TLS [RFC8446] enabled and
MUST reject any communication not using TLS.
5. Communication Object
A Communication Object is a JSON object [RFC8259], and is a unit of
communication used in this specification used both in requests and
responses. When used in a request, the Initiator MAY have additional
fields defined the later sections below. The common fields of this
object are:
sets OPTIONAL. A JSON object containing key-value pairs in which
the key of a field is a string that contains the jti value of the
SET that is specified in the value of the field. This field MAY
be omitted to indicate that no SETs are being delivered by the
initiator in this communication.
ack OPTIONAL. An array of strings, in which each string is the jti
value of a previously received SET that is acknowledged in this
object. This array MAY be empty or this field MAY be omitted to
indicate that no previously received SETs are being acknowledged
in this communication.
setErrs OPTIONAL. A JSON object containing key-value pairs in which
the key of a field is a string that contains the jti value of a
previously received SET that the sender of the communication
object was unable to process. The value of the field is a JSON
object that has the following fields:
err OPTIONAL. The short reason why the specified SET failed to
be processed.
description OPTIONAL. An explanation of why the SET failed to be
processed.
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
5.1. Example
The following is a non-normative example of a Communication Object
{
"sets": {
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":
"eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.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.",
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30":
"eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.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."
},
"ack": [
"f52901c4-3996-11ef-9454-0242ac120002",
"0636e274-3997-11ef-9454-0242ac120002",
"d563c724-79a0-4ff0-ba41-657fa5e2cb11"
],
"setErrs": {
"5c436b19-0958-4367-b408-2dd542606d3b" : {
"err": "invalid subject",
"description": "subject format not supported"
}
}
}
Figure 1: Example of a Communication Object
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
6. HTTP Request Response Binding
This section describes how Transceivers can use HTTP Requests and
Responses to exchange Communication Objects described in Section 5.
6.1. Initiating Communication
A Transceiver can initiate communication with a Peer in order to:
* Acknowledge previously received SETs from the Peer.
* Send SETs to the Peer.
* Both acknowledge previously received SETs from the Peer and send
SETs to the Peer.
To initiate communication, the Initiator makes a HTTP POST request to
the Responder's Pushpull Endpoint Section 4. The body of this
request is of the content type "application/json". It contains a
Communication Object Section 5, and the following additional field
MAY be present:
maxResponseEvents OPTIONAL. A number which specifies the maximum
number of events the Responder can include in its response to the
Initiator. If this field is absent in the request, the Responder
MAY include any number of events in the response. If this field
is present, then the Responder MUST NOT include more events than
the value of "maxResponseEvents" in its response to the specific
request.
6.2. Response Communication
A Responder MUST respond to a communication from an Initiator by
sending an HTTP Response.
6.2.1. Success Response
If the Responder is successful in processing the request, it MUST
return the HTTP status code 200 (OK). The response MUST have the
content-type "application/json" and the response MUST include a
Communication Object Section 5.
6.2.2. Error Response
The Responder MUST respond with an error response if it is unable to
process the request. The error response MUST include the appropriate
error code as described in Section 2.4 of DeliveryPush [RFC8935].
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
6.2.3. Out Of Order Responses
A Communication Object in a Response may contain jti values in its
ack or setErrs that do not correspond to the SETs received in the
same Request to which the Response is being sent. They MAY consist
of values received in previous Requests.
6.3. Example Request and Response
The following is a non-normative example of a request and its
corresponding response
6.3.1. Request
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
POST /pushpull-endpoint HTTP/1.1
Host: sharedsignals-transceiver.myorg.example
Content-type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer eyJraWQiOiIyMDIwXzEiLCJJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9...
{
"ack": [],
"sets": {
"4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":
"eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.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.",
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30":
"eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.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."
},
"setErrs": {
"5c436b19-0958-4367-b408-2dd542606d3b" : {
"err": "invalid subject",
"description": "subject format not supported"
}
},
"maxResponseEvents": 10
}
Figure 2: Example Pushpull request
In the above example request, the Initiator does acknowledge any
previous events. Delivers two SETs and reports an error on a
previously received SET.
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
6.3.2. Response
The following is a non-normative example of a response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-type: application/json
{
"ack": [
"3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
],
"sets": {
"756E69717565206964656E746966696572":
"eyJ0eXAiOiJzZWNldmVudCtqd3QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9Cg.
eyJpc3MiOiJodHRwczovL2lkcC5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS8iLCJqdGkiOiI3NTZFNjk
3MTc1NjUyMDY5NjQ2NTZFNzQ2OTY2Njk2NTcyIiwiaWF0IjoxNTA4MTg0ODQ1LC
JhdWQiOiI2MzZDNjk2NTZFNzQ1RjY5NjQiLCJldmVudHMiOnsiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY
2hlbWFzLm9wZW5pZC5uZXQvc2VjZXZlbnQvcmlzYy9ldmVudC10eXBlL2FjY291
bnQtZGlzYWJsZWQiOnsic3ViamVjdCI6eyJzdWJqZWN0X3R5cGUiOiJpc3Mtc3V
iIiwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9pZHAuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vIiwic3ViIjoiNzM3NT
YyNkE2NTYzNzQifSwicmVhc29uIjoiaGlqYWNraW5nIn19fQ.
Y4rXxMD406P2edv00cr9Wf3_XwNtLjB9n-jTqN1_lLc"
}
}
Figure 3: Example Pushpull response
In the above example, the Responder acknowledges one of the SETs it
previously received and provides a SET to deliver to the initiator.
There are no errors reported by the Responder.
7. WebSocket Binding
Transceivers MAY use WebSockets [RFC6455] to send and receive
Communication Objects described in Section 5. Since WebSockets are a
symmetric protocol, a Transceiver MAY send a Communication Object at
any time to its Peer. In such communication, a Transceiver sends a
Communication Object as Payload data over the WebSocket protocol to a
Peer. Similarly, a Transceiver MAY receive a Communication Object
from a Peer over a WebSocket connection, wherein the Communication
Object is the Payload data. In all such WebSocket communication, the
Payload data does not have any Extension data in it.
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
7.1. Using WebSockets
During any communication initiated by a Transceiver, the Transceiver
MAY request the Peer to use WebSockets [RFC6455] by requesting that
the connection be upgraded to a WebSocket connection. If the
Transceiver and its Peer can successfully perform the WebSocket
handshake for the Pushpull Subprotocol described in Section 7.1.1,
then the Transceiver and Peer MUST use WebSockets until the
connection is closed. If the handshake fails, the Transceiver and
Peer MAY use the HTTP Request Response Binding as described in
Section 6
7.1.1. Pushpull Subprotocol Handshake
The Pushpull subprotocol is used to transport Communication Objects
Section 5 over a WebSocket connection. The Transceiver and its Peer
agree to this subprotocol during the WebSocket handshake (see
Section 1.3 of [RFC6455]).
During the Websocket handshake, the Initiator MUST include the value
pushpull in the list of protocols for the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol
header. The reply from the Responder MUST also include the value
pushpull in the list of values in its own Sec-WebSocket-Protocol
header, in order for the Initiator and Responder to use WebSockets.
8. Authentication and Authorization
The Initiator MUST verify the identity of the Responder by validating
the TLS certification presented by the Responder, and verifying that
it is the intended recipient of the request, before sending the
Communication Object Section 5.
The Initiator MUST attempt to obtain the OAuth Protected Resource
Metadata [OPRM] for the Responder endpoint. If such metadata is
found, the Initiator MUST obtain an access token using the metadata.
If no such metadata is found, then the Initiator MAY use any means to
authorize itself to the Responder.
The Responder MUST verify the identity and authorization of the
Initiator. The Responder MAY use OAuth Protected Resource Metadata
[OPRM] for this purpose, but the Responder MAY use other means to
authorize the Initiator, which are beyond the scope of this
specification.
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
9. Delivery Reliability
A Transceiver MUST attempt to deliver any SETs it has previously
attempted to deliver to a Peer until: * It receives an
acknowledgement through the ack value for that SET in a subsequent
communication with the Peer * It receives a setErrs object for that
SET in a subsequent communication with the Peer * It has attempted to
deliver the SET a maximum number of times and has failed to
communicate either due to communication errors or lack of inclusion
in ack or setErrs in subsequent communications that were conducted
for the maximum number of times. The maximum number of attempts MAY
be set by the Transceiver for itself and SHOULD be communicated
offline to the Peers.
If a Transceiver previously attempted to deliver a SET in a response
to a Peer's request, the Transceiver MAY Initiate a request to the
Peer in order to retry delivery of the SET. A Peer MUST be able to
either provide acks or setErrs for the same SETs either through
requests or responses.
10. All SETs Accounted For
A Transceiver MUST ensure that it includes the jti value of each SET
it receives, either in an ack or a setErrs value, to the Transceiver
from which it received the SETs. A Transceiver SHOULD retry sending
the same SET again if it was never responded to either in an ack
value or in a setErrs value by a receiving Transceiver in a
reasonable time period. A Transceiver MAY limit the number of times
it retries sending a SET. A Transceiver MAY publish the retry time
period and maximum number of retries to its peers, but such
publication is outside the scope of this specification.
11. Uniqueness of SETs
A Transceiver MUST NOT send two SETs with the same jti value if the
SET has been either acknowledged through ack value or produced an
error indicated by a setErrs value. If a Transceiver wishes to re-
send an event after it has received a error response through a
setErrs value, then it MUST generate a new SET that has a new (and
unique) jti value.
12. Security Considerations
12.1. Authentication and Authorization
Transceivers MUST follow the procedures described in section
Section 8 in order to securely authenticate and authorize Peers
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
12.2. HTTP and TLS
Transceivers MUST use TLS [RFC8446] to communicate with Peers and is
subject to the security considerations of HTTP [RFC9110] Section 17.
12.3. Denial of Service
A Responder may be vulnerable to denial of service attacks wherein a
large number of spurious requests need to be processed. Having
efficient authorization mechanisms such as OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] can
mitigate such attacks by leveraging standard infrastructure that is
designed to handle such attacks.
12.4. Temporary Disconnection
Transceivers must make sure they respond to each SET received in a
timely manner as described in the "All SETs Accounted For" section
Section 10. This ensures that if there was a temporary disconnection
between two Transceivers, say when a Responding Transceiver sent a
Communication Object in the HTTP Response, that such disconnection is
detected and the missing SETs can be retried.
13. Privacy Considerations
SETs may contain confidential information, and Transceivers receiving
SETs must be careful not to log such content or ensure that sensitive
information from the SET is redacted before logging.
14. IANA Considerations
The following WebSocket subprotocol will be added to the "WebSocket
Subprotocol Name Registry" [IANA.WebSocket.Subprotocol]
* Subprotocol Identifier: puhspull
* Subprotocol Common Name: WebSocket transport for Pushpull delivery
of SETs
* Subprotocol Definition: Section Section 7.1.1 of this document.
15. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",
RFC 6455, DOI 10.17487/RFC6455, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6455>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259>.
[RFC8417] Hunt, P., Ed., Jones, M., Denniss, W., and M. Ansari,
"Security Event Token (SET)", RFC 8417,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8417, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8417>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.
[RFC8935] Backman, A., Ed., Jones, M., Ed., Scurtescu, M., Ansari,
M., and A. Nadalin, "Push-Based Security Event Token (SET)
Delivery Using HTTP", RFC 8935, DOI 10.17487/RFC8935,
November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8935>.
[RFC8936] Backman, A., Ed., Jones, M., Ed., Scurtescu, M., Ansari,
M., and A. Nadalin, "Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET)
Delivery Using HTTP", RFC 8936, DOI 10.17487/RFC8936,
November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8936>.
[RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.
[OPRM] Jones, M. B., Hunt, P., and A. Parecki, "OAuth 2.0
Protected Resource Metadata", May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-
resource-metadata/>.
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft pushpull September 2024
[IANA.WebSocket.Subprotocol]
IANA, "WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/websocket/
websocket.xml#subprotocol-name>.
Contributors
Erik Gustavson
SGNL
Email: erik@sgnl.ai
Apoorva Deshpande
Okta
Email: apoorva.deshpande@okta.com
Author's Address
Atul Tulshibagwale
SGNL
Email: atul@sgnl.ai
Tulshibagwale Expires 9 March 2025 [Page 14]