MILE Working Group J. Field
Internet-Draft Pivotal
Intended status: Standards Track S. Banghart
Expires: April 1, 2018 D. Waltermire
NIST
September 28, 2017
Resource-Oriented Lightweight Information Exchange
draft-ietf-mile-rolie-10
Abstract
This document defines a resource-oriented approach for security
automation information publication, discovery, and sharing. Using
this approach, producers may publish, share, and exchange
representations of software descriptors, security incidents, attack
indicators, software vulnerabilities, configuration checklists, and
other security automation information as web-addressable resources.
Furthermore, consumers and other stakeholders may access and search
this security information as needed, establishing a rapid and on-
demand information exchange network for restricted internal use or
public access repositories. This specification extends the Atom
Publishing Protocol and Atom Syndication Format to transport and
share security automation resource representations.
Contributing to this document
The source for this draft is being maintained on GitHub. Suggested
changes should be submitted as pull requests at
<https://github.com/CISecurity/ROLIE>. Instructions are on that page
as well. Editorial changes can be managed in GitHub, but any
substantial issues need to be discussed on the MILE mailing list.
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."
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 1, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. XML-related Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. XML Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. RELAX NG Compact Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Background and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. ROLIE Requirements for the Atom Publishing Protocol . . . . . 6
5.1. AtomPub Service Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. Use of the "app:workspace" Element . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.2. Use of the "app:collection" Element . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.3. Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. AtomPub Category Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Transport Layer Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. User Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. / (forward slash) Resource URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. HTTP methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. ROLIE Requirements for the Atom Syndication Format . . . . . 12
6.1. Use of the "atom:feed" element . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.1. Use of the "atom:category" Element . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.2. Use of the "atom:link" Element . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.3. Use of the "atom:updated" Element . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Use of the "atom:entry" Element . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.1. Use of the "atom:content" Element . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.2. Use of the "atom:link" Element . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.3. Use of the "rolie:format" Element . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.4. Use of the rolie:property Element . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.5. Requirements for a Standalone Entry . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Available Extension Points Provided by ROLIE . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. The Category Extension Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
7.1.1. General Use of the "atom:category" Element . . . . . 21
7.1.2. Identification of Security Automation Information
Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. The "rolie:format" Extension Point . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.3. The Link Relation Extension Point . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.4. The "rolie:property" Extension Point . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.1. XML Namespaces and Schema URNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2. ROLIE URN Sub-namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.3. ROLIE URN Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.4. ROLIE Security Resource Information Type Sub-Registry . . 28
8.5. Well-Known URI Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix A. Relax NG Compact Schema for ROLIE . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B. Examples of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.1. Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.2. Feed Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.3. Entry Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Appendix C. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. Introduction
This document defines a resource-oriented approach to security
automation information sharing that follows the Representational
State Transfer (REST) architectural style [REST]. In this approach,
computer security resources are maintained in web-accessible
repositories structured as Atom Syndication Format [RFC4287] Feeds.
Within a given Feed, which may be requested by the consumer,
representations of specific types of security automation information
are organized, categorized, and described. Furthermore, all
collections available to a given user are discoverable, allowing the
consumer to search all available content they are authorized to view,
and to locate and request the desired information resources. Through
use of granular authentication and access controls, only authorized
consumers may be permitted the ability to read or write to a given
Feed.
The goal of this approach is to increase the communication and
sharing of security information between providers and consumers that
can be used to automate security processes (e.g., incident reports,
vulnerability assessments, configuration checklists, and other
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
security automation information). Such sharing allows human
operators and computer systems to leverage this standardized
communication system to gather information that supports the
automation of security processes.
To support new types of security automation information being used as
time goes on, this specification defines a number of extension points
that can be used either privately or globally. These global
extensions are IANA registered by ROLIE extension specifications, and
provide enhanced interoperability for new use cases and domains.
Sections 5 and 6 of this document define the core requirements of all
implementations of this specification, and is resource representation
agnostic. An overview of the extension system is provided in
Section 7. Implementers seeking to provide support for specific
security automation information types should refer to the
specification for that domain described by the IANA registry found in
section 8.4.
2. Terminology
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].
The previous key words are used in this document to define the
conformance requirements for implementations of this specification.
This document does not give any recommendations for the use of ROLIE,
it only provides conformance requirements for implementations of this
specification.
Definitions for some of the common computer security-related
terminology used in this document can be found in Section 2 of
[RFC7970].
The following terms are unique to this specification:
Information Type A class of security automation information having
one or more associated data models. Often such security
automation information is used in the automation of a security
process. See section 7.1.2 for more information.
3. XML-related Conventions
3.1. XML Namespaces
This specification uses XML Namespaces [W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208]
to uniquely identify XML element names. It uses the following
namespace prefix mappings for the indicated namespace URI:
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
"app" is used for the "http://www.w3.org/2007/app" namespace
defined in [RFC5023].
"atom" is used for the "http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" namespace
defined in [RFC4287].
"rolie" is used for the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rolie:1.0"
namespace defined in section 8.1 of this specification.
3.2. RELAX NG Compact Schema
Some sections of this specification are illustrated with fragments of
a non-normative RELAX NG Compact schema [relax-NG]. The text of this
specification provides the definition of conformance. Schema for the
"http://www.w3.org/2007/app" and "http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
namespaces appear in RFC5023 appendix B [RFC5023] and RFC4287
appendix B [RFC4287] respectively.
A complete informative RELAX NG Compact Schema for the new elements
introduced by ROLIE is provided in Appendix A.
4. Background and Motivation
In order to automate security process, tools need access to
sufficient sources of structured, security information that can be
used to drive security processes. Thus, security information sharing
is one of the core components of automating security processes.
Vulnerabilities, configurations, software identification, security
incidents, and patch data are just a few of the classes of
information that are shared today to enable effective security on a
wide scale. However, as the scale of defense broadens as networks
become larger and more complex, and the volume of information to
process makes humans-in-the-loop difficult to scale, the need for
automation and machine-to-machine communication becomes increasingly
critical.
ROLIE seeks to address this need by providing four major information
sharing benefits:
Extensible information type categories and format agnosticism: ROLIE
is not bound to any given data format or category of information.
Instead, information categories are extensible, and entries
declare the format of the referenced data. In cases where several
formats or serializations are available, ROLIE can use link
relations to communicate how a consumer can access these formats.
For example, clients may request that a given resource
representation be returned as XML, JSON, or in some other format
or serialization. This approach allows the provider to support
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
multiple, compatible formats allowing the consumer to select the
most suitable version.
Open and distributed information sharing: Using the Atom Publishing
Protocol, ROLIE feeds can easily aggregate feeds and accept
information POSTed to them from other sources. Webs of
communicating ROLIE servers form ad-hoc sharing communities,
increasing data availability and the ability to correlate linked
data across sources for participating consumers. ROLIE servers
needn't be distributed however, as large ROLIE repositories can
function as a central or federated collections.
Stateless communication model: ROLIE, as a RESTful system, is
stateless. That is, the server doesn't keep track of client
sessions, but rather uses link relations for state transitions.
In practice, this means that any consumer can find and share
information at any organizational level and at any time without
needing to execute a long series of requests.
Information discovery and navigation: ROLIE provides a number of
mechanisms to allow clients to programmatically discover and
navigate collections of information in order to dynamically
discover new or revised content. Extensible information types and
other categories provide one way of determining content that is
desirable. Link elements, each with a target URI and an
established relationship type, provide a means for ROLIE providers
to link other information that is relevant to the current entry or
feed.
These benefits result in an information sharing protocol that is
lightweight, interactive, open, and most importantly, machine
readable.
The requirements in this specification are broken into two major
sections, extensions to the Atom Publishing Protocol (AtomPub)
[RFC5023], and extensions to the Atom Syndication Format [RFC4287].
All normative requirements in AtomPub and Atom Syndication are
inherited from their respective specifications, and apply here unless
the requirement is explicitly overridden in this document. In this
way, this document may upgrade the requirement (e.g., make a SHOULD a
MUST), but will never downgrade a given requirement (e.g., make a
MUST a SHOULD).
5. ROLIE Requirements for the Atom Publishing Protocol
This section describes a number of restrictions of and extensions to
the Atom Publishing Protocol (AtomPub) [RFC5023] that define the use
of that protocol in the context of a ROLIE-based solution. The
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
normative requirements in this section are generally oriented towards
client and server implementations. An understanding of the Atom
Publishing Protocol specification [RFC5023] is helpful to understand
the requirements in this section.
5.1. AtomPub Service Documents
As described in RFC5023 section 8 [RFC5023], a Service Document is an
XML-based document format that allows a client to dynamically
discover the Collections provided by a publisher. A Service Document
consists of one or more app:workspace elements that may each contain
a number of app:collection elements.
The general structure of a service document is as follows (from
RFC5023 section 4.2 [RFC5023]):
Service
o- Workspace
| |
| o- Collection
| | |
| | o- IRI, categories, media types
| |
| o- ...
|
o- Workspace
| |
| o- Collection
| | |
| | o- IRI, categories, media types
| |
| o- ...
|
o- ...
5.1.1. Use of the "app:workspace" Element
In AtomPub, a Workspace, represented by the "app:workspace" element,
describes a group of one or more Collections. Building on the
AtomPub concept of a Workspace, in ROLIE a Workspace represents an
aggregation of Collections pertaining to security automation
information resources. This specification does not restrict the
number of Workspaces that may be in a Service Document or the
specific Collections to be provided within a given Workspace.
A ROLIE implementation can host Collections containing both public
and private information entries. It is RECOMMENDED that
implementations segregate public and private Collections into
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
different app:workspace elements. By doing this, Workspaces that
contain private information can be ignored by clients or can be
omitted from the Service Document provided to a client that lacks the
appropriate privilege to access the set of Collections associated
with the Workspace.
5.1.2. Use of the "app:collection" Element
In AtomPub, a Collection in a Service Document, represented by the
"app:collection" element, provides metadata that can be used to point
to a specific Atom Feed that contains information Entries that may be
of interest to a client. The association between a Collection and a
Feed is provided by the "href" attribute of the app:collection
element. Building on the AtomPub concept of a Collection, in ROLIE a
Collection represents a pointer to a group of security automation
information resources pertaining to a given type of security
automation information. Collections are represented as Atom Feeds as
per RFC 5023. Atom Feed specific requirements are defined in section
6.1.
ROLIE defines specialized data requirements for Collections, Feeds,
and Entries containing security automation related data. The
difference between a ROLIE and a non-ROLIE Collection defined in a
Service Document can be determined as follows:
ROLIE Collection: For an app:collection to be considered a ROLIE
Collection, the app:collection MUST contain an app:categories
element that contains only one atom:category element with the
"scheme" attribute value of
"urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type". This category
MUST have an appropriate "term" attribute value as defined in
section 7.1.1. This ensures that a given Collection corresponds
to a specific type of security automation information.
Non-ROLIE Collection: For an app:collection to be considered a non-
ROLIE Collection, the app:collection MUST NOT contain an
atom:category element with a "scheme" attribute value of
"urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type".
By distinguishing between ROLIE and non-ROLIE Collections in this
way, implementations supporting ROLIE can host Collections pertaining
to security automation information alongside Collections of other
non-ROLIE information within the same AtomPub instance.
The following are additional requirements on the use of the
app:collection element for a ROLIE Collection:
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
o The child atom:category elements contained in the app:categories
element MUST be the same set of atom:category elements used in the
Atom Feed resource referenced by the app:collection "href"
attribute value. This ensures that the category metadata
associated with the Collection and the associated Feed is
discoverable in both of these resources.
o The app:categories element in an app:collection MAY include
additional atom:category elements using a scheme other than
"urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type". This allows
other category metadata to be included.
5.1.3. Service Discovery
This specification requires that an implementation MUST publish an
Atom Service Document that describes the set of security information
Collections provided by the service. The Service Document MUST be
retrievable using the standardized URI template
"https://{host:port}/.well-known/rolie/servicedocument", where
{host:port} is the authority portion of the URI. Dereferencing this
URI MAY result in a redirect based on an appropriate HTTP 3xx status
code to direct the client to the actual Service Document. This
allows clients to have a well-known location to find a ROLIE service
document, while giving implementations flexibility over how the
service is deployed.
This document registers the "rolie/servicedocument" well-known URI as
per [RFC5785] in Section 8.5.
A mechanism to determine which host and port to use is not specified
in this document. Use of a mechanism such as DNS SRV Records
[RFC2782] can provide a secure and reliable discovery mechanism for
determining a specific host and port to use for retrieving a Service
Document for a given DNS domain.
5.2. AtomPub Category Documents
As described in RFC5023 section 7 [RFC5023], a Category Document is
an XML-based document format that allows a client to dynamically
discover the Categories used within AtomPub Service Documents, and
Atom Syndication Feed and Entry documents provided by a publisher. A
Category Document consists of one app:categories element that
contains a number of inline atom:category elements, or a URI
referencing a Category Document.
A ROLIE implementation MUST publish a Category Document that
describes the set of atom:category elements and associated terms
currently used by the service.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
The Category Document MUST be retrievable using the standardized URI
template "https://{host:port}/.well-known/rolie/categorydocument",
where {host:port} is the authority portion of the URI. Dereferencing
this URI MAY result in a redirect based on an appropriate HTTP 3xx
status code to direct the client to the actual Category Document.
This allows clients to have a well-known location to find a ROLIE
category document, while giving implementations flexibility over how
the service is deployed.
This document registers the "rolie/categorydocument" well-known URI
as per [RFC5785] in Section 8.5.
5.3. Transport Layer Security
ROLIE is intended to be handled with TLS. The following requirements
have been in part derived from [RFC7589].
TLS version 1.2 MUST be supported. TLS 1.2 SHOULD be implemented
according to all recommendations and best practices present in
[RFC7525].
It is RECOMMENDED that the most recent published version of TLS is
supported. If this version is TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], it is
recommended that 0-RTT (Zero Round Trip Time Resumption) is not used,
as there is a replay attack that is possible with that option.
The server MUST support certificate-based client authentication. An
implementation MUST support the set of TLS cipher suites that are
REQUIRED by the latest published version of the TLS specification.
An implementation MUST also support the TLS cipher suites that
provide support for mutual authentication of clients and servers.
During the TLS negotiation, the client MUST carefully examine the
certificate presented by the server to determine if it meets the
client's expectations. Particularly, the client MUST check its
understanding of the server hostname against the server's identity as
presented in the server Certificate message, in order to prevent man-
in-the-middle attacks. Matching is performed according to the rules
laid out in the Security Considerations section of [RFC4642]. If the
match fails, the client MUST either ask for explicit user
confirmation or terminate the connection and indicate the server's
identity is suspect. If the client has external information as to
the expected identity of the server, the hostname check MAY be
omitted.
Clients MUST verify the binding between the identity of the servers
to which they connect and the public keys presented by those servers.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
Client implementations SHOULD support a certificate validation
approach based on section 6 of [RFC5280].
The server MUST be capable of verifying the identity of the client
with certificate-based authentication according to local policy to
ensure that the incoming client request is legitimate before any
configuration or state data is sent to or received from the client.
5.4. User Authentication and Authorization
Implementations MUST support user authentication. However, a given
implementation MAY allow user authentication to be disabled on a feed
by feed basis.
Servers participating in an information sharing consortium and
supporting interactive user logins by members of the consortium
SHOULD support client authentication via a federated identity scheme.
This document does not mandate the use of any specific user
authorization mechanisms. However, service implementers SHOULD
provide appropriate authorization checking for all resource accesses,
including individual Atom Entries, Atom Feeds, and Atom Service
Documents.
5.5. / (forward slash) Resource URL
The "/" resource MAY be supported for compatibility with existing
deployments that are using Transport of Real-time Inter-network
Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS [RFC6546].
The following additional requirements apply for implementations
supporting handling of the "/" resource::
o Consistent with RFC6546 errata, a client requesting a GET on the
"/" resource SHOULD receive an HTTP status code 405 Method Not
Allowed.
o An implementation MAY provide full support for [RFC6546] such that
a POST to the "/" resource containing a recognized RID message is
handled correctly as a RID request. Alternatively, a client
requesting a POST to "/" MAY receive an HTTP status code 307
Temporary Redirect. In this case, the location header in the HTTP
response will provide the URL of the appropriate RID endpoint, and
the client may repeat the POST method at the indicated location.
If the "/" resource is unsupported, then a request for this resource
MUST provide a 404 HTTP status code.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
5.6. HTTP methods
Servers MAY accept request methods beyond those specified in this
document.
Clients MUST be capable of recognizing and processing any standard
HTTP status code, as defined in [RFC5023] Section 5.
6. ROLIE Requirements for the Atom Syndication Format
This section describes a number of restrictions of and extensions to
the Atom Syndication Format [RFC4287] that define the use of that
format in the context of a ROLIE-based solution. The normative
requirements in this section are generally oriented towards any
content to be published to a ROLIE server. An understanding of the
Atom Syndication Format specification [RFC4287] is helpful to
understand the requirements in this section.
6.1. Use of the "atom:feed" element
As described in RFC4287 section 4.1.1 [RFC4287], an Atom Feed is an
XML-based document format that describes a list of related
information items. The list of Atom Feeds provided by a ROLIE
service are listed in the service's Service Document through one or
more app:collection elements. Each Feed document, represented using
the atom:feed element, contains a listing of zero or more Entries.
When applied to the problem domain of security automation information
sharing, an Atom Feed may be used to represent any meaningful
collection of security automation information resources. Each Entry
in an atom:feed represents an individual resource (e.g., a specific
checklist, a software vulnerability record). Additional Feeds can be
used to represent other collections of security automation resources.
As discussed in section 5.1.2, ROLIE defines specialized data
requirements for Feeds containing security automation related data.
The difference between a ROLIE and a non-ROLIE Feed can be determined
as follows:
ROLIE Feed: For an atom:feed to be considered a ROLIE Feed, the
atom:feed MUST contain only one child atom:category element with
the "scheme" attribute value of
"urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type". This category
MUST have an appropriate "term" attribute value as defined in
section 7.1.1. This ensures that a given Feed corresponds to a
specific type of security automation information.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
Non-ROLIE Feed: For an atom:feed to be considered a non-ROLIE Feed,
the atom:feed MUST NOT contain an atom:category element with a
"scheme" attribute value of
"urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type".
By distinguishing between ROLIE and non-ROLIE Feeds in this way,
implementations supporting ROLIE can host Feeds pertaining to
security automation information alongside Feeds of other non-ROLIE
information within the same AtomPub instance. This is parallel to
the handling of collections ealier in this specification in section
5.1.2.
The following Atom Feed definition represents a stricter definition
of the atom:feed element defined in RFC 4287 when used as a ROLIE
Feed. Any element not specified here inherits its definition and
requirements from [RFC4287].
atomFeed =
element atom:feed {
atomCommonAttributes,
(atomAuthor*
& atomCategory+
& atomContributor*
& atomGenerator?
& atomIcon?
& atomId
& atomLink+
& atomLogo?
& atomRights?
& atomSubtitle?
& atomTitle
& atomUpdated
& extensionElement*),
atomEntry*
}
The following subsections contain requirements for a ROLIE Feed.
6.1.1. Use of the "atom:category" Element
An atom:feed can contain zero or more atom:category elements. In
Atom the naming scheme and the semantic meaning of the terms used to
identify an Atom category are application-defined.
The following are additional requirements on the use of the
atom:category element when used in a ROLIE Feed:
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
o All member Entries in the Feed MUST represent security automation
information records of the provided information type category.
o An atom:feed MAY include additional atom:category elements using a
scheme other than "urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-
type". This allows other category metadata to be included.
6.1.2. Use of the "atom:link" Element
Link relations defined by the atom:link element are used to represent
state transitions using a stateless approach. In Atom a type of link
relationship can be defined using the "rel" attribute.
A ROLIE atom:feed MUST contain one or more atom:link elements with
rel="service" and href attribute whose value is a IRI that points to
an Atom Service Document associated with the atom:feed. If a client
accesses a Feed without first accessing the service's service
document, a link with the "service" relationship provides a means to
discover additional security automation information. The "service"
link relationship is defined in the IANA Link Relations Registry [1].
An atom:feed can contain an arbitrary number of Entries. In some
cases, a complete Feed may consist of a large number of Entries.
Additionally, as new and updated Entries are ordered at the beginning
of a Feed, a client may only be interested in retrieving the first N
entries in a Feed to process only the Entries that have changed since
the last retrieval of the Feed. As a practical matter, a large set
of Entries will likely need to be divided into more manageable
portions, or pages. Based on RFC5005 section 3 [RFC5005], link
elements SHOULD be included in all Feeds to support paging using the
following link relation types:
o "first" - Indicates that the href attribute value of the link
identifies a resource IRI for the furthest preceding page of the
Feed.
o "last" - Indicates that the href attribute value of the link
identifies a resource IRI for the furthest following page of the
Feed.
o "previous" - Indicates that the href attribute value of the link
identifies a resource IRI for the immediately preceding page of
the Feed.
o "next" - Indicates that the href attribute value of the link
identifies a resource IRI for the immediately following page of
the Feed.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
For example:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<id>b7f65304-b63b-4246-88e2-c104049c5fd7</id>
<title>Paged Feed</title>
<link rel="self" href="http://example.org/feedA?page=5"/>
<link rel="first" href="http://example.org/feedA?page=1"/>
<link rel="prev" href="http://example.org/feedA?page=4"/>
<link rel="next" href="http://example.org/feedA?page=6"/>
<link rel="last" href="http://example.org/feedA?page=10"/>
<updated>2012-05-04T18:13:51.0Z</updated>
<!-- remainder of feed elements -->
</feed>
Example Paged Feed
A reference to a historical Feed may need to be stable, and/or a Feed
may need to be divided into a series of defined epochs.
Implementations SHOULD support the mechanisms described in RFC5005
section 4 [RFC5005] to provide link-based state transitions for
maintaining archiving of Feeds.
An atom:feed MAY include additional link relationships not specified
in this document. If a client encounters an unknown link
relationship type, the client MUST ignore the unrecognized link and
continue processing as if the unrecognized link element did not
appear. The definition of new Link relations that provide additional
state transition extensions is discussed in section 7.3.
6.1.3. Use of the "atom:updated" Element
The atom:updated element identifies the date and time that an Entry
was last updated.
The atom:updated element MUST be populated with the current time at
the instant the Feed representation was last updated by adding,
updating, or deleting an Entry; or changing any metadata for the
Feed.
6.2. Use of the "atom:entry" Element
Each Entry in an Atom Feed, represented by the atom:entry element,
describes a single referenced information record, along with
descriptive information about its format, media type, and other
publication metadata. The following atom:entry schema definition
represents a stricter representation of the atom:entry element
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
defined in [RFC4287] for use in a ROLIE-based Atom Feed as defined in
section 6.1.1.
atomEntry =
element atom:entry {
atomCommonAttributes,
(atomAuthor*
& atomCategory*
& atomContent
& atomContributor*
& atomId
& atomLink*
& atomPublished?
& atomRights?
& atomSource?
& atomSummary?
& atomTitle
& atomUpdated
& rolieFormat
& rolieProperty*
& extensionElement*)
}
The following subsections contain requirements for Entries in a ROLIE
Feed.
6.2.1. Use of the "atom:content" Element
An atom:content element associates its containing Entry with a
content resource identified by the src attribute.
There MUST be exactly one atom:content element in the Entry. The
content element MUST adhere to this definition, which is a stricter
representation of the atom:content element defined in [RFC4287]:
atomContent =
element atom:content {
atomCommonAttributes,
attribute type { atomMediaType },
attribute src { atomUri },
empty
}
The type attribute MUST identify the serialization type of the
content, for example, application/xml or application/json. A
prefixed media type MAY be used to reflect a specific model used with
a given serialization approach (e.g., application/rdf+xml). The src
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
attribute MUST be an IRI that can be dereferenced to retrieve the
related content data.
6.2.2. Use of the "atom:link" Element
Link relations can be included in an atom:entry to represent state
transitions for the Entry.
If there is a need to provide the same information in different data
models and/or serialization formats, separate Entry instances can be
included in the same or a different Feed. Such an alternate content
representation can be indicated using an atom:link having a rel
attribute with the value "alternate".
An atom:feed MAY include additional link relationships not specified
in this document. If a client encounters an unknown link
relationship type, the client MUST ignore the unrecognized link and
continue processing as if the unrecognized link element did not
appear. The definition of new Link relations that provide additional
state transition extensions is discussed in section 7.3.
6.2.3. Use of the "rolie:format" Element
As mentioned earlier, a key goal of this specification is to allow a
consumer to review a set of published security automation information
resources, and then identify and retrieve any resources of interest.
The format of the data is a key criteria to consider when deciding
what information to retrieve. For a given type of security
automation information, it is expected that a number of different
formats may be used to represent this information. To support this
use case, both the serialization format and the specific data model
expressed in that format must be known by the consumer.
The rolie:format element is used to describe the data model used to
express the information referenced in the atom:content element of an
atom:entry. It also allows a schema to be identified that can be
used when parsing the content to verify or better understand the
structure of the content.
There MUST be exactly one rolie:format element in an atom:entry. The
element MUST adhere to this definition:
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
rolieFormat =
element rolie:format {
appCommonAttributes,
attribute ns { atomURI },
attribute version { text } ?,
attribute schema-location { atomURI } ?,
attribute schema-type { atomMediaType } ?,
empty
}
The rolie:format element MUST provide a "ns" attribute that
identifies the data model of the resource referenced by the
atom:content element. For example, the namespace used may be an XML
namespace URI, or an identifier that represents a serialized JSON
model. The URI used for the "ns" attribute value MUST be an absolute
or opaque URI. The resource identified by the URI need not be
resolvable.
The rolie:format element MAY provide a "version" attribute that
identifies the version of the format used for the related
atom:content.
The rolie:format element MAY provide a "schema-location" attribute
that is a URI that identifies a schema resource that can be used to
validate the related atom:content.
The rolie:format element MAY provide a "schema-type" attribute, which
is a mime type identifying the format of the schema resource
identified by the "schema-location" attribute.
The following nominal example shows how these attributes describe the
format of the content:
<rolie:format ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0"
version="2.0"
schema-location=
"https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema/iodef-2.0.xsd"
schema-type-"text/xml"/>
The previous element provides an indication that the content of the
given entry is using the IODEF v2 format.
6.2.4. Use of the rolie:property Element
An atom:category element provides a way to associate a name/value
pair of categorical information using the scheme and term attributes
to represent the name, and the label attribute to represent the
value. When used in this way an atom:category allows a specific
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
label to be selected from a finite set of possible label values that
can be used to further classify a given atom:entry or atom:feed.
Within ROLIE, there may be a need to associate additional metadata
with an atom:entry. In such a case, use of an atom:category is not
practical to represent name/value data for which the allowed values
are unbounded. Instead, ROLIE has introduced a new rolie:property
element that can represent non-categorical metadata as name/value
pairs. Examples include content-specific identifiers, naming data,
and other properties that allow for unbounded values.
There MAY be zero or more rolie:property elements in an atom:entry.
The element MUST adhere to this definition:
rolieProperty =
element rolie:property {
app:appCommonAttributes,
attribute name { atom:atomURI },
attribute value { text }
empty
}
The name attribute provides a URI that identifies the namespace and
name of the property as a URI.
The value attribute is text that provides a value for the property
identified by the name attribute.
For example, the nominal element <rolie:property
name="urn:ietf:params:rolie:property:csirt-iodef-id" value="12345"/>
would expose an IODEF ID value contained in a given entry's content.
The name used in the example also demonstrates the use of a
registered ROLIE property extension, which is described in
Section 7.4.
Implementations MAY use locally defined and namespaced elements in an
Entry in order to provide additional information. Clients that do
not recognize a property with an unregistered name attribute MAY
ignore the rolie:property.
6.2.5. Requirements for a Standalone Entry
If an Entry is ever shared as a standalone resource, separate from
its containing Feed, then the following additional requirements
apply:
o The Entry MUST have an atom:link element with rel="collection" and
href="[IRI of the containing Collection]". This allows the Feed
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
or Feeds for which the Entry is a member to be discovered, along
with the related information the Feed may contain. In the case of
the Entry have multiple containing Feeds, the Entry MUST have one
atom:link for each related Feed.
o The Entry MUST declare the information type of the content
resource referenced by the Entry (see Section 7.1.2).
7. Available Extension Points Provided by ROLIE
This specification does not require particular information types or
data formats; rather, ROLIE is intended to be extended by additional
specifications that define the use of new categories and link
relations. The primary point of extension is through the definition
of new information type category terms. Additional specifications
can register new information type category terms with IANA that serve
as the main characterizing feature of a ROLIE Collection/Feed or
Resource/Entry. These additional specifications defining new
information type terms, can describe additional requirements for
including specific categories, link relations, as well as, use of
specific data formats supporting a given information type term.
7.1. The Category Extension Point
The atom:category element, defined in RFC 4287 section 4.2.2
[RFC4287], provides a mechanism to provide additional categorization
information for a content resource in ROLIE. The ability to define
new categories is one of the core extension points provided by Atom.
A Category Document, defined in RFC 5023 section 7 [RFC5023],
provides a mechanism for an Atom implementation to make discoverable
the atom:category terms and associated allowed values.
ROLIE further defines the use of the existing Atom extension category
mechanism by allowing ROLIE specific category extensions to be
registered with IANA, and additionally has assigned the
"urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type" category scheme
that has special meaning for implementations of ROLIE. This allows
category scheme namespaces to be managed in a more consistent way,
allowing for greater interoperability between content producers and
consumers.
The namespace "urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:local" has been
reserved in the IANA ROLIE Parameters table for private use as
defined in [RFC8126]. Any category whose "scheme" attribute uses
this as a prefix MUST be considered private use. Implementations
encountering such a category MUST parse the content without error,
but MAY otherwise ignore the element.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
Use of the "atom:category" element is discussed in the following
subsections.
7.1.1. General Use of the "atom:category" Element
The atom:category element can be used for characterizing a ROLIE
Resource. As discussed earlier in this document, an atom:category
element has a "term" attribute that indicates the assigned category
value, and a "scheme" attribute that provides an identifier for the
category type. The "scheme" provides a means to describe how a set
of category terms should be used and provides a namespace that can be
used to differentiate terms provided by multiple organizations with
different semantic meaning.
To further differentiate category types used in ROLIE, an IANA sub-
registry has been established for ROLIE protocol parameters to
support the registration of new category "scheme" attribute values by
ROLIE extension specifications. Use of this extension point is
discussed in section 8.3 using the name field with a type parameter
of "category" to indicate a category extension.
7.1.2. Identification of Security Automation Information Types
A ROLIE specific extension point is provided through the
atom:category "scheme" value
"urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type". This value is a
Uniform Resource Name (URN) [RFC8141] that is registered with IANA as
described in section 8.3. When used as the "scheme" attribute in
this way, the "term" attribute is expected to be a registered value
as defined in section Section 8.4. Through this mechanism a given
security automation information type can be used to:
1. identify that an "app:collection" element in a Service Document
points to an Atom Feed that contains Entries pertaining to a
specific type of security automation information (see section
5.1.2), or
2. identify that an "atom:feed" element in an Atom Feed contains
Entries pertaining to a specific type of security automation
information (see section 6.1.1).
3. identify the information type of a standalone Resource (see
section 6.2.5).
For example, the notional security automation information type
"incident" would be identified as follows:
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
<atom:category
scheme="urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type"
term="incident"/>
A security automation information type represents a class of
information that represents the same or similar information model
[RFC3444]. Notional examples of information types include:
indicator: Computing device- or network-related "observable features
and phenomenon that aid in the forensic or proactive detection of
malicious activity; and associated meta-data" (from [RFC7970]).
incident: Information pertaining to and "derived analysis from
security incidents" (from [RFC7970]).
vulnerability reports: Information identifying and describing a
vulnerability in hardware or software.
configuration checklists: Content that can be used to assess the
configuration settings related to installed software.
software tags: Metadata used to identify and characterize
installable software.
This is a short list to inspire new engineering of information type
extensions that support the automation of security processes.
This document does not specify any information types. Instead,
information types in ROLIE are expected to be registered in extension
documents that describe one or more new information types. This
allows the information types used by ROLIE implementations to grow
over time to support new security automation use cases. These
extension documents may also enhance ROLIE Service, Category, Feed,
and Entry documents by defining link relations, other categories, and
Format data model extensions to address the representational needs of
these specific information types. New information types are added to
ROLIE through registrations to the IANA ROLIE Security Resource
Information Type registry defined in section 8.4.
7.2. The "rolie:format" Extension Point
Security automation data pertaining to a given information type may
be expressed using a number of supported formats. As described in
section 6.2.3, the rolie:format element is used to describe the
specific data model used to represent the resource referenced by a
given "atom:entry". The structure provided by the rolie:format
element, provides a mechanism for extension within the atom:entry
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
model. ROLIE extensions MAY further restrict which data models are
allowed to be used for a given information type.
By declaring the data model used for a given Resource, a consumer can
choose to download or ignore the Resource, or look for alternate
formats. This saves the consumer from downloading and parsing
resources that the consumer is not interested in or resources
expressed in formats that are not supported by the consumer.
7.3. The Link Relation Extension Point
This document uses several link relations defined in the IANA Link
Relation Types registry [2]. Additional link relations can be
registered in this registry to allow new relationships to be
represented in ROLIE according to RFC 4287 section 4.2.7.2 [RFC4287].
Based on the preceding reference, if the link relation is too
specific or limited in the intended use, an absolute IRI can be used
in lieu of registering a new simple name with IANA.
7.4. The "rolie:property" Extension Point
As discussed previously in Section 6.2.4, many formats contain unique
identifying and characterizing properties that are vital for sharing
information. In order to provide a global reference for these
properties, this document establishes an IANA registry in Section 8.3
that allows ROLIE extensions to register named properties using the
name field with a type parameter of "property" to indicate a property
extension. Implementations SHOULD prefer the use of registered
properties over implementation specific properties when possible.
ROLIE extensions are expected to register new and use existing
properties to provide valuable identifying and characterizing
information for a given information type and/or format.
The namespace "urn:ietf:params:rolie:property:local" has been
reserved in the IANA ROLIE Parameters table for private use as
defined in [RFC8126]. Any property whose "name" attribute uses this
as a prefix MUST be considered private use. Implementations
encountering such a property MUST parse the content without error,
but MAY otherwise ignore the element.
This document also registers a number of general use properties that
can be used to expose content information in any ROLIE use case. The
following are descriptions of how to use these registered properties:
urn:ietf:params:rolie:property:content-author-name The "value"
attribute of this property is a text representation indicating the
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
individual or organization that authored the content referenced by
the "src" attribute of the entry's atom:content element.
urn:ietf:params:rolie:property:content-id The "value" attribute of
this property is a text representation of an identifier pertaining
to or extracted from the content referenced by the "src" attribute
of the entry's atom:content element.
urn:ietf:params:rolie:property:content-published-date The "value"
attribute of this property is a text representation indicating the
original publication date of the content referenced by the "src"
attribute of the entry's atom:content element. This date may
differ from the published date of the ROLIE Entry because
publication of the content and the ROLIE Entry represent different
events. The date MUST be formatted as specified in [RFC3339].
urn:ietf:params:rolie:property:content-updated-date The "value"
attribute of this property is a text representation indicating the
date that the content, referenced by the "src" attribute of the
entry's atom:content element, was last updated. This date may
differ from the updated date of the ROLIE Entry because updates
made to the content and to the ROLIE Entry are different events.
The date MUST be formatted as specified in [RFC3339].
8. IANA Considerations
This document has a number of IANA considerations described in the
following subsections.
8.1. XML Namespaces and Schema URNs
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688].
ROLIE XML Namespace The ROLIE namespace (rolie-1.0) has been
registered in the "ns" registry.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rolie-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
ROLIE XML Schema The ROLIE schema (rolie-1.0) has been registered in
the "schema" registry.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rolie-1.0
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: See section A of this document.
8.2. ROLIE URN Sub-namespace
IANA has added an entry to the "IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered
Protocol Parameter Identifiers" registry located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xml#params-1> as per
RFC3553 [RFC3553].
The entry is as follows:
Registry name: rolie
Specification: This document
Repository: ROLIE URN Parameters. See Section 8.3 [TO BE REMOVED:
This registration should take place at the following location:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rolie]
Index value: See Section 8.3
8.3. ROLIE URN Parameters
A new top-level registry has been created, entitled "Resource
Oriented Lightweight Information Exchange (ROLIE) Parameters". [TO
BE REMOVED: This registration should take place at the following
location: https://www.iana.org/assignments/rolie]
In this top-level registry, a sub-registry entitled "ROLIE URN
Parameters" has been created. Registration in this repository is via
the Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. Designated Expert
reviews should be routed through the MILE WG mailing list. Failing
this, the Designated Expert will be assigned by the IESG.
Each entry in this sub-registry must record the following fields:
Name: A URN segment that adheres to the pattern {type}:{label}.
The keywords are defined as follows:
{type}: The parameter type. The allowed values are "category"
or "property". "category" denotes a category extension as
discussed in Section 7.1. "property" denotes a property
extension as discussed in Section 7.4.
{label}: A required US-ASCII string that conforms to the URN
syntax requirements (see [RFC8141]). This string must be
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
unique within the namespace defined by the {type} keyword. The
"local" label for both the "category" and "property" types has
been reserved for private use.
Extension IRI: The identifier to use within ROLIE, which is the
full URN using the form: urn:ietf:params:rolie:{name}, where
{name} is the "name" field of this registration.
Reference: A static link to the specification and section that the
definition of the parameter can be found.
Sub-registry: An optional field that links to an IANA sub-registry
for this parameter. If the {type} is "category", the sub-registry
must contain a "name" field whose registered values MUST be US-
ASCII. The list of names are the allowed values of the "term"
attribute in the atom:category element. (See Section 7.1.2).
This repository has the following initial values:
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
+------------+--------------------+-------+-------------------------+
| Name | Extension IRI | Refer | Sub-Registry |
| | | ence | |
+------------+--------------------+-------+-------------------------+
| category:i | urn:ietf:params:ro | This | [TO BE REMOVED: This |
| nformation | lie:category | docum | registration should |
| -type | :information-type | ent, | take place at the |
| | | Secti | following location: htt |
| | | on | ps://www.iana.org/assig |
| | | 8.4 | nments/rolie/category |
| | | | /information-type] |
| property:l | urn:ietf:params:ro | This | None |
| ocal | lie:property:local | docum | |
| | | ent, | |
| | | Secti | |
| | | on | |
| | | 7.4 | |
| category:l | urn:ietf:params:ro | This | None |
| ocal | lie:category:local | docum | |
| | | ent, | |
| | | Secti | |
| | | on | |
| | | 7.1 | |
| property | urn:ietf:params:ro | This | None |
| :content- | lie:property | docum | |
| author- | :content-author- | ent, | |
| name | name | Secti | |
| | | on | |
| | | 7.4 | |
| property | urn:ietf:params:ro | This | None |
| :content- | lie:property | docum | |
| id | :content-id | ent, | |
| | | Secti | |
| | | on | |
| | | 7.4 | |
| property | urn:ietf:params:ro | This | None |
| :content- | lie:property | docum | |
| published- | :content- | ent, | |
| date | published-date | Secti | |
| | | on | |
| | | 7.4 | |
| property | urn:ietf:params:ro | This | None |
| :content- | lie:property | docum | |
| updated- | :content-updated- | ent, | |
| date | date | Secti | |
| | | on | |
| | | 7.4 | |
+------------+--------------------+-------+-------------------------+
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
8.4. ROLIE Security Resource Information Type Sub-Registry
A new sub-registry has been created to store ROLIE information type
values.
Name of Registry: "ROLIE Information Types"
Location of Registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rolie/category/information-type
Fields to record in the registry:
name: The full name of the security resource information type
as a string from the printable ASCII character set [RFC0020]
with individual embedded spaces allowed. The ABNF [RFC5234]
syntax for this field is:
1*VCHAR *(SP 1*VCHAR)
index: This is an IANA-assigned positive integer that
identifies the registration. The first entry added to this
registry uses the value 1, and this value is incremented for
each subsequent entry added to the registry.
reference: A list of one or more URIs [RFC3986] from which the
registered specification can be obtained. The registered
specification MUST be readily and publicly available from that
URI. The URI SHOULD be a stable reference.
Allocation Policy: Specification required as per [RFC8126]
8.5. Well-Known URI Registrations
This document makes the follow two registrations to the Well-Known
URI Registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/
well-known-uris.xhtml.
Service Document registration:
URI suffix: rolie/servicedocument
Change controller: IETF
Specification document: This document, Section 5.1.3
Related information: None
Category Document registration:
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
URI suffix: rolie/categorydocument
Change controller: IETF
Specification document: This document, Section 5.2
Related information: None
9. Security Considerations
This document defines a resource-oriented approach for lightweight
information exchange using HTTP over TLS, the Atom Syndication
Format, and the Atom Publishing Protocol. As such, implementers must
understand the security considerations described in those
specifications. All that follows is guidance, more specific
instruction is out of scope for this document.
To protect the confidentiality of a given resource provided by a
ROLIE implementation, requests for retrieval of the resource need to
be authenticated to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the
resource (see section 5.4). It can also be useful to log and audit
access to sensitive resources to verify that proper access controls
remain in place over time.
The approach described herein is based upon all policy enforcements
being implemented at the point when a resource representation is
created. As such, producers sharing cyber security information using
this specification must take care to authenticate their HTTP clients
using a suitably strong user authentication mechanism. Sharing
communities that are exchanging information on well-known indicators
and incidents for purposes of public education may choose to rely
upon HTTP Authentication or similar. A number of authentication
schemes are defined in the HTTP Authentication Schemes Registry [3].
Of these, HOBA [RFC7486] and SCRAM-SHA-256 [RFC7804] provide improved
security properties over HTTP Basic [RFC7617]and Digest [RFC7616]
Authentication Schemes. However, sharing communities that are
engaged in sensitive collaborative analysis and/or operational
response for indicators and incidents targeting high value
information systems should adopt a suitably stronger user
authentication solution, such as a risk-based or multi-factor
approach. In general, trust in the sharing consortium will depend
upon the members maintaining adequate user authentication mechanisms.
Collaborating consortiums may benefit from the adoption of a
federated identity solution, such as those based upon OAuth [RFC6749]
with JWT [RFC7797], or SAML-core [SAML-core], SAML-bind [SAML-bind],
and SAML-prof [SAML-prof] for Web-based authentication and cross-
organizational single sign-on. Dependency on a trusted third party
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
identity provider implies that appropriate care must be exercised to
sufficiently secure the Identity provider. Any attacks on the
federated identity system would present a risk to the consortium, as
a relying party. Potential mitigations include deployment of a
federation-aware identity provider that is under the control of the
information sharing consortium, with suitably stringent technical and
management controls.
Authorization of resource representations is the responsibility of
the source system, i.e. based on the authenticated user identity
associated with an HTTP(S) request. The required authorization
policies that are to be enforced must therefore be managed by the
security administrators of the source system. Various authorization
architectures would be suitable for this purpose, such as RBAC [4]
and/or ABAC, as embodied in XACML [XACML]. In particular,
implementers adopting XACML may benefit from the capability to
represent their authorization policies in a standardized,
interoperable format. Note that implementers are free to choose any
suitable authorization mechanism that is capable of fulfilling the
policy enforcement requirements relevant to their consortium and/or
organization.
Additional security requirements such as enforcing message-level
security at the destination system could supplement the security
enforcements performed at the source system, however these
destination-provided policy enforcements are out of scope for this
specification. Implementers requiring this capability should
consider leveraging, e.g. the <RIDPolicy> element in the RID schema.
Refer to RFC6545 section 9 for more information. Additionally, the
underlying serialization approach used in the message (e.g., XML,
JSON) can offer encryption and message authentication capabilities.
For example, XMLDSig [RFC3275] for XML, and JSON Web Encryption
[RFC7516] and JSON Web Signature[RFC7515] for JSON can provide such
mechanisms.
When security policies relevant to the source system are to be
enforced at both the source and destination systems, implementers
must take care to avoid unintended interactions of the separately
enforced policies. Potential risks will include unintended denial of
service and/or unintended information leakage. These problems may be
mitigated by avoiding any dependence upon enforcements performed at
the destination system. When distributed enforcement is unavoidable,
the usage of a standard language (e.g. XACML) for the expression of
authorization policies will enable the source and destination systems
to better coordinate and align their respective policy expressions.
A service discovery mechanism is not explicitly specified in this
document, and there are several approaches available for
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
implementers. When selecting this mechanism, implementations need to
ensure that their choice provides a means for authenticating the
server. As described in the discovery section, DNS SRV Records are a
possible secure solution to discovery.
10. Privacy Considerations
The optional author field may provide an identification privacy issue
if populated without the author's consent. This information may
become public if posted to a public feed. Special care should be
taken when aggregating or sharing entries from other feeds, or when
programmatically generating ROLIE entries from some data source that
the author's personal info is not shared without their consent.
When using the Atom Publishing Protocol to POST entries to a feed,
attackers may use correlating techniques to profile the user. The
request time can be compared to the generated "updated" field of the
entry in order to build out information about a given user. This
correlation attempt can be mitigated by not using HTTP requests to
POST entries when profiling is a risk, and rather use backend control
of the feeds.
Adoption of the information sharing approach described in this
document will enable users to more easily perform correlations across
separate, and potentially unrelated, cyber security information
providers. A client may succeed in assembling a data set that would
not have been permitted within the context of the authorization
policies of either provider when considered individually. Thus,
providers may face a risk of an attacker obtaining an access that
constitutes an undetected separation of duties (SOD) violation. It
is important to note that this risk is not unique to this
specification, and a similar potential for abuse exists with any
other cyber security information sharing protocol. However, the wide
availability of tools for HTTP clients and Atom Feed handling implies
that the resources and technical skills required for a successful
exploit may be less than it was previously. This risk can be best
mitigated through appropriate vetting of the client at account
provisioning time. In addition, any increase in the risk of this
type of abuse should be offset by the corresponding increase in
effectiveness that this specification affords to the defenders.
Proper usage of TLS as described in Section 5.3 will in many cases
aid in the mitigation of these issues.
Overall, ROLIE introduces few privacy concerns above and beyond those
present in any other HTTP protocol. Those that exist can be
mitigated by following security considerations and carefully using
the optional identifying elements.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
11. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable contributions of Tom
Maguire, Kathleen Moriarty, and Vijayanand Bharadwaj. These
individuals provided detailed review comments on earlier drafts, and
made many suggestions that have helped to improve this document.
The authors would also like to thank the MILE Working Group, the SACM
Working Group, and countless other people from both within the IETF
community and outside of it for their excellent review and effort
towards constructing this draft.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[relax-NG]
Clark, J., Ed., "RELAX NG Compact Syntax", 11 2002,
<https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/
compact-20021121.html>.
[RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[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/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, DOI 10.17487/RFC3553, June
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3553>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
[RFC4287] Nottingham, M., Ed. and R. Sayre, Ed., "The Atom
Syndication Format", RFC 4287, DOI 10.17487/RFC4287,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4287>.
[RFC4642] Murchison, K., Vinocur, J., and C. Newman, "Using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Network News Transfer
Protocol (NNTP)", RFC 4642, DOI 10.17487/RFC4642, October
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4642>.
[RFC5005] Nottingham, M., "Feed Paging and Archiving", RFC 5005,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5005, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5005>.
[RFC5023] Gregorio, J., Ed. and B. de hOra, Ed., "The Atom
Publishing Protocol", RFC 5023, DOI 10.17487/RFC5023,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5023>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5785, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5785>.
[RFC6546] Trammell, B., "Transport of Real-time Inter-network
Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS", RFC 6546,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6546, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6546>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7589] Badra, M., Luchuk, A., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Using the
NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with
Mutual X.509 Authentication", RFC 7589,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7589, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7589>.
[RFC7970] Danyliw, R., "The Incident Object Description Exchange
Format Version 2", RFC 7970, DOI 10.17487/RFC7970,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7970>.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208]
Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H.
Thompson, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", World
Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208,
December 2009,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-21 (work in progress),
July 2017.
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", 2000,
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
top.htm>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.
[RFC3275] Eastlake 3rd, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible
Markup Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing",
RFC 3275, DOI 10.17487/RFC3275, March 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3275>.
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3444>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
[RFC7486] Farrell, S., Hoffman, P., and M. Thomas, "HTTP Origin-
Bound Authentication (HOBA)", RFC 7486,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7486, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7486>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
[RFC7616] Shekh-Yusef, R., Ed., Ahrens, D., and S. Bremer, "HTTP
Digest Access Authentication", RFC 7616,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7616, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7616>.
[RFC7617] Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme",
RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7617>.
[RFC7797] Jones, M., "JSON Web Signature (JWS) Unencoded Payload
Option", RFC 7797, DOI 10.17487/RFC7797, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7797>.
[RFC7804] Melnikov, A., "Salted Challenge Response HTTP
Authentication Mechanism", RFC 7804, DOI 10.17487/RFC7804,
March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7804>.
[RFC8141] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names
(URNs)", RFC 8141, DOI 10.17487/RFC8141, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141>.
[SAML-bind]
Cantor, S., Hirsch, F., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E.
Maler, "Bindings for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup
Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-bindings-
2.0-os, March 2005, <http://docs.oasis-
open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-bindings-2.0-os.pdf>.
[SAML-core]
Cantor, S., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler,
"Assertions and Protocol for the OASIS Security Assertion
Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-core-
2.0-os, March 2005, <http://docs.oasis-
open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-core-2.0-os.pdf>.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
[SAML-prof]
Hughes, J., Cantor, S., Hodges, J., Hirsch, F., Mishra,
P., Philpott, R., and E. Maler, "Profiles for the OASIS
Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS
Standard OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os, March 2005,
<http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/
saml-profiles-2.0-os.pdf>.
[XACML] Rissanen, E., "eXtensible Access Control Markup Language
(XACML) Version 3.0", August 2010, <http://docs.oasis-
open.org/xacml/3.0/xacml-3.0-core-spec-cs-01-en.pdf>.
12.3. URIs
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-
relations.xhtml
[2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-
relations.xhtml
[3] https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes/http-
authschemes.xhtml
[4] http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/rbac/
Appendix A. Relax NG Compact Schema for ROLIE
This appendix is informative.
The Relax NG schema below defines the rolie:format element.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
# -*- rnc -*-
# RELAX NG Compact Syntax Grammar for the rolie ns
namespace rolie = "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rolie-1.0"
namespace atom = "http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
namespace app = "http://www.w3.org/2007/app"
# rolie:format
rolieFormat =
element rolie:format {
app:appCommonAttributes,
attribute ns { atom:atomURI },
attribute version { text } ?,
attribute schema-location { atom:atomURI } ?,
attribute schema-type { atom:atomMediaType } ?,
empty
}
# rolie:property
rolieProperty =
element rolie:property {
app:appCommonAttributes,
attribute name { atom:atomURI },
attribute value { text }
empty
}
Appendix B. Examples of Use
B.1. Service Discovery
This section provides a non-normative example of a client doing
service discovery.
An Atom Service Document enables a client to dynamically discover
what Feeds a particular publisher makes available. Thus, a provider
uses an Atom Service Document to enable authorized clients to
determine what specific information the provider makes available to
the community. While the Service Document is accessible at a pre-
determined location, the Service Document can also be made accessible
from any well known location, such as via a link from the producer's
home page.
A client may format an HTTP GET request to retrieve the service
document from the specified location:
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
GET /.well-known/rolie/servicedocument
Host: www.example.org
Accept: application/atomsvc+xml
Notice the use of the HTTP Accept: request header, indicating the
MIME type for Atom service discovery. The response to this GET
request will be an XML document that contains information on the
specific Collections that are provided.
Example HTTP GET response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2016 17:09:11 GMT
Content-Length: 570
Content-Type: application/atomsvc+xml;charset="utf-8"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<service xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2007/app"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<workspace>
<atom:title type="text">Vulnerabilities</atom:title>
<collection href="http://example.org/provider/vulns">
<atom:title type="text">Vulnerabilities Feed</atom:title>
<categories fixed="yes">
<atom:category
scheme="urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type"
term="vulnerability"/>
</categories>
</collection>
</workspace>
</service>
This simple Service Document example shows that the server provides
one workspace, named "Vunerabilities". Within that workspace, the
server makes one Collection available.
A server may also offer a number of different Collections, each
containing different types of security automation information. In
the following example, a number of different Collections are
provided, each with its own category and authorization scope. This
categorization will help the clients to decide which Collections will
meet their needs.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2016 17:10:11 GMT
Content-Length: 1912
Content-Type: application/atomsvc+xml;charset="utf-8"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding='utf-8'?>
<service xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2007/app"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<workspace>
<atom:title>Public Security Information Sharing</atom:title>
<collection
href="http://example.org/provider/public/vulns">
<atom:title>Public Vulnerabilities</atom:title>
<atom:link rel="service"
href="www.example.com/rolie/servicedocument"/>
<categories fixed="yes">
<atom:category
scheme="urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type"
term="vulnerability"/>
</categories>
</collection>
</workspace>
<workspace>
<atom:title>Private Consortium Sharing</atom:title>
<collection
href="http://example.org/provider/private/incidents">
<atom:title>Incidents</atom:title>
<atom:link rel="service"
href="www.example.com/rolie/servicedocument"/>
<categories fixed="yes">
<atom:category
scheme="urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type"
term="incident"/>
</categories>
</collection>
</workspace>
</service>
In this example, the provider is making available a total of two
Collections, organized into two different workspaces. The first
workspace contains a Collection consisting of publicly available
software vulnerabilities. The second workspace provides an incident
Collection for use by a private sharing consortium. An appropriately
authenticated and authorized client may then proceed to make HTTP
requests for these Collections. The publicly provided vulnerability
information may be accessible with or without authentication.
However, users accessing the Collection restricted to authorized
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
members of a private sharing consortium are expected to authenticate
before access is allowed.
B.2. Feed Retrieval
This section provides a non-normative example of a client retrieving
an vulnerability Feed.
Having discovered the available security information sharing
Collections, a client who is a member of the general public may be
interested in receiving the Collection of public vulnerabilities.
The client may retrieve the Feed for this Collection by performing an
HTTP GET operation on the URL indicated by the Collection's "href"
attribute.
Example HTTP GET request for a Feed:
GET /provider/public/vulns
Host: www.example.org
Accept: application/atom+xml
The corresponding HTTP response would be an XML document containing
the vulnerability Feed:
Example HTTP GET response for a Feed:
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2016 17:20:11 GMT
Content-Length: 2882
Content-Type: application/atom+xml;charset="utf-8"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:rolie="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rolie-1.0"
xml:lang="en-US">
<id>2a7e265a-39bc-43f2-b711-b8fd9264b5c9</id>
<title type="text">
Atom formatted representation of
a feed of XML vulnerability documents
</title>
<category
scheme="urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type"
term="vulnerability"/>
<updated>2016-05-04T18:13:51.0Z</updated>
<link rel="self"
href="http://example.org/provider/public/vulns" />
<link rel="service"
href="http://example.org/rolie/servicedocument"/>
<entry>
<rolie:format ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:exampleformat"/>
<id>dd786dba-88e6-440b-9158-b8fae67ef67c</id>
<title>Sample Vulnerability</title>
<published>2015-08-04T18:13:51.0Z</published>
<updated>2015-08-05T18:13:51.0Z</updated>
<summary>A vulnerability issue identified by CVE-...</summary>
<content type="application/xml"
src="http://www.example.org/provider/vulns/123456/data"/>
</entry>
<entry>
<!-- ...another entry... -->
</entry>
</feed>
This Feed document has two Atom Entries, one of which has been
elided. The first Entry illustrates an atom:entry element that
provides a summary of essential details about one particular
vulnerability. Based upon this summary information and the provided
category information, a client may choose to do an HTTP GET request,
on the content "src" attribute, to retrieve the full details of the
vulnerability.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
B.3. Entry Retrieval
This section provides a non-normative example of a client retrieving
an vulnerability as an Atom Entry.
Having retrieved the Feed of interest, the client may then decide,
based on the description and/or category information, that one of the
entries in the Feed is of further interest. The client may retrieve
this vulnerability Entry by performing an HTTP GET operation on the
URL indicated by the "src" attribute of the atom:content element.
Example HTTP GET request for an Entry:
GET /provider/public/vulns/123456
Host: www.example.org
Accept: application/atom+xml;type=entry
The corresponding HTTP response would be an XML document containing
the Atom Entry for the vulnerability record:
Example HTTP GET response for an Entry:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2016 17:30:11 GMT
Content-Length: 713
Content-Type: application/atom+xml;type=entry;charset="utf-8"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:rolie="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rolie-1.0"
xml:lang="en-US">
<id>f63aafa9-4082-48a3-9ce6-97a2d69d4a9b</id>
<title>Sample Vulnerability</title>
<published>2015-08-04T18:13:51.0Z</published>
<updated>2015-08-05T18:13:51.0Z</updated>
<category
scheme="urn:ietf:params:rolie:category:information-type"
term="vulnerability"/>
<summary>A vulnerability issue identified by CVE-...</summary>
<rolie:format ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:exampleformat"/>
<content type="application/xml"
src="http://www.example.org/provider/vulns/123456/data">
</content>
</entry>
The example response above shows an XML document referenced by the
"src" attribute of the atom:content element. The client may retrieve
the document using this URL.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
Appendix C. Change History
Changes in draft-ietf-mile-rolie-09 since draft-ietf-mile-rolie-08
revision:
TLS requirements changed to clarify TLS versioning and
recommendations
Informative references and textual discussion added to Security
Considerations around HTTP Authentication and content Signing/
Encryption.
IANA Expert review clarified.
Editorial changes from AD review/WGLC.
Changes in draft-ietf-mile-rolie-08 since draft-ietf-mile-rolie-07
revision:
Reworked "usage of app:collection" and "usage of atom:feed"
sections to clarify ROLIE vs non-ROLIE collections/feeds
Removed requirement from Security Considerations that was a
duplicate of text earlier in the document
TLS requirement clarifications around mutal authentication
Clarified requirements around support for the "/" resource
Added IANA property registrations for content-id, content-
published-date, and content-updated-date that can be used across
all ROLIE extensions to increase consistency/interop
Assorted editorial changes
Changes in draft-ietf-mile-rolie-07 since draft-ietf-mile-rolie-06
revision:
Condensed and re-focused Sections 1 and 4 to be more concise.
Added /.well-known/ registration and requirement for service
discovery.
Added local category, property namespace, and additional property
registrations
Added privacy considerations section.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
Made a number of editorial changes as per WGLC review.
Changes in draft-ietf-mile-rolie-06 since draft-ietf-mile-rolie-05
revision:
Changed to standards track
Added the rolie:property element
Fixed references (Normative vs Informative)
Set Service and Category document URL template requirements
Fixed XML snippets in examples
Changes in draft-ietf-mile-rolie-05 since draft-ietf-mile-rolie-04
revision:
Added ROLIE specific terminology to section 2
Added AtomPub Category Document in section 5.2
Edited document, improving consistency in terminology usage and
capitalization of key terms, as well as enhancing clarity.
Removed unused format parameter type in section 8.3
Schema removed, the normative schema consists of the snippets in
the requirements sections.
Changes in draft-ietf-mile-rolie-04 since draft-ietf-mile-rolie-03
revision:
o Further specification and clarification of requirements
o IANA Considerations and extension system fleshed out and
described.
o Examples and References updated.
o Schema created.
o Fixed both internal section and external document referencing.
o Removed XACML Guidance Appendix. This will be added to a future
draft on ROLIE Authentication and Access Control.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
Changes made in draft-ietf-mile-rolie-03 since draft-ietf-mile-
rolie-02 revision:
o Atom Syndication and Atom Pub requirements split and greatly
expanded for increased justification and technical specification.
o Reintroduction and reformatting of some use case examples in order
to provide some guidance on use.
o Established rough version of IANA table extension system along
with explanations of said system.
o Re-organized document to put non-vital information in appendices.
Changes made in draft-ietf-mile-rolie-02 since draft-field-mile-
rolie-01 revision:
o All CSIRT and IODEF/RID material moved to companion CSIRT document
o Recast document into a more general use perspective. The
implication of CSIRTs as the defacto end-user has been removed
where ever possible. All of the original CSIRT based use cases
remain completely supported by this document, it has been opened
up to support many other use cases.
o Changed the content model to broaden support of representation
o Edited and rewrote much of sections 1,2 and 3 in order to
accomplish a broader scope and greater readability
o Removed any requirements from the Background section and, if not
already stated, placed them in the requirements section
o Re-formatted the requirements section to make it clearer that it
contains the lions-share of the requirements of the specification
Changes made in draft-ietf-mile-rolie-01 since draft-field-mile-
rolie-02 revision:
o Added section specifying the use of RFC5005 for Archive and Paging
of Feeds.
o Added section describing use of atom categories that correspond to
IODEF expectation class and impact classes. See: normative-
expectation-impact
o Dropped references to adoption of a MILE-specific HTTP media type
parameter.
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft ROLIE September 2017
o Updated IANA Considerations section to clarify that no IANA
actions are required.
Authors' Addresses
John P. Field
Pivotal Software, Inc.
625 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York
USA
Phone: (646)792-5770
Email: jfield@pivotal.io
Stephen A. Banghart
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, Maryland
USA
Phone: (301)975-4288
Email: stephen.banghart@nist.gov
David Waltermire
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
USA
Email: david.waltermire@nist.gov
Field, et al. Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 46]
