Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP
RFC 8935
Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (November 2020; No errata) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Annabelle Backman , Michael Jones , Marius Scurtescu , Morteza Ansari , Anthony Nadalin | ||
Last updated | 2020-11-30 | ||
Replaces | draft-ietf-secevent-delivery | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Yaron Sheffer | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2019-05-10) | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 8935 (Proposed Standard) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Benjamin Kaduk | ||
Send notices to | Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> | ||
IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Backman, Ed. Request for Comments: 8935 Amazon Category: Standards Track M. Jones, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 Microsoft M. Scurtescu Coinbase M. Ansari A. Nadalin Independent November 2020 Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP Abstract This specification defines how a Security Event Token (SET) can be delivered to an intended recipient using HTTP POST over TLS. The SET is transmitted in the body of an HTTP POST request to an endpoint operated by the recipient, and the recipient indicates successful or failed transmission via the HTTP response. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8935. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview 1.1. Notational Conventions 1.2. Definitions 2. SET Delivery 2.1. Transmitting a SET 2.2. Success Response 2.3. Failure Response 2.4. Security Event Token Error Codes 3. Authentication and Authorization 4. Delivery Reliability 5. Security Considerations 5.1. Authentication Using Signed SETs 5.2. HTTP Considerations 5.3. Confidentiality of SETs 5.4. Denial of Service 5.5. Authenticating Persisted SETs 6. Privacy Considerations 7. IANA Considerations 7.1. Security Event Token Error Codes 7.1.1. Registration Template 7.1.2. Initial Registry Contents 8. References 8.1. Normative References 8.2. Informative References Appendix A. Unencrypted Transport Considerations Acknowledgments Authors' Addresses 1. Introduction and Overview This specification defines a mechanism by which a transmitter of a Security Event Token (SET) [RFC8417] can deliver the SET to an intended SET Recipient via HTTP POST [RFC7231] over TLS. This is an alternative SET delivery method to the one defined in [RFC8936]. Push-based SET delivery over HTTP POST is intended for scenarios where all of the following apply: * The transmitter of the SET is capable of making outbound HTTP requests. * The recipient is capable of hosting a TLS-enabled HTTP endpoint that is accessible to the transmitter. * The transmitter and recipient are willing to exchange data with one another. In some scenarios, either push-based or poll-based delivery could be used, and in others, only one of them would be applicable. A mechanism for exchanging configuration metadata such as endpoint URLs, cryptographic keys, and possible implementation constraints such as buffer size limitations between the transmitter and recipient is out of scope for this specification. How SETs are defined and the process by which security events are identified for SET Recipients are specified in [RFC8417]. 1.1. 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. Throughout this document, all figures may contain spaces and extra line wrapping for readability and due to space limitations.Show full document text