Internet-Draft Multi-Push SET February 2025
Deshpande & Parecki Expires 14 August 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Security Events
Internet-Draft:
draft-deshpande-secevent-http-multi-push-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
A. Deshpande
Okta
A. Parecki
Okta

Multi-Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP

Abstract

This specification defines how multiple Security Event Tokens (SETs) can be delivered to an intended recipient using HTTP POST over TLS. The SETs are 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.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://drafts.aaronpk.com/draft-deshpande-secevent-http-multi-push/draft-deshpande-secevent-http-multi-push.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deshpande-secevent-http-multi-push/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the Security Events Working Group mailing list (mailto:id-event@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/id-event/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/aaronpk/draft-deshpande-secevent-http-multi-push.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 August 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This specification defines a mechanism by which a transmitter of a Security Event Token (SET) [RFC8417] can deliver multiple SETs to an intended SET Recipient via HTTP POST [RFC7231] over TLS in a single POST call. [RFC8935] focuses on the delivery of the single SET to the receiver. This specification builds onto [RFC8935] to transmit multiple SETs to the receiver in a single POST call.

Multi-push SET delivery is intended to help in following scenarios:

Multi-push specification will handle all the usecases and scenarios for the [RFC8935] and make it more extensible to support multiple SETs per one outbound POST call.

Similar to [RFC8935] this specification makes 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.

2. Multi-Push Endpoint

Each Receiver that supports this specification MUST support a "multi-push" endpoint. This endpoint MUST be capable of serving HTTP POST [RFC7231] requests. This endpoint MUST be TLS [RFC8446] enabled and MUST reject any communication not using TLS. The Transmitter obtains the multi-push endpoint outside the scope of this specification.

3. SET delivery semantics

In a multi-push based SET delivery using HTTP over TLS, zero or more SETs are delivered in a JSON [RFC8259] document to the SET Receiver. The receiver either acknowledges the successful receipt of the SETs or indicates failure in processing of one or more SETs in a JSON document to the Transmitter.

After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, SET Transmitters are not required to retain or record SETs for retransmission. Once a SET is acknowledged, the SET Recipient SHALL be responsible for retention, if needed. Transmitters may also discard undelivered SETs under deployment-specific conditions, such as if they have not been acknowledged (successful or failure) for over too long a period of time or if an excessive amount of storage is needed to retain them.

Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates it in the manner described in Section 2 of [RFC8935]. The SET Recipient MUST acknowledge receipt to the SET Transmitter, and SHOULD do so in a timely fashion (e.g., miliseconds). The SET Recipient SHALL NOT use the event acknowledgement mechanism to report event errors other than those relating to the parsing and validation of the SET.

3.1. Acknowledgement for all SETs

A Transmitter MUST ensure that it includes the jti value of each SET it receives, either in an ack or a setErrs value, to the Transmitter from which it received the SETs. A Transmitter SHOULD retry sending the same SET again if it was never responded to either in an ack value or in a setErrs value by a receiver in a reasonable time period. A Transmitter MAY limit the number of times it retries sending a SET. A Transmitter MAY publish the retry time period and maximum number of retries to its peers, but such publication is outside the scope of this specification.

3.2. Uniqueness of SETs

A Transmitter MUST NOT send two SETs with the same jti value if the SET has been either acknowledged through ack value or produced an error indicated by a setErrs value. If a Transmitter wishes to re-send an event after it has received a error response through a setErrs value, then it MUST generate a new SET that has a new (and unique) jti value.

3.3. Transmitting SETs

A Transmitter may initiate communication with the receiver in order to:

  • Send SETs to the Receiver

  • Receive acknowledgement of the SETs in response

The body of this request is of the content type "application/json". It MAY contain the following fields:

sets OPTIONAL. A JSON object containing key-value pairs in which the key of a field is a string that contains the jti claim of the SET that is specified in the value of the field. This field MAY be omitted to indicate that no SETs are being delivered by the initiator in this communication. The Transmitter SHOULD limit 20 SETs in the sets.

The following is a non-normative example of a response.

  {
    "sets": {
      "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":
      "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.
      eyJqdGkiOiI0ZDM1NTllYzY3NTA0YWFiYTY1ZDQwYjAzNjNmYWFkOCIsImlhdC
      I6MTQ1ODQ5NjQwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwi
      YXVkIjpbImh0dHBzOi8vc2NpbS5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MW
      ZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0Zl
      ZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIxZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwiZXZlbnRzIjp7InVybj
      ppZXRmOnBhcmFtczpzY2ltOmV2ZW50OmNyZWF0ZSI6eyJyZWYiOiJodHRwczov
      L3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVXNlcnMvNDRmNjE0MmRmOTZiZDZhYjYxZTc1Mj
      FkOSIsImF0dHJpYnV0ZXMiOlsiaWQiLCJuYW1lIiwidXNlck5hbWUiLCJwYXNz
      d29yZCIsImVtYWlscyJdfX19.",
      "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30":
      "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.
      eyJqdGkiOiIzZDBjM2NmNzk3NTg0YmQxOTNiZDBmYjFiZDRlN2QzMCIsImlhdC
      I6MTQ1ODQ5NjAyNSwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwi
      YXVkIjpbImh0dHBzOi8vamh1Yi5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MW
      ZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9qaHViLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0Zl
      ZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIxZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwic3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly
      9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL1VzZXJzLzQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIx
      ZDkiLCJldmVudHMiOnsidXJuOmlldGY6cGFyYW1zOnNjaW06ZXZlbnQ6cGFzc3
      dvcmRSZXNldCI6eyJpZCI6IjQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkifSwi
      aHR0cHM6Ly9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9zY2ltL2V2ZW50L3Bhc3N3b3JkUmVzZXRFeH
      QiOnsicmVzZXRBdHRlbXB0cyI6NX19fQ."
    }
  }

Figure 1: Example of SET Transmission

In the above example, the Transmitter is sending 2 SETs to the Receiver.

  {
    "sets": {},
  }

Figure 2: Example of empty SET transmission

In the above example, the Transmitter is sending zero SETs to the Receiver. This placeholder/empty request provides the Receiver to respond back with ack/err for previously transmitted SETs

3.4. Response Communication

A Receiver MUST repond to the communication by sending an HTTP response. The body of this response is of the content type "application/json". It contains MAY contain the following fields:

ack OPTIONAL. An array of strings, in which each string is the jti value of a previously received SET that is acknowledged in this object. This array MAY be empty or this field MAY be omitted to indicate that no previously received SETs are being acknowledged in this communication.

setErrs OPTIONAL. A JSON object containing key-value pairs in which the key of a field is a string that contains the jti value of a previously received SET that the sender of the communication object was unable to process. The value of the field is a JSON object that has the following fields:

err OPTIONAL. The short reason why the specified SET failed to be processed.

description OPTIONAL. An explanation of why the SET failed to be processed

3.4.1. Success Response

If the Receiver is successful in processing the request, it MUST return the HTTP status code 200 (OK). The response MUST have the content-type "application/json".

  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
  Content-type: application/json

  {
    "ack": [
      "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
    ]
  }

Figure 3: Example of SET Transmission response with ack

In the above example, the Receiver acknowledges one of the SETs it previously received. There are no errors reported by the Receiver.

  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
  Content-type: application/json

  {
     "ack": [
      "f52901c499611ef94540242ac12000322",
      "0636e274399711ef9454-0242ac120002",
      "d563c72479a04ff0ba415657fa5e2cb11"
     ],
     "setErrs": {
      "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8" : {
        "err": "invalid subject",
        "description": "subject format not supported"
      }
     }
  }

Figure 4: Example of SET Transmission response, ack and errors

In the above example, the Receiver acknowledges three of the SETs it previously received. There are errors reported by the Receiver for acklowledging one SET.

3.4.1.1. Out of order delivery

A Response may contain jti values in its ack or setErrs that do not correspond to the SETs received in the same Request to which the Response is being sent. They MAY consist of values received in previous Requests.

3.4.2. Error Response

The receiver MUST respond with an error response if it is unable to process the request. The error response MUST include the appropriate error code as described in Section 2.4 of [RFC8935].

4. Authentication and Authorization

The Transmitter MUST verify the identity of the Receiver by validating the TLS certification presented by the Receiver, and verifying that it is the intended recipient of the request, before sending the SETs.

The Transmitter MUST attempt to obtain the OAuth Protected Resource Metadata [I-D.ietf-oauth-resource-metadata] for the Receiver's multi-push endpoint. If such metadata is found, the Transmitter MUST obtain an access token using the metadata. If no such metadata is found, then the Transmitter MAY use any means to authorize itself to the Receiver.

5. Delivery Reliability

A Transmitter MUST attempt to deliver any SETs it has previously attempted to deliver to a Peer until: - It receives an acknowledgement through the ack value for that SET in a subsequent communication with the Peer - It receives a setErrs object for that SET in a subsequent communication with the Peer - It has attempted to deliver the SET a maximum number of times and has failed to communicate either due to communication errors or lack of inclusion in ack or setErrs in subsequent communications that were conducted for the maximum number of times. The maximum number of attempts MAY be set by the Transmitter for itself and SHOULD be communicated offline to the Peers

Additionally consider Delivery Relieability aspects discussed in Section 4 of [RFC8935] .

6. Conventions and Definitions

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.

7. Security Considerations

7.1. Too many SETs in the response

Receiver MUST inform the transmitter (out of band) the maximum number of SETs that could be consumed in a single call. The Transmitter MUST obey the maximum number of SETs to be communicated to the receiver. This will avoid any potential truncations/loss of information at the receiver.

7.2. Authentication and Authorization

Transmitter MUST follow the procedures described in section Section 4 in order to securely authenticate and authorize Peers

7.3. HTTP and TLS

Transmitter MUST use TLS [RFC8446] to communicate with Receiver and is subject to the security considerations of HTTP Section 17 of [RFC9110].

Additional security consideration in Section 5 of [RFC8935].

8. Privacy Considerations

Privacy Considerations from Section 6 of [RFC8935] apply.

9. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

10. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-oauth-resource-metadata]
Jones, M. B., Hunt, P., and A. Parecki, "OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-13, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-13>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC7231]
Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8259]
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259>.
[RFC8417]
Hunt, P., Ed., Jones, M., Denniss, W., and M. Ansari, "Security Event Token (SET)", RFC 8417, DOI 10.17487/RFC8417, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8417>.
[RFC8446]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.
[RFC8935]
Backman, A., Ed., Jones, M., Ed., Scurtescu, M., Ansari, M., and A. Nadalin, "Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTP", RFC 8935, DOI 10.17487/RFC8935, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8935>.
[RFC9110]
Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.

Authors' Addresses

Apoorva Deshpande
Okta
Aaron Parecki
Okta