Poll-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTPAmazonrichanna@amazon.comMicrosoftmbj@microsoft.comhttps://self-issued.info/Coinbasemarius.scurtescu@coinbase.comIndependentmorteza@sharppics.comIndependentnadalin@prodigy.net
Security
Security Events Working GroupJSON Web TokenJWTSecurity Event TokenSETDeliveryJavaScript Object NotationJSON
This specification defines how a series of Security Event Tokens
(SETs) can be delivered to an intended recipient
using HTTP POST over TLS initiated as a poll by the recipient. The
specification also defines how delivery can be assured, subject to
the SET Recipient's need for assurance.
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
.
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
() 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
. Introduction and Overview
. Notational Conventions
. Definitions
. SET Delivery
. Polling Delivery using HTTP
. Polling HTTP Request
. Polling HTTP Response
. Poll Request
. Poll-Only Request
. Acknowledge-Only Request
. Poll with Acknowledgement
. Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors
. Poll Response
. Poll Error Response
. Error Response Handling
. Authentication and Authorization
. Security Considerations
. Authentication Using Signed SETs
. HTTP Considerations
. Confidentiality of SETs
. Access Token Considerations
. Bearer Token Considerations
. Privacy Considerations
. IANA Considerations
. References
. Normative References
. Informative References
. Unencrypted Transport Considerations
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
Introduction and Overview
This specification defines how a stream of
Security Event Tokens (SETs)
can be transmitted to an intended
SET Recipient using HTTP
over TLS. The specification defines a method to poll for SETs
using HTTP POST.
This is an alternative SET delivery method to the one defined in
.
Poll-based SET delivery is intended for scenarios where all of
the following apply:
The recipient of the SET is capable of making outbound HTTP requests.
The transmitter is capable of hosting a TLS-enabled HTTP endpoint that is accessible
to the recipient.
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
.
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 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.
Definitions
This specification utilizes terminology defined in
and .
SET Delivery
When a SET is available for a SET Recipient, the SET Transmitter
queues the SET in a buffer so that
a SET Recipient can poll for SETs using HTTP POST.
In poll-based SET delivery using HTTP over TLS, zero or more SETs are
delivered in a JSON document
to a SET Recipient in response to an HTTP POST request to the
SET Transmitter. Then in a following request, the SET Recipient
acknowledges received SETs and can poll for more. All requests and
responses are JSON documents and use a
Content-Type of
application/json, as described in
.
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 polled for over too long a period of time
or if an excessive amount of storage is needed to retain them.
Upon receiving a SET, the SET Recipient reads the SET and validates
it in the manner described in .
The SET Recipient MUST acknowledge receipt to the SET Transmitter,
and SHOULD do so in a timely fashion, as described in .
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.
Polling Delivery using HTTPThis method allows a SET Recipient to use HTTP POST
() to acknowledge
SETs and to check for and receive zero or more SETs. Requests
MAY be made at a periodic interval (short polling) or requests
MAY wait, pending availability of new SETs using long polling,
per .
Note that short polling will result in retrieving zero or more SETs
whereas long polling will typically result in retrieving one or more SETs
unless a timeout occurs.
The delivery of SETs in this method is facilitated by HTTP
POST requests initiated by the SET Recipient in which:
The SET Recipient makes a request for available SETs
using an HTTP POST to a pre-arranged endpoint provided by the SET
Transmitter, or
after validating previously received SETs, the SET Recipient
initiates another poll request using HTTP POST that includes
acknowledgement of previous SETs and requests the next batch
of SETs.
The purpose of the acknowledgement is to inform the
SET Transmitter that delivery has succeeded and
redelivery is no longer required.
Before acknowledgement, SET Recipients validate the received SETs
and retain them in a manner appropriate to the recipient's
requirements. The level and method of retention of SETs
by SET Recipients is out of scope of this specification.Polling HTTP RequestWhen initiating a poll request, the SET Recipient constructs
a JSON document that consists of polling request parameters
and SET acknowledgement parameters in the form of JSON objects.
When making a request, the HTTP Content-Type header field
is set to application/json.The following JSON object members are used in a polling request:
Request Processing Parameters
maxEvents
An OPTIONAL integer value
indicating the maximum number of unacknowledged SETs to be returned.
The SET Transmitter SHOULD NOT send more SETs than the specified maximum.
If more than the maximum number of SETs
are available, the SET Transmitter determines which to return first;
the oldest SETs available MAY be returned first,
or another selection algorithm MAY be used,
such as prioritizing SETs in some manner that makes sense for the use case.
A value of 0MAY be used by
SET Recipients that would like to perform an acknowledge-only
request. This enables the Recipient to use separate HTTP requests
for acknowledgement and reception of SETs.
If this parameter is omitted, no limit is placed on
the number of SETs to be returned.
returnImmediately
An OPTIONAL JSON
boolean value that indicates the SET Transmitter SHOULD return
an immediate response even if no results are available
(short polling). The default value is false,
which indicates the request is to be treated as an HTTP long poll,
per . The timeout for the
request is part of the configuration between the participants, which is out of
scope of this specification.
SET Acknowledgment Parameters
ack
A JSON array of strings whose values are the jti values of successfully
received SETs that are being acknowledged. If there are no
outstanding SETs to acknowledge, this member is omitted or
contains an empty array. Once a SET has been acknowledged, the
SET Transmitter is released from any obligation to retain the
SET.
setErrs
A JSON object with one or more members whose keys
are the jti values of
invalid SETs received.
The values of these objects are themselves JSON objects that
describe the errors detected using the
err and
description values
specified in .
If there are no outstanding SETs with errors to report, this member is omitted
or contains an empty JSON object.
Polling HTTP ResponseIn response to a poll request, the SET Transmitter checks for
available SETs and responds with a JSON document containing
the following JSON object members:
sets
A JSON object containing zero or more SETs being returned.
Each member name
is the jti of a SET to
be delivered, and its value is a JSON string representing the
corresponding SET. If there are no
outstanding SETs to be transmitted, the JSON object SHALL be
empty.
Note that both SETs being transmitted for the first time and
SETs that are being retransmitted after not having been acknowledged
are communicated here.
moreAvailable
A JSON boolean value that
indicates if more unacknowledged SETs are available to be returned.
This member MAY be omitted, with the meaning being the same as
including it with the boolean value false.
When making a response, the HTTP Content-Type header field
is set to application/json.Poll RequestThe SET Recipient performs an HTTP POST (see
) to a pre-arranged
polling endpoint URI to check for SETs that are available.
Because the SET Recipient has no prior SETs to
acknowledge, the ack and
setErrs request parameters are omitted.
After a period of time configured in an out-of-band manner between the SET
Transmitter and Recipient, a SET Transmitter MAY redeliver SETs
it has previously delivered. The SET Recipient SHOULD accept
repeat SETs and acknowledge the SETs regardless of whether the
Recipient believes it has already acknowledged the SETs previously.
A SET Transmitter MAY limit the number of times it attempts to
deliver a SET.
If the SET Recipient has received SETs from the
SET Transmitter, the SET Recipient parses and validates that
received SETs meet its own requirements and SHOULD acknowledge
receipt in a timely fashion (e.g., seconds or minutes) so that the SET
Transmitter can mark the SETs as received. SET Recipients SHOULD
acknowledge receipt before taking any local actions based on
the SETs to avoid unnecessary delay in acknowledgement, where
possible.
Poll requests have three variations:
Poll-Only
In this scenario, a SET Recipient
asks for the next set of events where no previous SET deliveries
are acknowledged (such as in the initial poll request).
Acknowledge-Only
In this scenario, a SET
Recipient sets the maxEvents
value to 0 along with
ack and
setErrs members indicating the
SET Recipient is acknowledging previously received SETs and
does not want to receive any new SETs in response to the
request.
Combined Acknowledge and Poll
In this scenario, a SET Recipient is both acknowledging previously
received SETs using the ack and setErrs members
and will wait for the next group of SETs in the SET Transmitters
response.
Poll-Only RequestIn the case where no SETs were received in a previous poll (see
), the SET Recipient simply
polls without acknowledgement parameters (ack
and setErrs).
The following is a non-normative example request made by a SET Recipient
that has no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling
for available SETs at the endpoint
https://notify.idp.example.com/Events:
A SET Recipient can poll using default parameter values by passing
an empty JSON object.The following is a non-normative example default poll request to the
endpoint https://notify.idp.example.com/Events:Acknowledge-Only RequestIn this variation, the SET Recipient acknowledges previously
received SETs and indicates it does not want to receive SETs in
response by setting the maxEvents
value to 0.
This variation might be used, for instance, when a SET Recipient needs to
acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g., on separate threads)
from the process of receiving SETs.
If the poll needs to return immediately, then returnImmediatelyMUST also be present with the value true.
If it is false, then a long poll will still occur
until an event is ready to be returned, even though no events will be returned.
The following is a non-normative example poll request with acknowledgement
of SETs received (for example, as shown in
):Poll with AcknowledgementThis variation allows a recipient thread to simultaneously
acknowledge previously received SETs and wait for the next
group of SETs in a single request.The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement
of the SETs received in :In the above acknowledgement, the SET Recipient has acknowledged
receipt of two SETs and has indicated it wants to wait until
the next SET is available.Poll with Acknowledgement and ErrorsIn the case where errors were detected in previously
delivered SETs, the SET Recipient MAY use the
setErrs member to communicate the errors
in the following poll request.
The following is a non-normative example of a response
acknowledging one successfully received SET and one SET with an error
from the two SETs received in :Poll ResponseIn response to a valid poll request, the service provider MAY
respond immediately if SETs are available to be delivered.
If no SETs are available at the time of the request, the
SET Transmitter SHALL delay responding until a SET is
available or the timeout interval has elapsed unless the poll request parameter
returnImmediately is present with the value true.
As described in , a JSON document
is returned containing members including
sets, which SHALL contain zero or more
SETs.The following is a non-normative example response to
the request shown in . This example
shows two SETs being returned:In the above example, two SETs whose jti values
are 4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8
and 3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30
are delivered.The following is a non-normative example response to
the request shown in , which indicates that no new
SETs or unacknowledged SETs are available:Upon receiving the JSON document (e.g., as shown in ), the SET Recipient parses
and verifies the received SETs and notifies the SET Transmitter of
successfully received SETs and SETs with errors via the next poll
request to the SET Transmitter, as described in Sections and .Poll Error ResponseIn the event of a general HTTP error condition in the context of
processing a poll request, the service provider responds with
the applicable HTTP response status code, as defined in .Service providers MAY respond to any invalid poll request with an HTTP response
status code of 400 (Bad Request) even when a more specific code might apply, for
example, if the service provider deemed that a more specific code presented an
information disclosure risk. When no more specific code might apply, the service
provider SHALL respond to an invalid poll
request with an HTTP status code of 400.
The response body for responses to invalid poll requests is left undefined,
and its contents SHOULD be ignored.
The following is a non-normative example of a response to an invalid poll request:
Error Response Handling
If a SET is invalid,
error codes from the IANA "Security Event Token Error Codes"
registry established by
are used in error responses.
As described in , an error response is a JSON
object providing details about the error that includes the following
name/value pairs:
err:
A value from the
IANA "Security Event Token Error Codes" registry
that identifies the error.
description:
A human-readable string that provides
additional diagnostic information.
When included as part of a batch of SETs, the above JSON is included
as part of the setErrs member, as
defined in Sections and
.
When the SET Recipient includes one or more error responses in a request to
the SET Transmitter, it must also include in the request a
Content-Language header field whose value indicates the
language of the error descriptions included in the request. The method of
language selection in the case when the SET Recipient can provide error messages
in multiple languages is out of scope for this specification.
Authentication and AuthorizationThe SET delivery method described in this specification is
based upon HTTP over TLS and standard
HTTP authentication and authorization schemes, as per
.
The TLS server certificate MUST be validated using DNS-ID
and/or DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) .
As per , a SET
delivery endpoint SHALL indicate supported HTTP authentication
schemes via the WWW-Authenticate header field
when using HTTP authentication.
Authorization for the eligibility to provide actionable SETs can be determined by
using the identity of the SET Issuer,
validating the identity of the SET Transmitter,
or via other employed authentication methods.
Likewise, the SET Transmitter may choose to validate the identity of the SET Recipient,
perhaps using mutual TLS.
Because SETs are
not commands, SET Recipients are free to ignore SETs that
are not of interest after acknowledging their receipt.Security ConsiderationsAuthentication Using Signed SETs
JWS signed SETs can be
used (see and )
to enable the SET Recipient
to validate that the SET Issuer is authorized to provide actionable SETs.
HTTP ConsiderationsSET delivery depends on the use of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol and is thus
subject to the security considerations of HTTP () and its related specifications.Confidentiality of SETs
SETs may contain sensitive information, including Personally
Identifiable Information (PII), or be distributed through third
parties. In such cases, SET Transmitters and SET Recipients
MUST protect the confidentiality of the SET contents.
In some use cases, using TLS to secure the transmitted SETs will be
sufficient. In other use cases, encrypting the SET as described in
JSON Web Encryption (JWE) will also be required.
The Event delivery endpoint MUST support at least TLS
version 1.2 and
SHOULD support the newest version of TLS that meets
its security requirements, which as of the time of this publication
is TLS 1.3 . The client
MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check using
DNS-ID and/or DANE . How a SET Recipient determines
the expected service identity to match the SET Transmitter's server
certificate against is out of scope for this document. The
implementation security considerations for TLS in "Recommendations
for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS)" MUST be followed.
Access Token Considerations
If HTTP Authentication is performed using OAuth access tokens ,
implementers MUST take into account the threats
and countermeasures documented in .Bearer Token Considerations
Transmitting bearer tokens using TLS helps prevent their interception.
Bearer tokens SHOULD have a limited lifetime that can be determined
directly or indirectly (e.g., by checking with a validation service)
by the service provider. By expiring tokens, clients are forced to
obtain a new token (which usually involves re-authentication) for
continued authorized access. For example, in OAuth 2.0, a client MAY use
an OAuth refresh token to obtain a new bearer token after authenticating
to an authorization server, per .Implementations supporting OAuth bearer tokens need to factor in
security considerations of this authorization method . Since security is only as good
as the weakest link, implementers also need to consider authentication
choices coupled with OAuth bearer tokens. The security considerations
of the default authentication method for OAuth bearer tokens, HTTP
Basic, are well documented in ; therefore, implementers
are encouraged to prefer stronger authentication methods.
Privacy ConsiderationsSET Transmitters should attempt to deliver SETs that are
targeted to the specific business and
protocol needs of subscribers.When sharing personally identifiable information or information
that is otherwise considered confidential to affected users, SET
Transmitters and Recipients MUST have the appropriate legal agreements
and user consent or terms of service in place.
Furthermore, data that needs confidentiality protection MUST be encrypted,
at least with TLS
and sometimes also using JSON Web Encryption (JWE) .
In some cases, subject identifiers themselves may be considered sensitive
information, such that their inclusion within a SET may be considered a violation
of privacy. SET Issuers and SET Transmitters should consider the ramifications of sharing a
particular subject identifier with a SET Recipient (e.g., whether doing so could
enable correlation and/or de-anonymization of data) and choose appropriate
subject identifiers for their use cases.
IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
ReferencesNormative ReferencesKey words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement LevelsIn many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.HTTP Over TLSThis memo describes how to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) to secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) connections over the Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community.The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. [STANDARDS-TRACK]Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS)Many application technologies enable secure communication between two entities by means of Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) certificates in the context of Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document specifies procedures for representing and verifying the identity of application services in such interactions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSAEncrypted communication on the Internet often uses Transport Layer Security (TLS), which depends on third parties to certify the keys used. This document improves on that situation by enabling the administrators of domain names to specify the keys used in that domain's TLS servers. This requires matching improvements in TLS client software, but no change in TLS server software. [STANDARDS-TRACK]Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and ContentThe Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless \%application- level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document defines the semantics of HTTP/1.1 messages, as expressed by request methods, request header fields, response status codes, and response header fields, along with the payload of messages (metadata and body content) and mechanisms for content negotiation.JSON Web Signature (JWS)JSON Web Signature (JWS) represents content secured with digital signatures or Message Authentication Codes (MACs) using JSON-based data structures. Cryptographic algorithms and identifiers for use with this specification are described in the separate JSON Web Algorithms (JWA) specification and an IANA registry defined by that specification. Related encryption capabilities are described in the separate JSON Web Encryption (JWE) specification.JSON Web Encryption (JWE)JSON Web Encryption (JWE) represents encrypted content using JSON-based data structures. Cryptographic algorithms and identifiers for use with this specification are described in the separate JSON Web Algorithms (JWA) specification and IANA registries defined by that specification. Related digital signature and Message Authentication Code (MAC) capabilities are described in the separate JSON Web Signature (JWS) specification.JSON Web Token (JWT)JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact, URL-safe means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a JWT are encoded as a JSON object that is used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) structure or as the plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) structure, enabling the claims to be digitally signed or integrity protected with a Message Authentication Code (MAC) and/or encrypted.Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization GrantsThis specification provides a framework for the use of assertions with OAuth 2.0 in the form of a new client authentication mechanism and a new authorization grant type. Mechanisms are specified for transporting assertions during interactions with a token endpoint; general processing rules are also specified.The intent of this specification is to provide a common framework for OAuth 2.0 to interwork with other identity systems using assertions and to provide alternative client authentication mechanisms.Note that this specification only defines abstract message flows and processing rules. In order to be implementable, companion specifications are necessary to provide the corresponding concrete instantiations.Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) are widely used to protect data exchanged over application protocols such as HTTP, SMTP, IMAP, POP, SIP, and XMPP. Over the last few years, several serious attacks on TLS have emerged, including attacks on its most commonly used cipher suites and their modes of operation. This document provides recommendations for improving the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS. The recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases.Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key WordsRFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange FormatJavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data.This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance.Security Event Token (SET)This specification defines the Security Event Token (SET) data structure. A SET describes statements of fact from the perspective of an issuer about a subject. These statements of fact represent an event that occurred directly to or about a security subject, for example, a statement about the issuance or revocation of a token on behalf of a subject. This specification is intended to enable representing security- and identity-related events. A SET is a JSON Web Token (JWT), which can be optionally signed and/or encrypted. SETs can be distributed via protocols such as HTTP.The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.Push-Based Security Event Token (SET) Delivery Using HTTPInformative ReferencesKnown Issues and Best Practices for the Use of Long Polling and Streaming in Bidirectional HTTPOn today's Internet, the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is often used (some would say abused) to enable asynchronous, "server- initiated" communication from a server to a client as well as communication from a client to a server. This document describes known issues and best practices related to such "bidirectional HTTP" applications, focusing on the two most common mechanisms: HTTP long polling and HTTP streaming. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.The OAuth 2.0 Authorization FrameworkThe OAuth 2.0 authorization framework enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf. This specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 1.0 protocol described in RFC 5849. [STANDARDS-TRACK]The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token UsageThis specification describes how to use bearer tokens in HTTP requests to access OAuth 2.0 protected resources. Any party in possession of a bearer token (a "bearer") can use it to get access to the associated resources (without demonstrating possession of a cryptographic key). To prevent misuse, bearer tokens need to be protected from disclosure in storage and in transport. [STANDARDS-TRACK]Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and RoutingThe Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document provides an overview of HTTP architecture and its associated terminology, defines the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes, defines the HTTP/1.1 message syntax and parsing requirements, and describes related security concerns for implementations.Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): AuthenticationThe Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application- level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. This document defines the HTTP Authentication framework.The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication SchemeThis document defines the "Basic" Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) authentication scheme, which transmits credentials as user-id/ password pairs, encoded using Base64.Unencrypted Transport Considerations
Earlier versions of this specification made the use of TLS optional
and described security and privacy considerations resulting from use
of unencrypted HTTP as the underlying transport.
When the working group decided to mandate usage of HTTP over TLS,
it also decided to preserve the description of these considerations
in a non-normative manner.
The considerations for using unencrypted HTTP with this protocol
are the same as those described in ,
and are therefore not repeated here.
Acknowledgments
The editors would like to thank the members of the SCIM Working Group,
which began discussions of provisioning events starting with
draft-hunt-scim-notify-00 in 2015. We would like to thank and the other authors of
draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02, upon which this specification is
based. We would like to thank the participants in the SecEvents
Working Group for their contributions to this specification.
Additionally, we would like to thank the following individuals for their reviews of this specification:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
.
Authors' AddressesAmazonrichanna@amazon.comMicrosoftmbj@microsoft.comhttps://self-issued.info/Coinbasemarius.scurtescu@coinbase.comIndependentmorteza@sharppics.comIndependentnadalin@prodigy.net