SCIM
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Peterson, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9865 Entrust
Updates: 7643, 7644 (if approved) D. Zollner
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Independent
Expires: 16 January 2026
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Sehgal
Amazon Web Services
15 July
September 2025
Cursor-based Pagination of SCIM System of Cross-domain Identity Management
(SCIM) Resources
draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination-11
Abstract
This document updates RFC7643 RFCs 7643 and RFC7644 7644 by defining additional SCIM
(System
System for Cross-Domain Identity Management) Management (SCIM) query parameters
and result attributes to allow use of cursor-based pagination in SCIM
service providers that are implemented with existing code bases, codebases,
databases, or APIs where cursor-based pagination is already well
established.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the System for Cross-
domain Identity Management Working Group mailing list
(scim@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/scim/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-scim-wg/draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination.
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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum 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 six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 16 January 2026.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9865.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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)
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Query Parameters and Response Attributes . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Pagination errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Errors
2.2. Sorting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Implementing Cursors as the Only Pagination Method . . . 7
2.4. Implementing Both Cursors and Index Pagination . . . . . 8
3. Querying Resources using Using HTTP POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Service Provider Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Threat Model and Security Environment . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Other Security References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgments and Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1.
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2.
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgments and Contributions
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The two common patterns for result pagination are index-based
pagination and cursor-based pagination. Rather than attempt to
compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of competing
pagination patterns, this document simply recognizes that SCIM
(System System for
Cross-Domain Identity Management) Management (SCIM) service providers are
commonly implemented as an interoperability layer on top of already
existing application codebases, databases, and/or APIs that already
have a well established pagination pattern.
Translating from an underlying cursor-based pagination pattern to the
index-based pagination defined in Section 3.4.2.4 of [RFC7644]
ultimately requires the SCIM service provider to fully iterate the
underlying cursor, store the results, and then serve indexed pages
from the stored results. This task of "pagination translation"
increases complexity and memory requirements for implementing a SCIM
service provider, and may be an impediment to SCIM adoption for some
applications and identity systems.
This document defines a simple addition to the SCIM protocol that
allows SCIM service providers to reuse underlying cursors without
expensive translation. Support for cursor-based pagination in SCIM
encourages broader cross-application identity management
interoperability by encouraging SCIM service provider implementations
for applications and identity systems where cursor-based pagination
is already well-established. well established.
This document updates RFCs 7643 and 7644 because it adds attributes
to existing structures from those documents, as described in this
memo in
Section 2. These changes are invoked when using the "cursor"
parameter when making SCIM search requests using GET or POST methods.
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.
1.2. Definitions
This document uses the terms defined in section Section 1.2 of [RFC7643] [RFC7643].
2. Query Parameters and Response Attributes
The following table describes the URL pagination query parameters for
requesting cursor-based pagination:
+===========+=====================================================+
| Parameter | Description |
+===========+=====================================================+
| cursor | The string value of the nextCursor attribute from a |
| | previous result page. The cursor value MUST be |
| | empty or omitted for the first request of a cursor- |
| | paginated query. This value may only contain |
| | characters from the unreserved characters character set |
| | defined in section Section 2.3 of [RFC3986]. |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| count | Specifies the desired maximum number of query |
| | results per page, e.g., 10. A negative value SHALL |
| | be interpreted as "0". A value of "0" indicates |
| | that no resource results are to be returned except |
| | for "totalResults". When specified, the service |
| | provider MUST NOT return more more, although it MAY |
| | return fewer fewer, results. If unspecified, the maximum |
| | number of returned is set by the service provider. |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Query Parameters
The following table describes cursor-based pagination attributes
returned in a paged query response:
+================+================================================+
| Element | Description |
+================+================================================+
| nextCursor | A cursor value string that MAY be used in a |
| | subsequent request to obtain the next page of |
| | results. Service providers supporting cursor- |
| | based pagination MUST include nextCursor in |
| | all paged query responses except when |
| | returning the last page. nextCursor MUST be |
| | omitted from a response only to indicate that |
| | there are no more result pages. |
+----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| previousCursor | A cursor value string that MAY be used in a |
| | subsequent request to obtain the previous page |
| | of results. Returning previousCursor is |
| | OPTIONAL. previousCursor MUST NOT be returned |
| | with the first page. |
+----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 2: Response Attributes
Cursor values are URL-safe strings that are opaque to the client. To
retrieve another result page for a query, the client MUST query the
same service provider endpoint with all query parameters and values
being identical to the initial query with the exception of the cursor
value
value, which SHOULD be set to a nextCursor (or previousCursor) value
that was returned by the service provider in a previous response.
For example, to retrieve the first 10 Users users with userName starting
with J, use an empty cursor and set the count to 10:
GET /Users?filter=userName%20sw%20J&cursor&count=10
Host: example.com
Accept: application/scim+json
Authorization: Bearer U8YJcYYRMjbGeepD
The SCIM service provider in response to the query above returns
metadata regarding pagination similar to the following example
(actual resources removed for brevity):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/scim+json
{
"totalResults":100,
"itemsPerPage":10,
"nextCursor":"VZUTiyhEQJ94IR",
"schemas":["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:ListResponse"],
"Resources":[{
...
}]
}
Given the example above, to request the next page or of results, use the
same query parameters and values except set the cursor to the value
of nextCursor (VZUTiyhEQJ94IR):
GET /Users?filter=username%20sw%20J&cursor=VZUTiyhEQJ94IR&count=10
Host: example.com
Accept: application/scim+json
Authorization: Bearer U8YJcYYRMjbGeepD
The service provider responds with:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/scim+json
{
"totalResults": 100,
"itemsPerPage": 10,
"previousCursor: "ze7L30kMiiLX6x",
"nextCursor": "YkU3OF86Pz0rGv",
"schemas": ["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:ListResponse"],
"Resources":[{
...
}]
}
In the example above, the response includes the optional
previousCursor indicating that the service provider supports forward
and reverse traversal of result pages.
As described in Section 3.4.1 of [RFC7644] [RFC7644], service providers should
return an accurate value for totalResults totalResults, which is the total number
of resources for all pages. Service providers implementing cursor
pagination that are unable to estimate totalResults MAY choose to
omit the totalResults attribute.
2.1. Pagination errors Errors
If a service provider encounters invalid pagination query parameters
(invalid cursor value, count value, etc), etc) or other error conditions,
the service provider SHOULD return the appropriate HTTP response
status code and detailed JSON error response as defined in
Section 3.12 of [RFC7644].
For HTTP status code 400 (Bad Request) responses, the following
detail error types are defined. These error types extend the list of
error types
defined in section 3.12 of [RFC7644], Table 9: SCIM 9 ("SCIM Detail Error Keyword Values. Values") of
Section 3.12 of [RFC7644]
+===============+==================================+===============+
| scimType | Description | Applicability |
+===============+==================================+===============+
| invalidCursor | Cursor value is invalid. Cursor | GET (Section |
| | value SHOULD be empty to request | 3.4.2 of |
| | the first page and set to the | [RFC7644]) |
| | nextCursor or previousCursor | |
| | value for subsequent queries. | |
+---------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| expiredCursor | Cursor has expired. Do not wait | GET (Section |
| | longer than service provider's | 3.4.2 of |
| | cursorTimeout to request | [RFC7644]) |
| | additional pages. | |
+---------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| invalidCount | Count value is invalid. Count | GET (Section |
| | value must be between 0 and | 3.4.2 of |
| | service provider's maxPageSize | [RFC7644]) |
| | and must value identical count | |
| | of the initial query. | |
+---------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
Table 3: Pagination Errors
2.2. Sorting
If sorting is implemented as described Section 3.4.2.3 of [RFC7644],
then cursor-paged results should be sorted.
2.3. Implementing Cursors as the Only Pagination Method
A service provider MAY require cursor-based pagination to retrieve
all results for a query by including a nextCursor value in the
response
response, even when the query does not include the cursor parameter.
For example:
GET /Users
Host: example.com
Accept: application/scim+json
The service provider may respond to the above query with a page
containing defaultPageSize results and a nextCursor value as shown in
the below example (Resources omitted for brevity):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/scim+json
{
"totalResults": 5000,
"itemsPerPage": 100,
"nextCursor": "HPq72Pax3JUaNa",
"schemas": ["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:ListResponse"],
"Resources": [{
...
}]
}
2.4. Implementing Both Cursors and Index Pagination
When a service provider supports both index-based and cursor-based
pagination, clients can use the 'startIndex' or 'cursor' query
parameters to request a specific method. Additionally, service
providers supporting both pagination methods MUST choose a default
pagination method to use when responding to requests that have not
specified a pagination query parameter.
Implementers of SCIM service providers that previously supported only
index-based pagination and are adding support for cursor-based
pagination should use index as the default pagination method to avoid
incompatibility with clients that expect index-based pagination
behaviors when no pagination query parameters are specified.
SCIM clients can query the service provider configuration Service Provider Configuration (Section 4)
endpoint to determine if index-based, cursor-based cursor-based, or both types of
pagination are supported and which of these is the default.
3. Querying Resources using Using HTTP POST
Section 3.4.3 of [RFC7644] defines how clients may execute queries
without passing parameters on the URL by using the POST verb combined
with the /.search path extension execute. When posting to /.search,
the client would pass the parameters defined in Section 2 in the body
of the POST request. For example:
POST /User/.search
Host: example.com
Accept: application/scim+json
Authorization: Bearer U8YJcYYRMjbGeepD
{
"schemas": ["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:SearchRequest"],
"attributes": ["displayName", "userName"],
"filter": "displayName sw \"smith\"",
"cursor": "",
"count": 10
}
Which would return a result containing a nextCursor value which that may be
used by the client in a subsequent call to return the next page of
resources:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/scim+json
{
"totalResults": 100,
"itemsPerPage": 10,
"nextCursor": "VZUTiyhEQJ94IR",
"schemas": ["urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:ListResponse"],
"Resources": [{
...
}]
}
4. Service Provider Configuration
The /ServiceProviderConfig resource defined in Section 4 of [RFC7644]
facilitates discovery of SCIM service provider features. A SCIM
service provider implementing cursor-based pagination SHOULD include
the following additional attribute in a JSON document returned by the
/ServiceProviderConfig endpoint:
pagination A complex type that indicates pagination configuration
options. OPTIONAL.
The following sub-attributes are defined:
cursor A Boolean value specifying support of cursor-based
pagination. REQUIRED.
index A Boolean value specifying support of index-based pagination.
REQUIRED.
defaultPaginationMethod A string value specifying the type of
pagination that the service provider defaults to when the client
has not specified which method it wishes to use. Possible values
are "cursor" and "index". OPTIONAL.
defaultPageSize Positive integer value specifying the default number
of results returned in a page when a count is not specified in the
query. OPTIONAL.
maxPageSize Positive integer specifying the maximum number of
results returned in a page regardless of what is specified for the
count in a query. The maximum number of results returned may be
further restricted by other criteria. OPTIONAL.
cursorTimeout Positive integer specifying the minimum number of
seconds that a cursor is valid between page requests. Clients
waiting too long between cursor pagination requests may receive an
invalid cursor error response. No value being specified may mean
that there is no cursor timeout or that the cursor timeout is not
a static duration. OPTIONAL.
Service providers may choose not to advertise Service Provider
Configuration information regarding default pagination method, page
size
size, or cursor validity. Clients MUST NOT interpret the lack of
published Service Provider Configuration values to mean that no
defaults or limits on page sizes or cursor lifetimes exist, or that
there is no default pagination method. Service providers may choose
not to publish values for the pagination sub-attributes for many
reasons. Examples include:
* Service providers containing multiple resource types may have
different values set for each resource type.
* Default and maximum page size may be determined by factors besides
or in addition to the number of resources returned, such as the
size of each resource on the page.
Before using cursor-based pagination, a SCIM client MAY fetch the
Service Provider Configuration document from the SCIM service
provider and verify that cursor-based pagination is supported.
For example:
GET /ServiceProviderConfig
Host: example.com
Accept: application/scim+json
A service provider supporting both cursor-based pagination and index-
based pagination would return a document similar to the following
(full ServiceProviderConfig schema defined in Section 5 of [RFC7643]
has been omitted for brevity):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/scim+json
{
"schemas": [
"urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:core:2.0:ServiceProviderConfig"],
...
"pagination": {
"cursor": true,
"index": true,
"defaultPaginationMethod": "cursor",
"defaultPageSize": 100,
"maxPageSize": 250,
"cursorTimeout": 3600
},
...
}
5. Security Considerations
This section elaborates on the security considerations associated
with the implementation of cursor pagination in SCIM. This document
is under the same security and privacy considerations of those
described in [RFC7644]. It is imperative that implementers
additionally consider the following security aspects to safeguard
against both deliberate attacks and inadvertent misuse that may
compromise the system's security posture.
5.1. Threat Model and Security Environment
The threat landscape is characterized by two primary types of actors:
1. Unauthenticated and Authenticated Malicious Actors: These
individuals or entities represent a malevolent threat. Their
objectives include unauthorized access to data, alteration, or
deletion through cursor-enabled queries. They may also seek to
deplete service provider resources deliberately, aiming to cause
a denial-of-service state, thereby reducing service availability.
2. Authenticated Benign Users: This category includes legitimate
users who, due to confusion or a lack of understanding,
inadvertently engage in actions that consume service provider service-provider
resources excessively. Such actions, while not ill-intended, ill intended, can
lead to unintended denial of service by overwhelming the service
provider's capacity.
5.2. Confidentiality
To ensure that confidential data remains appropriately secured:
* Implementers MUST ensure that pagination through results sets is
strictly confined to the data that the actor's current identity
has been authorized to access. This holds true even in cases
where the actor has obtained a cursor pertaining to a result set
that was generated by a different actor.
* Authorization checks MUST be continuously applied as an actor
navigates through the result set associated with a cursor. Under
no circumstances should possession of a cursor be interpreted as
granting any supplementary access privileges to the actor.
* When possible, service providers SHOULD invalidate all cursors
corresponding to an actor immediately following a change in
permissions. This ensures that any queries executed post-
permission change, utilizing old cursors, will be denied. As an
alternative approach, service provider providers may opt to retain the
existing cursors but must ensure that any metadata tied to the
result set, such as record counts, is updated to reflect the new
permissions accurately.
* In alignment with Section 2, cursor values are URL-Safe URL-safe strings
that are opaque to clients. Server Service providers should obfuscate
cursors values to prevent clients from interpreting cursors or
forging new cursors. Service providers should be able to easily
detect forged cursor values and immediately return an
invalidCursor as described in Section 2.1 2.1.
* The service provider MUST handle error scenarios without exposing
sensitive data. For instance, if an actor attempts to access a
page of results outside their authorized scope, or if a request is
made for a non-existent page, the service provider should respond
with identical error messages, so as not to disclose any details
of the underlying data or the nature of the authorization failure.
It is acceptable, however, for the service provider to log
different messages to a log accessible by administrators or other
authorized personnel.
5.3. Availability
The concern for availability primarily stems from the potential for
Denial of Service
Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks. If the service provider elects to
retain substantial data or metadata for each cursor, numerous initial
queries that allocate cursors could strain and eventually exhaust
service provider
service-provider resources. Such an attack could be orchestrated by
an attacker with malicious intent or could occur unintentionally as a
result of client testing or bugs.
To mitigate risks, the following strategies are recommended for
service providers:
* Clients should authenticate to retrieve large result sets.
Anonymous queries yielding numerous results, results may return an HTTP
status code 400 (Bad Request) with the error type "tooMany," as
outlined in [RFC7644] section 3.12. Section 3.12 of [RFC7644].
* Implement rate limiting to control the volume and cadence of
cursor requests. This approach should adhere to established
standards for rate limiting, limiting; details of which can be found in [RFC6585].
* Allow administrator of the service provider to set a ceiling on
the number of cursors permissible at any given time or to specify
a maxPageSize value. Guidance on configuring such values should
be documented in the implementation administrator/installation
guide.
* Cursor invalidation mechanisms (including mechanisms triggered by
permissions changes) must be designed to be resource-efficient to
prevent them from being exploited for DoS attacks.
5.4. Other Security References
Using URIs to describe and locate resources has its own set of
security considerations considerations, as discussed in Section 7 of [RFC3986].
Implementations should also refer to [BCP195] and [RFC9110] for
additional security considerations that are relevant for underlying
TLS and HTTP protocols.
6. IANA Considerations
This specification requests
IANA to amends has amended the SCIM Server-Related "System for Cross-domain Identity Management
(SCIM) Schema URIs URIs" registry group established by [RFC7643]. [RFC7643] as
described below.
IANA has updated the "SCIM Schema URIs for Data Resources" registry
as follows:
* For the urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:ListResponse, add
Section 2 of this document has been added to the References
column.
* For the urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:SearchRequest, add
Section 2 of this document has been added to the References
column.
IANA has updated the "SCIM Server-Related Schema URIs" registry as
follows:
* For the
urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:core:2.0:ServiceProviderConfig,
add
Section 4 of this document has been added to the References
column.
7. Change Log
RFC Editor: Please remove this section in the release version of the
document.
-08
* Fix several typos and wording consistencies
* Add reference to RFC7644 in Security Considerations
* Adjust indenting and wording to clarify the definition of the
pagination attribute in serviceProviderConfig
* Reference RFC section 2.3 (not section 2.2) for unreserved
characters
* Reference section RFC 7644 3.4.3 (not section 3.4.2.4 ) for POST
query
* Added updates 7644, 7643
* Changed IANA considerations to add sections of this document to References column of SCIM Schema URIs for Data Resources impacted
by this document
-07
* Minor grammar change
* Add informative reference to BCP195 and RFC9110
-05
* Various updates in response to WG/IETF Last Call feedback
-04
* Added IANA Considerations section
* Added Security Considerations section
* Added Backwards Compatibility Considerations section
-03
* Minor grammatical/typo fixes, rename + changes to maxPageSize SCP
definition
-02
* Typos/semantics, acknowledgements, expansion of cursorTimeout SCP
definition
-01
* Updated after Httpdir review.
-00
* Adopted by SCIM WG.
8. Acknowledgments and Contributions
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Paul Lanzi
(IDenovate) in leading the writing of security considerations
section.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the following individuals
who provided valuable feedback while reviewing the document:
* Aaron Parecki - Okta
* David Brossard - Axiomatics
* Dean H. Saxe - Independent
* Pamela Dingle - Microsoft
9. References
9.1.
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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/rfc/rfc3986>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC6585] Nottingham, M. and R. Fielding, "Additional HTTP Status
Codes", RFC 6585, DOI 10.17487/RFC6585, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6585>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6585>.
[RFC7643] Hunt, P., Ed., Grizzle, K., Wahlstroem, E., and C.
Mortimore, "System for Cross-domain Identity Management:
Core Schema", RFC 7643, DOI 10.17487/RFC7643, September
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7643>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7643>.
[RFC7644] Hunt, P., Ed., Grizzle, K., Ansari, M., Wahlstroem, E.,
and C. Mortimore, "System for Cross-domain Identity
Management: Protocol", RFC 7644, DOI 10.17487/RFC7644,
September 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7644>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7644>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
9.2. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[BCP195] Best Current Practice 195,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>.
Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.
[RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110>.
Acknowledgments and Contributions
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Paul Lanzi
(IDenovate) in leading the writing of the Security Considerations
section.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the following individuals
who provided valuable feedback while reviewing the document:
Aaron Parecki
Okta
David Brossard
Axiomatics
Dean H. Saxe
Independent
Pamela Dingle
Microsoft
Authors' Addresses
Matt Peterson (editor)
Entrust
Email: matt.peterson@entrust.com
Danny Zollner
Independent
Email: danny@zollnerd.com
Anjali Sehgal
Amazon Web Services
Email: anjalisg@amazon.com