rfc9237.original   rfc9237.txt 
ACE Working Group C. Bormann Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universität Bremen TZI Request for Comments: 9237 Universität Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track 15 March 2022 Category: Standards Track April 2022
Expires: 16 September 2022 ISSN: 2070-1721
An Authorization Information Format (AIF) for ACE An Authorization Information Format (AIF) for Authentication and
draft-ietf-ace-aif-07 Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
Abstract Abstract
Information about which entities are authorized to perform what Information about which entities are authorized to perform what
operations on which constituents of other entities is a crucial operations on which constituents of other entities is a crucial
component of producing an overall system that is secure. Conveying component of producing an overall system that is secure. Conveying
precise authorization information is especially critical in highly precise authorization information is especially critical in highly
automated systems with large numbers of entities, such as the automated systems with large numbers of entities, such as the
"Internet of Things". Internet of Things.
This specification provides a generic information model and format This specification provides a generic information model and format
for representing such authorization information, as well as two for representing such authorization information, as well as two
variants of a specific instantiation of that format for use with REST variants of a specific instantiation of that format for use with
resources identified by URI path. Representational State Transfer (REST) resources identified by URI
path.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-aif/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Authentication and
Authorization for Constrained Environments (ace) Working Group
mailing list (mailto:ace@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 16 September 2022. 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/rfc9237.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology
2. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Information Model
2.1. REST-specific Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. REST-Specific Model
2.2. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Limitations
2.3. REST-specific Model With Dynamic Resource Creation . . . 6 2.3. REST-Specific Model with Dynamic Resource Creation
3. Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Data Model
4. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Media Types
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Media Types
5.2. Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1.1. application/aif+cbor
5.3. Content-Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1.2. application/aif+json
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. Registries
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3. Content-Format
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Security Considerations
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. References
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1. Normative References
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Author's Address
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Constrained Devices as they are used in the "Internet of Things" need Constrained devices, as they are used in the Internet of Things, need
security in order to operate correctly and prevent misuse. One security in order to operate correctly and prevent misuse. One
important element of this security is that devices in the Internet of important element of this security is that devices in the Internet of
Things need to be able to decide which operations requested of them Things need to be able to decide which operations requested of them
should be considered authorized, need to ascertain that the should be considered authorized, ascertain that the authorization to
authorization to request the operation does apply to the actual request the operation does apply to the actual requester as
requester as authenticated, and need to ascertain that other devices authenticated, and ascertain that other devices they make requests of
they make requests of are the ones they intended. are the ones they intended.
To transfer detailed authorization information from an authorization To transfer detailed authorization information from an authorization
manager (such as an ACE-OAuth Authorization Server manager (such as an ACE-OAuth authorization server [RFC9200]) to a
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]) to a device, a compact representation device, a compact representation format is needed. This document
format is needed. This document defines such a format, the defines such a format -- the Authorization Information Format (AIF).
Authorization Information Format (AIF). AIF is defined both as a AIF is defined both as a general structure that can be used for many
general structure that can be used for many different applications different applications and as a specific instantiation tailored to
and as a specific instantiation tailored to REST resources and the REST resources and the permissions on them, including some provision
permissions on them, including some provision for dynamically created for dynamically created resources.
resources.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
This memo uses terms from CoAP [RFC7252] and the Internet Security This memo uses terms from the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Glossary [RFC4949]; CoAP is used for the explanatory examples as it [RFC7252] and the Internet Security Glossary [RFC4949]; CoAP is used
is a good fit for Constrained Devices. for the explanatory examples as it is a good fit for constrained
devices.
The shape of data is specified in CDDL [RFC8610] [RFC9165]. The shape of data is specified in Concise Data Definition Language
Terminology for Constrained Devices is defined in [RFC7228]. (CDDL) [RFC8610] [RFC9165]. Terminology for constrained devices is
defined in [RFC7228].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
The term "byte", abbreviated by "B", is used in its now customary The term "byte", abbreviated by "B", is used in its now customary
sense as a synonym for "octet". sense as a synonym for "octet".
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at line 132
of that data (as opposed to the cryptographic armor around it). of that data (as opposed to the cryptographic armor around it).
The semantics of the authorization information defined in this The semantics of the authorization information defined in this
document are that of an _allow-list_: everything is denied until it document are that of an _allow-list_: everything is denied until it
is explicitly allowed. is explicitly allowed.
For the purposes of this specification, the underlying access control For the purposes of this specification, the underlying access control
model will be that of an access matrix, which gives a set of model will be that of an access matrix, which gives a set of
permissions for each possible combination of a subject and an object. permissions for each possible combination of a subject and an object.
We are focusing the AIF data item on a single row in the access We are focusing the AIF data item on a single row in the access
matrix (such a row has often been called a capability list), without matrix (such a row has often been called a "capability list") without
concern to the subject for which the data item is issued. As a concern to the subject for which the data item is issued. As a
consequence, AIF MUST be used in a way that the subject of the consequence, AIF MUST be used in a way that the subject of the
authorizations is unambiguously identified (e.g., as part of the authorizations is unambiguously identified (e.g., as part of the
armor around it). armor around it).
The generic model of such a capability list is a list of pairs of The generic model of such a capability list is a list of pairs of
object identifiers (of type Toid) and the permissions (of type Tperm) object identifiers (of type Toid) and the permissions (of type Tperm)
the subject has on the object(s) identified. that the subject has on the object(s) identified.
AIF-Generic<Toid, Tperm> = [* [Toid, Tperm]] AIF-Generic<Toid, Tperm> = [* [Toid, Tperm]]
Figure 1: Definition of Generic AIF Figure 1: Definition of Generic AIF
In a specific data model (such as the one also specified in this In a specific data model (such as the one specified in this
document), the object identifier (Toid) will often be a text string, document), the object identifier (Toid) will often be a text string,
and the set of permissions (Tperm) will be represented by a bitset in and the set of permissions (Tperm) will be represented by a bit set,
turn represented as a number (see Section 3). which in turn is represented as a number (see Section 3).
AIF-Specific = AIF-Generic<tstr, uint> AIF-Specific = AIF-Generic<tstr, uint>
Figure 2: Commonly used shape of a specific AIF Figure 2: Commonly Used Shape of a Specific AIF
2.1. REST-specific Model 2.1. REST-Specific Model
In the specific instantiation of the REST resources and the In the specific instantiation of the REST resources and the
permissions on them, for the object identifiers (Toid), we use the permissions on them, for the object identifiers (Toid), we use the
URI of a resource on a CoAP server. More specifically, since the URI of a resource on a CoAP server. More specifically, since the
parts of the URI that identify the server ("authority" in [RFC3986]) parts of the URI that identify the server ("authority" in [RFC3986])
are what are authenticated during REST resource access (Section 4.2.2 are authenticated during REST resource access (Section 4.2.2 of
of [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] and Section 6.2 of [RFC7252]), they [RFC9110] and Section 6.2 of [RFC7252]), they naturally fall into the
naturally fall into the realm handled by the cryptographic armor; we realm handled by the cryptographic armor; we therefore focus on the
therefore focus on the "path" ("path-abempty") and "query" parts of "path" ("path-abempty") and "query" parts of the URI (_URI-local-
the URI (_URI-local-part_ in this specification, as expressed by the part_ in this specification, as expressed by the Uri-Path and Uri-
Uri-Path and Uri-Query options in CoAP). As a consequence, AIF MUST Query options in CoAP). As a consequence, AIF MUST be used in a way
be used in a way that it is clear who is the target (enforcement that clearly shows who is the target (enforcement point) of these
point) of these authorizations (note that there may be more than one authorizations (note that there may be more than one target that the
target that the same authorization applies to, e.g., in a situation same authorization applies to, e.g., in a situation with homogeneous
with homogeneous devices). devices).
For the permissions (Tperm), we use a simple permissions model that For the permissions (Tperm), we use a simple permissions model that
lists the subset of the REST (CoAP or HTTP) methods permitted. This lists the subset of the REST (CoAP or HTTP) methods permitted. This
model is summarized in Table 1. model is summarized in Table 1.
+================+================+ +================+================+
| URI-local-part | Permission Set | | URI-local-part | Permission Set |
+================+================+ +================+================+
| /s/temp | GET | | /s/temp | GET |
+----------------+----------------+ +----------------+----------------+
| /a/led | PUT, GET | | /a/led | PUT, GET |
+----------------+----------------+ +----------------+----------------+
| /dtls | POST | | /dtls | POST |
+----------------+----------------+ +----------------+----------------+
Table 1: An authorization Table 1: An Authorization
instance in the AIF Information Instance in the AIF Information
Model Model
In this example, a device offers a temperature sensor /s/temp for In this example, a device offers a temperature sensor /s/temp for
read-only access, a LED actuator /a/led for read/write, and a /dtls read-only access, a LED actuator /a/led for read/write, and a /dtls
resource for POST access. resource for POST access.
As will be seen in the data model (Section 3), the representations of As shown in the data model (Section 3), the representations of REST
REST methods provided are limited to those that have a CoAP method methods provided are limited to those that have a CoAP method number
number assigned; an extension to the model may be necessary to assigned; an extension to the model may be necessary to represent
represent permissions for exotic HTTP methods. permissions for exotic HTTP methods.
2.2. Limitations 2.2. Limitations
This simple information model only allows granting permissions for This simple information model only allows granting permissions for
statically identifiable objects, e.g., URIs for the REST-specific statically identifiable objects, e.g., URIs for the REST-specific
instantiation. One might be tempted to extend the model towards URI instantiation. One might be tempted to extend the model towards URI
templates [RFC6570] (for instance, to open up an authorization for templates [RFC6570] (for instance, to open up an authorization for
many parameter values as in /s/temp{?any*}). However, that requires many parameter values as in /s/temp{?any*}). However, that requires
some considerations of the ease and unambiguity of matching a given some considerations of the ease and unambiguity of matching a given
URI against a set of templates in an AIF data item. URI against a set of templates in an AIF data item.
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at line 219
This simple information model also does not allow expressing This simple information model also does not allow expressing
conditionalized access based on state outside the identification of conditionalized access based on state outside the identification of
objects (e.g., "opening a door is allowed if that is not locked"). objects (e.g., "opening a door is allowed if that is not locked").
Finally, the model does not provide any special access for a set of Finally, the model does not provide any special access for a set of
resources that are specific to a subject, e.g., that the subject resources that are specific to a subject, e.g., that the subject
created itself by previous operations (PUT, POST, or PATCH/iPATCH created itself by previous operations (PUT, POST, or PATCH/iPATCH
[RFC8132]) or that were specifically created for the subject by [RFC8132]) or that were specifically created for the subject by
others. others.
2.3. REST-specific Model With Dynamic Resource Creation 2.3. REST-Specific Model with Dynamic Resource Creation
The REST-specific Model With Dynamic Resource Creation addresses the The REST-Specific Model with Dynamic Resource Creation addresses the
need to provide defined access to dynamic resources that were created need to provide defined access to dynamic resources that were created
by the subject itself, specifically, a resource that is made known to by the subject itself, specifically, a resource that is made known to
the subject by providing Location-* options in a CoAP response or the subject by providing Location-* options in a CoAP response or
using the Location header field in HTTP [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] using the Location header field in HTTP [RFC9110] (the Location-
(the Location-indicating mechanisms). (The concept is somewhat indicating mechanisms). (The concept is somewhat comparable to
comparable to "ACL inheritance" in NFSv4 [RFC8881], except that it "Access Control List (ACL) inheritance" in the Network File System
does not use a containment relationship but the fact that the dynamic version 4 (NFSv4) protocol [RFC8881], except that it does not use a
containment relationship but rather the fact that the dynamic
resource was created from a resource to which the subject had resource was created from a resource to which the subject had
access.) In other words, it addresses an important subset of the access.) In other words, it addresses an important subset of the
third limitation mentioned in Section 2.2. third limitation mentioned in Section 2.2.
+================+===================================+ +================+===================================+
| URI-local-part | Permission Set | | URI-local-part | Permission Set |
+================+===================================+ +================+===================================+
| /a/make-coffee | POST, Dynamic-GET, Dynamic-DELETE | | /a/make-coffee | POST, Dynamic-GET, Dynamic-DELETE |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+ +----------------+-----------------------------------+
Table 2: An authorization instance in the AIF Table 2: An Authorization Instance in the AIF
Information Model With Dynamic Resource Creation Information Model with Dynamic Resource Creation
For a method X, the presence of a Dynamic-X permission means that the For a method X, the presence of a Dynamic-X permission means that the
subject holds permission to exercise the method X on resources that subject holds permission to exercise the method X on resources that
have been returned in a 2.01 (201 Created) response by a Location- have been returned in a 2.01 (201 Created) response by a Location-
indicating mechanism to a request that the subject made to the indicating mechanism to a request that the subject made to the
resource listed. In the example shown in Table 2, POST operations on resource listed. In the example shown in Table 2, POST operations on
/a/make-coffee might return the location of a resource dynamically /a/make-coffee might return the location of a resource dynamically
created on the coffee machine that allows GET to find out about the created on the coffee machine that allows GET to find out about the
status of, and DELETE to cancel, the coffee-making operation. status of, and DELETE to cancel, the coffee-making operation.
skipping to change at page 7, line 6 skipping to change at line 264
need for another explicit switch between the basic and the model need for another explicit switch between the basic and the model
extended by dynamic resource creation; the extended model is always extended by dynamic resource creation; the extended model is always
presumed once a Dynamic-X permission is present. presumed once a Dynamic-X permission is present.
3. Data Model 3. Data Model
Different data model specializations can be defined for the generic Different data model specializations can be defined for the generic
information model given above. information model given above.
In this section, we will give the data model for simple REST In this section, we will give the data model for simple REST
authorization as per Section 2.1 and Section 2.3. As discussed, in authorization as per Sections 2.1 and 2.3. As discussed, in this
this case the object identifier is specialized as a text string case the object identifier is specialized as a text string giving a
giving a relative URI (URI-local-part as absolute path on the server relative URI (URI-local-part as the absolute path on the server
serving as enforcement point). The permission set is specialized to serving as the enforcement point). The permission set is specialized
a single number REST-method-set by the following steps: to a single number REST-method-set by the following steps:
* The entries in the table that specify the same URI-local-part are * The entries in the table that specify the same URI-local-part are
merged into a single entry that specifies the union of the merged into a single entry that specifies the union of the
permission sets. permission sets.
* The (non-dynamic) methods in the permission sets are converted * The (non-dynamic) methods in the permission sets are converted
into their CoAP method numbers, minus 1. into their CoAP method numbers, minus 1.
* Dynamic-X permissions are converted into what the number would * Dynamic-X permissions are converted into what the number would
have been for X, plus a Dynamic-Offset chosen as 32 (e.g., 35 is have been for X, plus a Dynamic-Offset chosen as 32 (e.g., 35 is
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at line 291
* The set of numbers is converted into a single number REST-method- * The set of numbers is converted into a single number REST-method-
set by taking two to the power of each (decremented) method number set by taking two to the power of each (decremented) method number
and computing the inclusive OR of the binary representations of and computing the inclusive OR of the binary representations of
all the power values. all the power values.
This data model could be interchanged in the JSON [RFC8259] This data model could be interchanged in the JSON [RFC8259]
representation given in Figure 3. representation given in Figure 3.
[["/s/temp",1],["/a/led",5],["/dtls",2]] [["/s/temp",1],["/a/led",5],["/dtls",2]]
Figure 3: An authorization instance encoded in JSON (40 bytes) Figure 3: An Authorization Instance Encoded in JSON (40 Bytes)
In Figure 4, a straightforward specification of the data model In Figure 4, a straightforward specification of the data model
(including both the methods from [RFC7252] and the new ones from (including both the methods from [RFC7252] and the new ones from
[RFC8132], identified by the method code minus 1) is shown in CDDL [RFC8132], identified by the method code minus 1) is shown in CDDL
[RFC8610] [RFC9165]: [RFC8610] [RFC9165]:
AIF-REST = AIF-Generic<local-path, REST-method-set> AIF-REST = AIF-Generic<local-path, REST-method-set>
local-path = tstr ; URI relative to enforcement point local-path = tstr ; URI relative to enforcement point
REST-method-set = uint .bits methods REST-method-set = uint .bits methods
methods = &( methods = &(
skipping to change at page 8, line 28 skipping to change at line 321
Dynamic-PUT: 34; 2 .plus Dynamic-Offset Dynamic-PUT: 34; 2 .plus Dynamic-Offset
Dynamic-DELETE: 35; 3 .plus Dynamic-Offset Dynamic-DELETE: 35; 3 .plus Dynamic-Offset
Dynamic-FETCH: 36; 4 .plus Dynamic-Offset Dynamic-FETCH: 36; 4 .plus Dynamic-Offset
Dynamic-PATCH: 37; 5 .plus Dynamic-Offset Dynamic-PATCH: 37; 5 .plus Dynamic-Offset
Dynamic-iPATCH: 38; 6 .plus Dynamic-Offset Dynamic-iPATCH: 38; 6 .plus Dynamic-Offset
) )
Figure 4: AIF in CDDL Figure 4: AIF in CDDL
For the information shown in Table 1 and Figure 3, a representation For the information shown in Table 1 and Figure 3, a representation
in CBOR [RFC8949] is given in Figure 5; again, several optimizations/ in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949] is given in
improvements are possible. Figure 5; again, several optimizations and improvements are possible.
83 # array(3) 83 # array(3)
82 # array(2) 82 # array(2)
67 # text(7) 67 # text(7)
2f732f74656d70 # "/s/temp" 2f732f74656d70 # "/s/temp"
01 # unsigned(1) 01 # unsigned(1)
82 # array(2) 82 # array(2)
66 # text(6) 66 # text(6)
2f612f6c6564 # "/a/led" 2f612f6c6564 # "/a/led"
05 # unsigned(5) 05 # unsigned(5)
82 # array(2) 82 # array(2)
65 # text(5) 65 # text(5)
2f64746c73 # "/dtls" 2f64746c73 # "/dtls"
02 # unsigned(2) 02 # unsigned(2)
Figure 5: An authorization instance encoded in CBOR (28 bytes) Figure 5: An Authorization Instance Encoded in CBOR (28 Bytes)
Note that choosing 32 as Dynamic-Offset means that all future CoAP Note that choosing 32 as Dynamic-Offset means that all future CoAP
methods that can be registered can be represented both as themselves methods that are registered can be represented both as themselves and
and in the Dynamic-X variant, but only the dynamic forms of methods 1 in the Dynamic-X variant, but only the dynamic forms of methods 1 to
to 21 are typically usable in a JSON form [RFC7493]. 21 are typically usable in a JSON form [RFC7493].
4. Media Types 4. Media Types
This specification defines media types for the generic information This specification defines media types for the generic information
model, expressed in JSON (application/aif+json) or in CBOR model, expressed in JSON (application/aif+json) or in CBOR
(application/aif+cbor). These media types have parameters for (application/aif+cbor). These media types have parameters for
specifying Toid and Tperm; default values are the values "URI-local- specifying Toid and Tperm; default values are the values "URI-local-
part" for Toid and "REST-method-set" for Tperm, as per Section 3 of part" for Toid and "REST-method-set" for Tperm, as per Section 3 of
the present specification. the present specification.
A specification that wants to use Generic AIF with different Toid A specification that wants to use generic AIF with different Toid
and/or Tperm is expected to request these as media type parameters and/or Tperm is expected to request these as media type parameters
(Section 5.2) and register a corresponding Content-Format (Section 5.2) and register a corresponding Content-Format
(Section 5.3). (Section 5.3).
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
// RFC Ed.: throughout this section, please replace RFC XXXX with the
// RFC number of this specification and remove this note.
5.1. Media Types 5.1. Media Types
IANA is requested to add the following Media-Types to the "Media IANA has added the following media types to the "Media Types"
Types" registry. registry. The registration entries are in the following subsections.
+==========+======================+=====================+ +==========+======================+=====================+
| Name | Template | Reference | | Name | Template | Reference |
+==========+======================+=====================+ +==========+======================+=====================+
| aif+cbor | application/aif+cbor | RFC XXXX, Section 4 | | aif+cbor | application/aif+cbor | RFC 9237, Section 4 |
+----------+----------------------+---------------------+ +----------+----------------------+---------------------+
| aif+json | application/aif+json | RFC XXXX, Section 4 | | aif+json | application/aif+json | RFC 9237, Section 4 |
+----------+----------------------+---------------------+ +----------+----------------------+---------------------+
Table 3: New Media Types Table 3: New Media Types
For application/aif+cbor: 5.1.1. application/aif+cbor
Type name: application Type name: application
Subtype name: aif+cbor Subtype name: aif+cbor
Required parameters: N/A Required parameters: N/A
Optional parameters: Optional parameters:
* Toid: the identifier for the object for which permissions are
supplied. A value from the media-type parameter sub-registry
for Toid. Default value: "URI-local-part" (RFC XXXX).
* Tperm: the data type of a permission set for the object Toid:
identified via a Toid. A value from the media-type parameter the identifier for the object for which permissions are
sub-registry for Tperm. Default value: "REST-method-set" (RFC supplied. A value from the "Sub-Parameter Registry for
XXXX). application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json" subregistry for
Toid. Default value: "URI-local-part" (RFC 9237).
Tperm:
the data type of a permission set for the object identified via
a Toid. A value from the "Sub-Parameter Registry for
application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json" subregistry for
Tperm. Default value: "REST-method-set" (RFC 9237).
Encoding considerations: binary (CBOR) Encoding considerations: binary (CBOR)
Security considerations: Section 6 of RFC XXXX
Interoperability considerations: none Security considerations: Section 6 of RFC 9237
Published specification: Section 4 of RFC XXXX
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: Section 4 of RFC 9237
Applications that use this media type: Applications that need to Applications that use this media type: Applications that need to
convey structured authorization data for identified resources, convey structured authorization data for identified resources,
conveying sets of permissions. conveying sets of permissions.
Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of
fragment identifiers is as specified for "application/cbor". (At fragment identifiers is as specified for "application/cbor". (At
publication of RFC XXXX, there is no fragment identification publication of RFC 9237, there is no fragment identification
syntax defined for "application/cbor".) syntax defined for "application/cbor".)
Person & email address to contact for further information: ACE WG Person & email address to contact for further information: ACE WG
mailing list (ace@ietf.org), or IETF Applications and Real-Time mailing list (ace@ietf.org) or IETF Applications and Real-Time
Area (art@ietf.org) Area (art@ietf.org)
Intended usage: COMMON Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: none
Restrictions on usage: N/A
Author/Change controller: IETF Author/Change controller: IETF
Provisional registration: no Provisional registration: no
For application/aif+json: 5.1.2. application/aif+json
Type name: application Type name: application
Subtype name: aif+json Subtype name: aif+json
Required parameters: N/A Required parameters: N/A
Optional parameters: Optional parameters:
* Toid: the identifier for the object for which permissions are
supplied. A value from the media-type parameter sub-registry
for Toid. Default value: "URI-local-part" (RFC XXXX).
* Tperm: the data type of a permission set for the object Toid:
identified via a Toid. A value from the media-type parameter the identifier for the object for which permissions are
sub-registry for Tperm. Default value: "REST-method-set" (RFC supplied. A value from the media-type parameter subregistry
XXXX). for Toid. Default value: "URI-local-part" (RFC 9237).
Tperm:
the data type of a permission set for the object identified via
a Toid. A value from the media-type parameter subregistry for
Tperm. Default value: "REST-method-set" (RFC 9237).
Encoding considerations: binary (JSON is UTF-8-encoded text) Encoding considerations: binary (JSON is UTF-8-encoded text)
Security considerations: Section 6 of RFC XXXX
Interoperability considerations: none Security considerations: Section 6 of RFC 9237
Published specification: Section 4 of RFC XXXX
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: Section 4 of RFC 9237
Applications that use this media type: Applications that need to Applications that use this media type: Applications that need to
convey structured authorization data for identified resources, convey structured authorization data for identified resources,
conveying sets of permissions. conveying sets of permissions.
Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of
fragment identifiers is as specified for "application/json". (At fragment identifiers is as specified for "application/json". (At
publication of RFC XXXX, there is no fragment identification publication of RFC 9237, there is no fragment identification
syntax defined for "application/json".) syntax defined for "application/json".)
Person & email address to contact for further information: ACE WG Person & email address to contact for further information: ACE WG
mailing list (ace@ietf.org), or IETF Applications and Real-Time mailing list (ace@ietf.org) or IETF Applications and Real-Time
Area (art@ietf.org) Area (art@ietf.org)
Intended usage: COMMON Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: none
Restrictions on usage: N/A
Author/Change controller: IETF Author/Change controller: IETF
Provisional registration: no Provisional registration: no
5.2. Registries 5.2. Registries
For the media types application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json, For the media types application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json,
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry within IANA has created a subregistry within
[IANA.media-type-sub-parameters] for the two media-type parameters [IANA.media-type-sub-parameters] for the media-type parameters Toid
Toid and Tperm, populated with: and Tperm, populated with the following:
+===========+=================+=====================+===========+ +===========+=================+=====================+===========+
| Parameter | name | Description/ | Reference | | Parameter | name | Description/ | Reference |
| | | Specification | | | | | Specification | |
+===========+=================+=====================+===========+ +===========+=================+=====================+===========+
| Toid | URI-local-part | local-part of URI | RFC XXXX | | Toid | URI-local-part | local-part of URI | RFC 9237 |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
| Tperm | REST-method-set | set of REST methods | RFC XXXX | | Tperm | REST-method-set | set of REST methods | RFC 9237 |
| | | represented | | | | | represented | |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+ +-----------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------+
Table 4: New Media Type Parameters Table 4: New Media Type Parameters
The registration policy is Specification required [RFC8126]. The The registration policy is Specification Required [RFC8126]. The
designated expert will engage with the submitter to ascertain the designated expert will engage with the submitter to ascertain whether
requirements of this document are addressed: the requirements of this document are addressed:
* The specifications for Toid and Tperm need to realize the general * The specifications for Toid and Tperm need to realize the general
ideas of unambiguous object identifiers and permission lists in ideas of unambiguous object identifiers and permission lists in
the context where the AIF data item is intended to be used, and the context where the AIF data item is intended to be used, and
their structure needs to be usable with the intended media types their structure needs to be usable with the intended media types
(application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json) as identified in (application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json) as identified in
the specification. the specification.
* The parameter names need to conform to Section 4.3 of [RFC6838], * The parameter names need to conform to Section 4.3 of [RFC6838],
but preferably are in [KebabCase] so they can easily be translated but preferably are in [KebabCase] so they can be easily translated
into names used in popular programming language APIs. into names used in popular programming language APIs.
The designated experts will develop further criteria and guidelines The designated experts will develop further criteria and guidelines
as needed. as needed.
5.3. Content-Format 5.3. Content-Format
IANA is requested to register Content-Format numbers in the "CoAP IANA has registered Content-Format numbers in the "CoAP Content-
Content-Formats" sub-registry, within the "Constrained RESTful Formats" subregistry, within the "Constrained RESTful Environments
Environments (CoRE) Parameters" Registry [IANA.core-parameters], as (CoRE) Parameters" registry [IANA.core-parameters], as follows:
follows:
+======================+================+======+===========+ +======================+================+=====+===========+
| Content-Type | Content Coding | ID | Reference | | Content-Type | Content Coding | ID | Reference |
+======================+================+======+===========+ +======================+================+=====+===========+
| application/aif+cbor | - | TBD1 | RFC XXXX | | application/aif+cbor | - | 290 | RFC 9237 |
+----------------------+----------------+------+-----------+ +----------------------+----------------+-----+-----------+
| application/aif+json | - | TBD2 | RFC XXXX | | application/aif+json | - | 291 | RFC 9237 |
+----------------------+----------------+------+-----------+ +----------------------+----------------+-----+-----------+
Table 5: New Content-Formats Table 5: New Content-Formats
// RFC Ed.: please replace TBD1 and TBD2 with assigned IDs and remove
this note.
In the registry as defined by Section 12.3 of [RFC7252] at the time In the registry as defined by Section 12.3 of [RFC7252] at the time
of writing, the column "Content-Type" is called "Media type" and the of writing, the column "Content-Type" is called "Media type" and the
column "Content Coding" is called "Encoding". column "Content Coding" is called "Encoding".
Note that applications that register Toid and Tperm values are Note that applications that register Toid and Tperm values are
encouraged to also register Content-Formats for the relevant encouraged to also register Content-Formats for the relevant
combinations. combinations.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC7252] apply when AIF is used with The security considerations of [RFC7252] apply when AIF is used with
CoAP, and, if complex formats such as URIs are used for Toid or CoAP, and, if complex formats such as URIs are used for Toid or
Tperm, specifically Section 11.1 of [RFC7252]. Some wider issues are Tperm, specifically Section 11.1 of [RFC7252]. Some wider issues are
discussed in [RFC8576]. discussed in [RFC8576].
When applying these formats, the referencing specification needs to When applying these formats, the referencing specification needs to
be careful to: be careful to ensure that:
* ensure that the cryptographic armor employed around this format * the cryptographic armor employed around this format fulfills the
fulfills the referencing specification's security objectives, and referencing specification's security objectives and that the armor
that the armor or some additional information included in it with or some additional information included in it with the AIF data
the AIF data item (1) unambiguously identifies the subject to item (1) unambiguously identifies the subject to which the
which the authorizations shall apply and (2) provides any context authorizations shall apply and (2) provides any context
information needed to derive the identity of the object to which information needed to derive the identity of the object to which
authorization is being granted from the object identifiers (such authorization is being granted from the object identifiers (such
as, for the data models defined in the present specification, the as, for the data models defined in the present specification, the
scheme and authority information that is used to construct the scheme and authority information that is used to construct the
full URI), and full URI), and
* ensure that the types used for Toid and Tperm provide the * the types used for Toid and Tperm provide the appropriate
appropriate granularity and precision so that application granularity and precision so that application requirements on the
requirements on the precision of the authorization information are precision of the authorization information are fulfilled and that
fulfilled, and that all parties have the same understanding of all parties have the same understanding of each Toid/Tperm pair in
each Toid/Tperm pair in terms of specified objects (resources) and terms of specified objects (resources) and operations on those.
operations on those.
For the data formats, the security considerations of [RFC8259] and For the data formats, the security considerations of [RFC8259] and
[RFC8949] apply. [RFC8949] apply.
A plain implementation of AIF might implement just the basic REST A plain implementation of AIF might implement just the basic REST
model as per Section 2.1. If it receives authorizations that include model as per Section 2.1. If it receives authorizations that include
permissions that use the REST-specific Model With Dynamic Resource permissions that use the REST-Specific Model with Dynamic Resource
Creation Section 2.3, it needs to either reject the AIF data item Creation (Section 2.3), it needs to either reject the AIF data item
entirely or act only on the permissions that it does understand. In entirely or act only on the permissions that it does understand. In
other words, the semantics underlying an allow-list as discussed other words, the semantics underlying an allow-list as discussed
above need to hold here as well. above need to hold here as well.
An implementation of the REST-specific Model With Dynamic Resource An implementation of the REST-Specific Model with Dynamic Resource
Creation Section 2.3 needs to carefully keep track of the dynamically Creation (Section 2.3) needs to carefully keep track of the
created objects and the subjects to which the Dynamic-X permissions dynamically created objects and the subjects to which the Dynamic-X
apply -- both on the server side to enforce the permissions and on permissions apply -- both on the server side to enforce the
the client side to know which permissions are available. permissions and on the client side to know which permissions are
available.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics]
Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
httpbis-semantics-19, 12 September 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-
semantics-19.txt>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 30 skipping to change at line 621
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data [RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610, JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>. June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP Semantics", RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110,
April 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110>.
[RFC9165] Bormann, C., "Additional Control Operators for the Concise [RFC9165] Bormann, C., "Additional Control Operators for the Concise
Data Definition Language (CDDL)", RFC 9165, Data Definition Language (CDDL)", RFC 9165,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9165, December 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC9165, December 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9165>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9165>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]
Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments (ACE) using the OAuth 2.0
Framework (ACE-OAuth)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-46, 8 November 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-
authz-46.txt>.
[IANA.core-parameters] [IANA.core-parameters]
IANA, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) IANA, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
Parameters", Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>.
[IANA.media-type-sub-parameters] [IANA.media-type-sub-parameters]
IANA, "MIME Media Type Sub-Parameter Registries", IANA, "MIME Media Type Sub-Parameter Registries",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-sub- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-sub-
parameters>. parameters>.
[KebabCase] [KebabCase]
"KebabCase", 29 August 2014, "Kebab Case", 29 August 2014,
<http://wiki.c2.com/?KebabCase>. <http://wiki.c2.com/?KebabCase>.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007, FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M., [RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.
skipping to change at page 16, line 10 skipping to change at line 689
[RFC8881] Noveck, D., Ed. and C. Lever, "Network File System (NFS) [RFC8881] Noveck, D., Ed. and C. Lever, "Network File System (NFS)
Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 8881, Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 8881,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8881, August 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8881, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8881>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8881>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[RFC9200] Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments Using the OAuth 2.0 Framework
(ACE-OAuth)", RFC 9200, DOI 10.17487/RFC9200, April 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9200>.
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
Jim Schaad, Francesca Palombini, Olaf Bergmann, Marco Tiloca, and Jim Schaad, Francesca Palombini, Olaf Bergmann, Marco Tiloca, and
Christian Amsüss provided comments that shaped the direction of this Christian Amsüss provided comments that shaped the direction of this
document. Alexey Melnikov pointed out that there were gaps in the document. Alexey Melnikov pointed out that there were gaps in the
media type specifications, and Loganaden Velvindron provided a media type specifications, and Loganaden Velvindron provided a
shepherd review with further comments. Many thanks also to the IESG shepherd review with further comments. Many thanks also to the IESG
reviewers, which provided several small but significant observations. reviewers, who provided several small but significant observations.
Benjamin Kaduk provided an extensive review as responsible Area Benjamin Kaduk provided an extensive review as Responsible Area
Director, and indeed is responsible for much improvement in the Director and indeed is responsible for much improvement in the
document. document.
Author's Address Author's Address
Carsten Bormann Carsten Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440 Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen D-28359 Bremen
Germany Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921 Phone: +49-421-218-63921
 End of changes. 83 change blocks. 
220 lines changed or deleted 228 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/