Internet-Draft secevent-subject-identifiers July 2022
Backman, et al. Expires 25 January 2023 [Page]
Workgroup:
Security Events Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-12
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
A. Backman, Ed.
Amazon
M. Scurtescu
Coinbase
P. Jain
Fastly

Subject Identifiers for Security Event Tokens

Abstract

Security events communicated within Security Event Tokens may support a variety of identifiers to identify subjects related to the event. This specification formalizes the notion of subject identifiers as structured information that describe a subject, and named formats that define the syntax and semantics for encoding subject identifiers as JSON objects. It also defines a registry for defining and allocating names for such formats, as well as the sub_id JSON Web Token (JWT) claim.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 January 2023.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

As described in Section 1.2 of SET [RFC8417], subjects related to security events may take a variety of forms, including but not limited to a JWT [RFC7519] principal, an IP address, a URL, etc. Different types of subjects may need to be identified in different ways (e.g., a host might be identified by an IP or MAC address, while a user might be identified by an email address). Furthermore, even in the case where the type of the subject is known, there may be multiple ways by which a given subject may be identified. For example, an account may be identified by an opaque identifier, an email address, a phone number, a JWT iss claim and sub claim, etc., depending on the nature and needs of the transmitter and receiver. Even within the context of a given transmitter and receiver relationship, it may be appropriate to identify different accounts in different ways, for example if some accounts only have email addresses associated with them while others only have phone numbers. Therefore it can be necessary to indicate within a SET the mechanism by which a subject is being identified.

To address this problem, this specification defines Subject Identifiers - JSON [RFC7159] objects containing information identifying a subject - and Identifier Formats - named sets of rules describing how to encode different kinds of subject identifying information (e.g., an email address, or an issuer and subject pair) as a Subject Identifier.

Below is a non-normative example of a Subject Identifier that identifies a subject by email address, using the Email Identifier Format.

{
  "format": "email",
  "email": "user@example.com"
}
Figure 1: Example: Subject Identifier using the Email Identifier Format

Subject Identifiers are intended to be a general-purpose mechanism for identifying subjects within JSON objects and their usage need not be limited to SETs. Below is a non-normative example of a JWT that uses a Subject Identifier in the sub_id claim (defined in this specification) to identify the JWT Subject.

{
  "iss": "issuer.example.com",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "phone_number",
    "phone_number": "+12065550100"
  }
}
Figure 2: Example: JWT using a Subject Identifier with the "sub_id" claim

Usage of Subject Identifiers also need not be limited to identifying JWT Subjects. They are intended as a general-purpose means of expressing identifying information in an unambiguous manner. Below is a non-normative example of a SET containing a hypothetical security event describing the interception of a message, using Subject Identifiers to identify the sender, intended recipient, and interceptor.

{
  "iss": "issuer.example.com",
  "iat": 1508184845,
  "aud": "aud.example.com",
  "events": {
    "https://secevent.example.com/events/message-interception": {
      "from": {
        "format": "email",
        "email": "alice@example.com"
      },
      "to": {
        "format": "email",
        "email": "bob@example.com"
      },
      "interceptor": {
        "format": "email",
        "email": "eve@example.com"
      }
    }
  }
}
Figure 3: Example: SET with an event payload containing multiple Subject Identifiers

2. Notational Conventions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.1. Definitions

This specification utilizes terminology defined in [RFC7159] and [RFC8417].

Within this specification, the terms "Subject" and "subject" refer generically to anything being identified via one or more pieces of information. The term "JWT Subject" refers specifically to the to the subject of a JWT. (i.e., the subject that the JWT asserts claims about)

3. Subject Identifiers

A Subject Identifier is a JSON [RFC7159] object whose contents may be used to identify a subject within some context. An Identifier Format is a named definition of a set of information that may be used to identify a subject, and the rules for encoding that information as a Subject Identifier; they define the syntax and semantics of Subject Identifiers. A Subject Identifier MUST conform to a specific Identifier Format, and MUST contain a format member whose value is the name of that Identifier Format.

Every Identifier Format MUST have a unique name registered in the IANA "Security Event Identifier Formats" registry established by Section 8.1, or a Collision-Resistant Name as defined in [RFC7519]. Identifier Formats that are expected to be used broadly by a variety of parties SHOULD be registered in the "Security Event Identifier Formats" registry.

An Identifier Format MAY describe more members than are strictly necessary to identify a subject, and MAY describe conditions under which those members are required, optional, or prohibited. The format member is reserved for use as described in this specification; Identifier Formats MUST NOT declare any rules regarding the format member.

Every member within a Subject Identifier MUST match the rules specified for that member by this specification or by Subject Identifier's Identifier Format. A Subject Identifier MUST NOT contain any members prohibited or not described by its Identifier Format, and MUST contain all members required by its Identifier Format.

3.1. Identifier Formats versus Principal Types

Identifier Formats define how to encode identifying information for a subject. They do not define the type or nature of the subject itself. E.g., While the email Identifier Format declares that the value of the email member is an email address, a subject in a Security Event that is identified by an email Subject Identifier could be an end user who controls that email address, the mailbox itself, or anything else that the transmitter and receiver both understand to be associated with that email address. Consequently Subject Identifiers remove ambiguity around how a subject is being identified, and how to parse an identifying structure, but do not remove ambiguity around how to resolve that identifier to a subject. For example, consider a directory management API that allows callers to identify users and groups through both opaque unique identifiers and email addresses. Such an API could use Subject Identifiers to disambiguate between which of these two types of identifiers is in use. However, the API would have to determine whether the subject is a user or group via some other means, such as by querying a database, interpreting other parameters in the request, or inferring the type from the API contract.

3.2. Identifier Format Definitions

The following Identifier Formats are registered in the IANA "Security Event Identifier Formats" registry established by Section 8.1.

Since the subject identifier format conveys semantic information, applications SHOULD choose the most specific possible format for the identifier in question. For example, an email address can be conveyed using a mailto: URI and the uri identifier format, but since the value is known to be an email address, the application should prefer to use the email identifier format instead.

3.2.1. Account Identifier Format

The Account Identifier Format identifies a subject using an account at a service provider, identified with an acct URI as defined in [RFC7565]. Subject Identifiers in this format MUST contain a uri member whose value is the acct URI for the subject. The uri member is REQUIRED and MUST NOT be null or empty. The Account Identifier Format is identified by the name account.

Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier for the Account Identifier Format:

{
  "format": "account",
  "uri": "acct:example.user@service.example.com"
}
Figure 4: Example: Subject Identifier for the Account Identifier Format

3.2.2. Email Identifier Format

The Email Identifier Format identifies a subject using an email address. Subject Identifiers in this format MUST contain an email member whose value is a string containing the email address of the subject, formatted as an addr-spec as defined in Section 3.4.1 of [RFC5322]. The email member is REQUIRED and MUST NOT be null or empty. The value of the email member SHOULD identify a mailbox to which email may be delivered, in accordance with [RFC5321]. The Email Identifier Format is identified by the name email.

Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier in the Email Identifier Format:

{
  "format": "email",
  "email": "user@example.com"
}
Figure 5: Example: Subject Identifier in the Email Identifier Format
3.2.2.1. Email Canonicalization

Many email providers will treat multiple email addresses as equivalent. While the domain portion of an [RFC5322] email address is consistently treated as case-insensitive per [RFC1034], some providers treat the local part of the email address as case-insensitive as well, and consider "user@example.com", "User@example.com", and "USER@example.com" as the same email address. This has led users to view these strings as equivalent, driving service providers to implement proprietary email canonicalization algorithms to ensure that email addresses entered by users resolve to the same canonical string. When receiving an Email Subject Identifier, the recipient SHOULD use their implementation's canonicalization algorithm to resolve the email address to the same string used in their system.

3.2.3. Issuer and Subject Identifier Format

The Issuer and Subject Identifier Format identifies a subject using a pair of iss and sub members, analagous to how subjects are identified using the iss and sub claims in OpenID Connect [OpenID.Core] ID Tokens. These members MUST follow the formats of the iss member and sub member defined by [RFC7519], respectively. Both the iss member and the sub member are REQUIRED and MUST NOT be null or empty. The Issuer and Subject Identifier Format is identified by the name iss_sub.

Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier in the Issuer and Subject Identifier Format:

{
  "format": "iss_sub",
  "iss": "http://issuer.example.com/",
  "sub": "145234573"
}
Figure 6: Example: Subject Identifier in the Issuer and Subject Identifier Format

3.2.4. Opaque Identifier Format

The Opaque Identifier Format describes a subject that is identified with a string with no semantics asserted beyond its usage as an identifier for the subject, such as a UUID or hash used as a surrogate identifier for a record in a database. Subject Identifiers in this format MUST contain an id member whose value is a JSON string containing the opaque string identifier for the subject. The id member is REQUIRED and MUST NOT be null or empty. The Opaque Identifier Format is identified by the name opaque.

Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier in the Opaque Identifier Format:

{
  "format": "opaque",
  "id": "11112222333344445555"
}
Figure 7: Example: Subject Identifier in the Opaque Identifier Format

3.2.5. Phone Number Identifier Format

The Phone Number Identifier Format identifies a subject using a telephone number. Subject Identifiers in this format MUST contain a phone_number member whose value is a string containing the full telephone number of the subject, including international dialing prefix, formatted according to E.164 [E164]. The phone_number member is REQUIRED and MUST NOT be null or empty. The Phone Number Identifier Format is identified by the name phone_number.

Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier in the Email Identifier Format:

{
  "format": "phone_number",
  "phone_number": "+12065550100"
}
Figure 8: Example: Subject Identifier in the Phone Number Identifier Format

3.2.6. Decentralized Identifier (DID) Format

The Decentralized Identifier Format identifies a subject using a Decentralized Identifier (DID) URL as defined in [DID]. Subject Identifiers in this format MUST contain a url member whose value is a DID URL for the DID Subject being identified. The value of the url member MUST be a valid DID URL and MAY be a bare DID. The url member is REQUIRED and MUST NOT be null or empty. The Decentralized Identifier Format is identified by the name did.

Below are non-normative example Subject Identifiers for the Decentralized Identifier Format:

3.2.7. Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Format

The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Format identifies a subject using a URI as defined in [RFC3986]. This identifier format makes no assumptions or guarantees with regard to the content, scheme, or reachability of the URI within the field. Subject Identifiers in this format MUST contain a uri members whose value is a URI for the subject being identified. The uri member is REQUIRED and MUST NOT be null or empty. The URI format is identified by the name uri.

Below are non-normative example Subject Identifiers for the URI format:

{
  "format": "uri",
  "uri": "urn:uuid:4e851e98-83c4-4743-a5da-150ecb53042f"
}
Figure 12: Example: Subject Identifier for the URI Format, identifying a subject with a random URN

3.2.8. Aliases Identifier Format

The Aliases Identifier Format describes a subject that is identified with a list of different Subject Identifiers. It is intended for use when a variety of identifiers have been shared with the party that will be interpreting the Subject Identifier, and it is unknown which of those identifiers they will recognize or support. Subject Identifiers in this format MUST contain an identifiers member whose value is a JSON array containing one or more Subject Identifiers. Each Subject Identifier in the array MUST identify the same entity. The identifiers member is REQUIRED and MUST NOT be null or empty. It MAY contain multiple instances of the same Identifier Format (e.g., multiple Email Subject Identifiers), but SHOULD NOT contain exact duplicates. This format is identified by the name aliases.

aliases Subject Identifiers MUST NOT be nested; i.e., the identifiers member of an aliases Subject Identifier MUST NOT contain a Subject Identifier in the aliases format.

Below is a non-normative example Subject Identifier in the Aliases Identifier Format:

{
  "format": "aliases",
  "identifiers": [
    {
      "format": "email",
      "email": "user@example.com"
    },
    {
      "format": "phone_number",
      "phone_number": "+12065550100"
    },
    {
      "format": "email",
      "email": "user+qualifier@example.com"
    }
  ]
}
Figure 13: Example: Subject Identifier in the Aliases Identifier Format

4. Subject Identifiers in JWTs

4.1. sub_id Claim

The sub JWT Claim is defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC7519] as containing a string value, and therefore cannot contain a Subject Identifier (which is a JSON object) as its value. This document defines the sub_id JWT Claim, in accordance with Section 4.2 of [RFC7519], as a common claim that identifies the JWT Subject using a Subject Identifier. When present, the value of this claim MUST be a Subject Identifier that identifies the subject of the JWT. The sub_id claim MAY be included in a JWT, whether or not the sub claim is present. When both the sub and sub_id claims are present in a JWT, they MUST identify the same subject, as a JWT has one and only one JWT Subject.

When processing a JWT with both sub and sub_id claims, implementations MUST NOT rely on both claims to determine the JWT Subject. An implementation MAY attempt to determine the JWT Subject from one claim and fall back to using the other if it determines it does not understand the format of the first claim. For example, an implementation may attempt to use sub_id, and fall back to using sub upon finding that sub_id contains a Subject Identifier whose format is not recognized by the implementation.

Below are non-normative examples of JWTs containing the sub_id claim:

{
  "iss": "issuer.example.com",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "email",
    "email": "user@example.com"
  }
}
Figure 14: Example: JWT containing a "sub_id" claim and no "sub" claim 
{
  "iss": "issuer.example.com",
  "sub": "user@example.com",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "email",
    "email": "user@example.com"
  }
}
Figure 15: Example: JWT where both the "sub" and "sub_id" claims identify the JWT Subject using the same identifier 
{
  "iss": "issuer.example.com",
  "sub": "liz@example.com",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "email",
    "email": "elizabeth@example.com"
  }
}
Figure 16: Example: JWT where both the "sub" and "sub_id" claims identify the JWT Subject using different values of the same identifier type 
{
  "iss": "issuer.example.com",
  "sub": "user@example.com",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "account",
    "uri": "acct:example.user@service.example.com"
  }
}
Figure 17: Example: JWT where the "sub" and "sub_id" claims identify the JWT Subject via different types of identifiers

4.2. sub_id and iss_sub Subject Identifiers

The sub_id claim MAY contain an iss_sub Subject Identifier. In this case, the JWT's iss claim and the Subject Identifier's iss member MAY be different. For example, in OpenID Connect [OpenID.Core] client may construct such a JWT when sending JWTs back to its OpenID Connect Identity Provider, in order to identify the JWT Subject using an identifier known to be understood by both parties. Similarly, the JWT's sub claim and the Subject Identifier's sub member MAY be different. For example, this may be used by an OpenID Connect client to communicate the JWT Subject's local identifier at the client back to its Identity Provider.

Below are non-normative examples of a JWT where the iss claim and iss member within the sub_id claim are the same, and a JWT where they are different.

{
  "iss": "issuer.example.com",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "iss_sub",
    "iss": "issuer.example.com",
    "sub": "example_user"
  }
}
Figure 18: Example: JWT with an "iss_sub" Subject Identifier where JWT issuer and JWT Subject issuer are the same 
{
  "iss": "client.example.com",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "iss_sub",
    "iss": "issuer.example.com",
    "sub": "example_user"
  }
}
Figure 19: Example: JWT with an "iss_sub" Subject Identifier where the JWT issuer and JWT Subject issuer are different 
{
  "iss": "client.example.com",
  "sub": "client_user",
  "sub_id": {
    "format": "iss_sub",
    "iss": "issuer.example.com",
    "sub": "example_user"
  }
}
Figure 20: Example: JWT with an "iss_sub" Subject Identifier where the JWT "iss" and "sub" claims differ from the JWT Subject's "iss" and "sub" members

5. Considerations for Specifications that Define Identifier Formats

Identifier Format definitions MUST NOT make assertions or declarations regarding the subject being identified by the Subject Identifier (e.g., an Identifier Format cannot be defined as specifically identifying human end users), as such statements are outside the scope of Identifier Formats and Subject Identifiers, and expanding that scope for some Identifier Formats but not others would harm interoperability, as applications that depend on this expanded scope to disambiguate the subject type would be unable to use Identifier Formats that do not provide such rules.

6. Privacy Considerations

6.1. Identifier Correlation

The act of presenting two or more identifiers for a single subject together (e.g., within an aliases Subject Identifier, or via the sub and sub_id JWT claims) may communicate more information about the subject than was intended. For example, the entity to which the identifiers are presented now knows that both identifiers relate to the same subject, and may be able to correlate additional data based on that. When transmitting Subject Identifiers, the transmitter SHOULD take care that they are only transmitting multiple identifiers together when it is known that the recipient already knows that the identifiers are related (e.g., because they were previously sent to the recipient as claims in an OpenID Connect ID Token), or when correlation is essential to the use case. Implementers must consider such risks, and specs that use subject identifiers must provide appropriate privacy considerations of their own.

The considerations described in Section 6 of [RFC8417] also apply when Subject Identifiers are used within SETs. The considerations described in Section 12 of [RFC7519] also apply when Subject Identifiers are used within JWTs.

7. Security Considerations

7.1. Confidentiality and Integrity

This specification does not define any mechanism for ensuring the confidentiality or integrity of a Subject Identifier. Where such properties are required, implementations MUST use mechanisms provided by the containing format (e.g., integrity protecting SETs or JWTs using JWS [RFC7515]), or at the transport layer or other layer in the application stack (e.g., using TLS [RFC8446]).

Further considerations regarding confidentiality and integrity of SETs can be found in Section 5.1 of [RFC8417].

8. IANA Considerations

8.1. Security Event Identifier Formats Registry

This document defines Identifier Formats, for which IANA is asked to create and maintain a new registry titled "Security Event Identifier Formats". Initial values for the Security Event Identifier Formats registry are given in Section 3. Future assignments are to be made through the Expert Review registration policy [BCP26] and shall follow the template presented in Section 8.1.2.

It is suggested that multiple Designated Experts be appointed who are able to represent the perspectives of different applications using this specification, in order to enable broadly informed review of registration decisions. In cases where a registration decision could be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular Expert, that Expert should defer to the judgment of the other Experts.

8.1.1. Registry Location

(This section to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC.)

The authors recommend that the Identifier Formats registry be located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/secevent/.

8.1.2. Registration Template

Format Name

The name of the Identifier Format, as described in Section 3. The name MUST be an ASCII string consisting only of lower-case characters ("a" - "z"), digits ("0" - "9"), underscores ("_"), and hyphens ("-"), and SHOULD NOT exceed 20 characters in length.

Format Description

A brief description of the Identifier Format.

Change Controller

For formats defined in documents published by the IETF or its working groups, list "IETF". For all other formats, list the name of the party responsible for the registration. Contact information such as mailing address, email address, or phone number may also be provided.

Defining Document(s)

A reference to the document or documents that define the Identifier Format. The definition MUST specify the name, format, and meaning of each member that may occur within a Subject Identifier of the defined format, as well as whether each member is optional, required, prohibited, or the circumstances under which the member may be optional, required, or prohibited. URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of each document SHOULD be included.

8.1.3. Initial Registry Contents

8.1.3.1. Account Identifier Format
  • Format Name: "account"
  • Format Description: Subject identifier based on acct URI.
  • Change Controller: IETF
  • Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document.
8.1.3.2. Email Identifier Format
  • Format Name: email
  • Format Description: Subject identifier based on email address.
  • Change Controller: IETF
  • Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document.
8.1.3.3. Issuer and Subject Identifier Format
  • Format Name: "iss_sub"
  • Format Description: Subject identifier based on an issuer and subject.
  • Change Controller: IETF
  • Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document.
8.1.3.4. Opaque Identifier Format
  • Format Name: "opaque"
  • Format Description: Subject identifier based on an opaque string.
  • Change Controller: IETF
  • Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document.
8.1.3.5. Phone Number Identifier Format
  • Format Name: "phone_number"
  • Format Description: Subject identifier based on an phone number.
  • Change Controller: IETF
  • Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document.
8.1.3.6. Decentralized Identifier Format
  • Format Name: "did"
  • Format Description: Subject identifier based on a decentralized identifier (DID).
  • Change Controller: IETF
  • Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document.
8.1.3.7. Uniform Resource Identifier Format
  • Format Name: "uri"
  • Format Description: Subject identifier based on a uniform resource identifier (URI).
  • Change Controller: IETF
  • Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document.
8.1.3.8. Aliases Identifier Format
  • Format Name: "aliases"
  • Format Description: Subject identifier that groups together multiple different subject identifiers for the same subject.
  • Change Controller: IETF
  • Defining Document(s): Section 3 of this document.

8.1.4. Guidance for Expert Reviewers

The Expert Reviewer is expected to review the documentation referenced in a registration request to verify its completeness. The Expert Reviewer must base their decision to accept or reject the request on a fair and impartial assessment of the request. If the Expert Reviewer has a conflict of interest, such as being an author of a defining document referenced by the request, they must recuse themselves from the approval process for that request. In the case where a request is rejected, the Expert Reviewer should provide the requesting party with a written statement expressing the reason for rejection, and be prepared to cite any sources of information that went into that decision.

Identifier Formats need not be generally applicable and may be highly specific to a particular domain; it is expected that formats may be registered for niche or industry-specific use cases. The Expert Reviewer should focus on whether the format is thoroughly documented, and whether its registration will promote or harm interoperability. In most cases, the Expert Reviewer should not approve a request if the registration would contribute to confusion, or amount to a synonym for an existing format.

8.2. JSON Web Token Claims Registration

This document defines the sub_id JWT Claim, which IANA is asked to register in the "JSON Web Token Claims" registry IANA JSON Web Token Claims Registry [IANA.JWT.Claims] established by [RFC7519].

8.2.1. Registry Contents

  • Claim Name: "sub_id"
  • Claim Description: Subject Identifier
  • Change Controller: IESG
  • Specification Document(s): Section 4.1 of this document.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[BCP26]
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[DID]
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), "Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0", , <https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/>.
[E164]
International Telecommunication Union, "The international public telecommunication numbering plan", , <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.164-201011-I/en>.
[IANA.JWT.Claims]
IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims", n.d., <http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5321]
Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
[RFC5322]
Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.
[RFC7159]
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7519]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC7565]
Saint-Andre, P., "The 'acct' URI Scheme", RFC 7565, DOI 10.17487/RFC7565, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7565>.
[RFC8417]
Hunt, P., Ed., Jones, M., Denniss, W., and M. Ansari, "Security Event Token (SET)", RFC 8417, DOI 10.17487/RFC8417, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8417>.

9.2. Informative References

[OpenID.Core]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0", , <http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.
[RFC1034]
Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC7515]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC8446]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the IETF Security Events working group, as well as those of the OpenID Shared Signals and Events Working Group, whose work provided the original basis for this document. We would also like to acknowledge Aaron Parecki, Denis Pinkas, Justin Richer, Mike Jones and other members of the working group for reviewing this document.

Change Log

(This section to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC.)

Draft 00 - AB - First draft

Draft 01 - AB:

Draft 02 - AB:

Draft 03 - AB:

Draft 04 - AB:

Draft 05 - AB:

Draft 06 - AB:

Draft 07 - AB:

Draft 08 - JR, AB:

Draft 09 - AB:

Draft 10 - PJ:

Draft 11 - PJ:

Draft 12 - PJ:

Authors' Addresses

Annabelle Backman (editor)
Amazon
Marius Scurtescu
Coinbase
Prachi Jain
Fastly