draft-ietf-secevent-delivery.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='http://xml.resource.org/authoring/rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02"
	ipr="trust200902">
	<front> 
		<title abbrev="draft-ietf-secevent-delivery">
			SET Token Delivery Using HTTP</title>

		<author fullname="Phil Hunt" initials="P." role="editor"
			surname="Hunt">
			<organization abbrev="Oracle">Oracle Corporation</organization>

			<address>
				<email>phil.hunt@yahoo.com</email>
			</address>
		</author>
    
    <author fullname="Marius Scurtescu" initials="M.S." surname="Scurtescu">
      <organization abbrev="Google">Google</organization>

      <address>
        <email>mscurtescu@google.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Morteza Ansari" initials="M." surname="Ansari">
      <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco</organization>

      <address>
        <email>morteza.ansari@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <author fullname="Anthony Nadalin" initials="A." surname="Nadalin">
      <organization abbrev="Microsoft">Microsoft</organization>

      <address>
        <email>tonynad@microsoft.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <author fullname="Annabelle Richard Backman" initials="A.R." surname="Backman">
      <organization abbrev="Amazon">Amazon</organization>

      <address>
        <email>richanna@amazon.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

		<date year="2018" />

		<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

		<abstract>
			<t>
				This specification defines how a series of security event tokens 
        (SETs) may be delivered to a previously registered receiver 
        using HTTP POST over TLS initiated as a push to the receiver, or
        as a poll by the receiver. The specification also defines how delivery 
        can be assured subject to the SET Token Receiver's need for assurance.
        </t>
		</abstract>
	</front>

	<middle>
		<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction and Overview" toc="default">
			
      <t>
        This specification defines how a stream of SETs (see <xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token"/>)
        can be transmitted to a previously registered 
        Event Receiver using HTTP <xref target="RFC7231"/>
        over TLS. The specification defines a method to push SETs via 
        HTTP POST and another method to poll for SETs using HTTP POST. 
      			</t>

      <t>This specification defines two methods of SET delivery in what
      is known as Event Streams.</t>
        
      <t>This specification does not define the method by which Event 
      Streams are defined, provisioned, managed, monitored,
      and configured and is out of scope of this specification.
      <vspace/>[[This work is TBD by the SECEVENTS WG]]</t>
      
      

			<section anchor="notat" title="Notational Conventions" toc="default">
				<t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/>
				  when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
			        </t>

				<t>
					For purposes of readability examples are not URL encoded.
					Implementers MUST percent encode URLs as described in
					<xref target="RFC3986">Section 2.1 of</xref>
					.
				</t>

				<t>Throughout this documents all figures MAY contain spaces and
					extra
					line-wrapping for readability and space limitations. Similarly, some
					URI's contained within examples, have been shortened for space and
					readability reasons.
				</t>
			</section>

			<section anchor="defs" title="Definitions" toc="default">
        <t>This specification assumes terminology defined in the Security
        Event Token specification<xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token"/>
        .</t>
				<t>
					The following definitions are defined for Security Event distribution:
					<list style="hanging">
          
            <t hangText="Event Transmitter"><vspace/>
              A service provider that delivers SETs to other providers known
              as Event Receivers. An Event Transmitter
              is responsible for offering a service that allows the Event
              Receiver to check the Event Stream configuration and status
              known as the "Control Plane". 
            </t>
            
            <t hangText="Event Receiver"><vspace/>
              A service provider that registers to receive SETs from 
              an Event Transmitter and provides an endpoint to receive
              SETs via HTTP POST. 
              Event Receivers
              can check current Event Stream configuration and status by
              accessing the Event Transmitters "Control Plane".
            </t>
  
            <t hangText="Event Stream"><vspace/>
              An Event Stream is a defined location, distribution method
              and whereby an Event Transmitter and Event Receiver 
              exchange a pre-defined family of SETs. A Stream is assumed
              to have configuration data such as HTTP endpoints, timeouts,
              public key sets for signing and encryption, and 
              Event Families.
            </t>
                          
            <t hangText="Subject"><vspace/>
              The security subject around which a security event has 
              occurred. For example, a security subject might per a user, 
              a person, an email address, a service provider entity, an
              IP address, an OAuth Client, a mobile device, or any identifiable
              thing referenced in security and authorization systems.
            </t>
            
            <t hangText="Event"><vspace/>An Event is defined to be an 
            event as represented by a security event token (SET).
            See <xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token"/>.</t>

            <t hangText="NumericDate"><vspace/>
            A JSON numeric value representing the number of seconds from
            1970-01-01T00:00:00Z UTC until the specified UTC date/time,
            ignoring leap seconds.  This is equivalent to the 
            IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition <xref target="POSIX.1"/> 
            definition "Seconds Since the Epoch", in which each day is 
            accounted for by exactly 86400 seconds, other than that 
            non-integer values can be represented.  See 
            <xref target="RFC3339"/> for details regarding date/times 
            in general and UTC in particular.</t>

      
					</list>
				</t>
			</section>
		</section>
   
  <section title="SET Event Stream Protocol">
    <t>An Event Stream represents the communication channel over which a 
    series of SETs are delivered to a configured Event Receiver. </t>
    
    <section anchor="process" title="Event Delivery Process">
			<t>When an Event occurs, the Event Transmitter constructs a SET
      token <xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token" /> that describes the	
      Event. The Event Transmitter determines the Event Streams over which the
      SET should be distributed to.</t>
      <t> 
      How SETs are defined and the process by which Events are identified for 
      Event Receivers is out-of-scope of this	specification.
			</t>

			<t>
			When a SET is available for an Event Receiver, the Event Transmitter
			attempts to deliver the SET based on the Event Receiver's registered
			delivery mechanism:
			<list style="symbols">
				<t>The Event Transmitter uses an HTTP/1.1 POST to the Event 
        Receiver endpoint to deliver the SET;
			  </t>
        <t>The Event Transmitter queues up the SET in a buffer so that
        an Event Receiver MAY poll for SETs using HTTP/1.1 POST.</t>

			  <t>Or, the Event Transmitter delivers the Event through a different
        method not defined by this specification.
			  </t>
			</list>
			</t>
      
      <t>Delivery of SETs MAY be delivered using one of two modes:
      <list style="hanging">
        <t hangText="PUSH"><vspace/>In which SETs are delivered
        one at a time using HTTP POST requests by an Event Transmitter 
        to an Event Receiver. The HTTP request body is a JSON Web Token 
        <xref target="RFC7519"/> with a <spanx style="verb">Content-Type</spanx> 
        header of <spanx style="verb">application/secevent+jwt</spanx> 
        as defined in Section 2.2 and 6.2 of 
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token"/>. Upon receipt, the 
        Event Receiver acknowledges receipt with a response with HTTP 
        Status 202, as described below in <xref target="httpPost"/>.</t>
        
        <t hangText="POLLING">Where 
        multiple SETs are delivered in a JSON document <xref target="RFC7159"/>
        to an Event Receiver in response to an HTTP POST request to the 
        Event Transmitter. Then in a following request, the Event Receiver
        acknowledges received SETs and MAY poll for more. In POLLING mode, 
        all requests and responses are JSON documents and use a 
        <spanx style="verb">Content-Type</spanx> of 
        <spanx style="verb">application/json</spanx> as described in
        <xref target="httpPoll"/>.</t>
      </list></t>

			<t>After successful (acknowledged) SET delivery, Event 
      Transmitters SHOULD NOT be required to maintain or record SETs for 
      recovery. Once a SET is acknowledged, the Event Receiver SHALL be 
      responsible for retention and recovery.</t>
      
      <t>Transmitted SETs SHOULD be self-validating (e.g. signed)
      if there is a requirement to verify they were issued by the Event 
      Transmitter at a later date when de-coupled from the original 
      delivery where authenticity could be checked via the HTTP or 
      TLS mutual authentication.
			</t>

			<t>
			Upon receiving a SET, the Event Receiver reads the SET and validates 
      it. The Event Receiver MUST acknowledge receipt to the Event Transmitter, using the 
      defined acknowledgement or error method depending on the method of 
      transfer.</t>
      
      <t>The Event Receiver SHALL NOT use the Event acknowledgement mechanism
      to report Event errors other than relating to the parsing and validation
      of the SET.</t>
  </section>
  
    
  
  <section anchor="httpPost" title="Push Delivery using HTTP">
        
     <t>This method allows an Event Transmitter to use HTTP POST 
     (<xref target="RFC7231">Section 4.3.3</xref>) to deliver
     SETs to a previously registered web callback URI supplied by the
     Event Receiver as part of an Event Stream configuration process 
     (not defined by this document).</t>
          
     <t>The SET to be delivered MAY be signed 
     and/or encrypted as defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token" />.</t>
           
     <t>The Event Stream configuration defines a URI of an Event 
     Receiver provided endpoint which accepts HTTP POST requests (e.g. 
     <spanx style="verb">https://rp.example.com/Events</spanx>).</t>

     <t>The HTTP Content-Type (see 
     <xref target="RFC7231">Section 3.1.1.5</xref>) for the HTTP POST is 
     <spanx style="verb">application/secevent+jwt</spanx> and SHALL consist of 
     a single SET (see <xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token" />).
     As per <xref target="RFC7231">Section 5.3.2</xref>, the expected 
     media type (<spanx style="verb">Accept</spanx> header) response is 
     <spanx style="verb">application/json</spanx>.</t>
     
     <figure align="left" anchor="postSet" title="Example HTTP POST Request">
     <preamble>To deliver an Event, the Event Transmitter generates an event 
     delivery message and uses HTTP POST to the configured endpoint with
     the appropriate <spanx style="verb">Accept</spanx> and 
     <spanx style="verb">Content-Type</spanx> headers.</preamble>
<artwork align="left">POST /Events  HTTP/1.1

Host: notify.examplerp.com
Accept: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/secevent+jwt
eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0
.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.</artwork>
     </figure>
            
     <t>Upon receipt of the request, the Event Receiver SHALL 
     validate the JWT structure of the SET as defined in 
     <xref target="RFC7519">Section 7.2</xref>. The Event Receiver 
     SHALL also validate the SET information as described
     in <xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token">Section 2</xref>.</t>
     <t>If the SET is determined to be valid, the Event Receiver SHALL
     "acknowledge" successful submission by responding with HTTP Status
     202 as <spanx style="verb">Accepted</spanx> 
     (see <xref target="RFC7231">Section 6.3.3</xref>).</t>
     
     <t>In order
     to maintain compatibility with other methods of transmission, the 
     Event Receiver SHOULD NOT include an HTTP response body representation
     of the submitted SET or what the SET's pending status is when 
     acknowledging success. In the case of an error (e.g. HTTP Status 400),
     the purpose of the HTTP response body is to indicate any SET parsing, 
     validation, or cryptographic errors.</t>
     
     <figure anchor="goodPostResponse" title="Example Successful Delivery Response">
        <preamble>The following is a non-normative example of a successful
        receipt of a SET.</preamble>
        <artwork>HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted</artwork>
     </figure> 
     
     <t>Note that the purpose of the "acknowledgement" response is to let the 
       Event Transmitter know that a SET has been delivered and the 
       information no longer needs to be retained by the Event Transmitter. 
       Before acknowledgement, Event Receivers SHOULD ensure they have 
       validated received SETs and retained them in a manner appropriate 
       to information retention requirements appropriate to the SET 
       event types signaled. The level and method of retention of SETs
       by Event Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification.</t>
          
     <t>In the Event of a general HTTP error condition, the Event Receiver
     MAY respond with an appropriate HTTP Status code as defined in 
     <xref target="RFC7231">Section 6</xref>.</t>
     <t>When the Event Receiver detects an error parsing or 
     validating a received SET (as defined by <xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token"/>), 
     the Event Receiver SHALL indicate an HTTP Status 400 error with an 
     error code as described in <xref target="errorResponse"/>.
     </t>
     
     <figure anchor="badPostResponse" title="Example HTTP Status 400 Response">
        <preamble>The following is an example non-normative error 
        response.</preamble>
        <artwork>HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "err":"dup",
  "description":"SET already received. Ignored."

}</artwork>
     </figure>    
     </section>
     
     <section anchor="httpPoll" title="Polling Delivery using HTTP">
 
       <t>This method allows an Event Receiver to use HTTP POST 
       (<xref target="RFC7231">Section 4.3.3</xref>) to acknowledge
       SETs and to check for and receive zero or more SETs. Requests
       MAY be made at a periodic interval (short polling) or requests
       MAY wait pending availability of new SETs using long polling 
       (see <xref target="RFC6202">Section 2</xref>).</t>
                   
       <t>The delivery of SETs in this method is facilitated by HTTP
       POST requests initiated by the Event Receiver in which:<list style="symbols">
        <t>The Event Receiver makes a request for available SETs 
        using an HTTP POST to a pre-arranged endpoint provided by the Event 
        Transmitter. Or,</t>
        <t>After validating previously received SETs, the Event Receiver 
        initiates another poll request using HTTP POST that includes
        acknowledgement of previous SETs, and waits for the next batch
        of SETs.</t>
       </list></t>
       
       <t>The purpose of the "acknowledgement" is to inform the 
       Event Transmitter that has successfully been delivered and attempts
       to re-deliver are no longer required. Before acknowledgement, Event 
       Receivers SHOULD ensure received SETs have been validated and 
       retained in a manner appropriate to the receiver's  
       retention requirements. The level and method of retention of SETs
       by Event Receivers is out-of-scope of this specification.</t>
 
       <section anchor="pollReqAttrs" title="Polling HTTP Request Attributes">
       
       <t>When initiating a poll request, the Event Receiver constructs
       a JSON document that consists of polling request parameters
       and SET acknowledgement parameters in the form of JSON attributes.</t>
       
       <t>The request payloads are delivered in one of two forms as described
       in <xref target="pollRequest"/> and <xref target="pollGetAck"></xref></t>
       
       <t>When making a request, the HTTP header <spanx style="verb">Content-Type</spanx>
       is set to <spanx style="verb">application/json</spanx>.</t>
       
       <t>The following JSON Attributes are used in a polling request:
       <list style="hanging">
       
         <!-- Request parameters -->
         <t hangText="Request Processing Parameters"><list style="hanging">
         
          <t hangText="maxEvents"><vspace/>an OPTIONAL JSON integer value 
         indicating the maximum number of unacknowledged SETs that 
         SHOULD be returned. If more than the maximum number of SETs 
         are available, the oldest SETs available SHOULD be returned 
         first. A value of <spanx style="verb">0</spanx> MAY be used by 
         Event Receivers that would like to perform an acknowledge only
         request. This enables the Receiver to use separate HTTP requests
         for acknowledgement and reception of SETs. When zero returned
         events is requested, the value of the attribute 
         <spanx style="verb">returnImmediately</spanx> SHALL be ignored 
         as an immediate response is expected.
         </t>
         
         <t hangText="returnImmediately"><vspace/>An OPTIONAL JSON 
         boolean value that indicates the Event Transmitter SHOULD return
         an immediate response even if no results are available 
         (short polling). The default value is <spanx style="verb">false</spanx> 
         indicates the request is to be treated as an HTTP Long Poll (see 
         <xref target="RFC6202">Section 2</xref>). The time out for the 
         request is part of the Stream configuration which is out of 
         scope of this specification.</t> 

<!-- Removed in favoour of maxEvents=0
         <t hangText="ackOnly"><vspace/>An OPTIONAL JSON boolean value
         where a value of <spanx style="verb">true</spanx> indicates 
         that the Event Receiver is acknowledging
         received SETs and does not wish to receive new SETs in the 
         current request. The default value is <spanx style="verb">false</spanx>.
         This option MAY be used by Event Receivers that would like
         to use a separate or distinct request for acknowledgement (e.g.
         to separate receiver threads from acknowledgement threads).
         When specified the value of the attribute 
         <spanx style="verb">returnImmediately</spanx> SHALL be ignored 
         as an immediate response is expected.</t>             
  -->
         </list></t>
         
         <t hangText="SET Acknowledgment Parameters"><list style="hanging">
 
         <!-- Acknowledgement parameters -->     
 
         <t hangText="ack"><vspace/>Which is an array of Strings that each
         correspond to the <spanx style="verb">jti</spanx> of a 
         successfully received SET. If there are no 
         outstanding SETs to acknowledge, the attribute MAY be omitted. 
         When acknowledging a SET, the Event Transmitter is released from
         any obligation to retain the SET (e.g. for a future re-try to
         receive).</t>
          
         <t hangText="setErrs"><vspace/>A JSON Object that contains 
         one or more nested JSON attributes that correspond to the 
         <spanx style="verb">jti</spanx> of each invalid SET received.
         The value of each is a JSON object whose contents is an
         <spanx style="verb">err</spanx> attribute and 
         <spanx style="verb">description</spanx> attribute whose value 
         correspond to the errors described in <xref target="errorResponse"/>.</t> 
         
         <!-- Removed will try to avoid using docId
         <t hangText="docErrs"><vspace/>A JSON Object that contains 
         one or more nested JSON attributes that correspond to the 
         <spanx style="verb">docId</spanx> of a previous polling response.
         The value of each is a JSON object whose contents is an
         <spanx style="verb">err</spanx> attribute and 
         <spanx style="verb">description</spanx> attribute whose value 
         correspond to the errors described in <xref target="errorResponse"/>.</t> 
          -->
         
         </list></t>
                
        </list>
        </t>
       </section>
       
       <section anchor="pollRespAttrs" title="Polling HTTP Response Attributes">
       
       <t>In response to a poll request, the Event Transmitter checks for 
       available SET events and responds with a JSON document containing
       the following JSON attributes:
       <list style="hanging">
       
         <!-- If we use docId, it should probably be in a header
         
         <t hangText="docId"><vspace/>A REQUIRED JSON String that contains
         a value which can be used to identify the current response
         document. This value is used primarily to acknowledge document
         level errors by the Event Receiver.</t>
         
          -->
          
         <t hangText="sets"><vspace/>A JSON object that contains zero 
         or more nested JSON attributes. Each nested attribute 
         corresponds to the <spanx style="verb">jti</spanx> of a SET to 
         be delivered and whose value is a JSON String containing the 
         value of the encoded corresponding SET. If there are no 
         outstanding SETs to be transmitted, the JSON object SHALL be 
         empty.</t>
         
<!--  drop before and since         
         <t hangText="since"><vspace/>A JSON integer value that
         is a NumericDate and indicates the time of the oldest SET that 
         was returned. 
         </t>
         
         <t hangText="before"><vspace/>A JSON integer value that is a 
         NumericDate and indicates the time of the youngest SET that was 
         returned.</t>
    -->
    
         <t hangText="moreAvailable"><vspace/>A JSON boolean value that 
         indicates if more unacknowledged SETs are available to be returned. 
         </t>     
       </list>
       </t>
       
       <t>When making a response, the HTTP header <spanx style="verb">Content-Type</spanx>
       is set to <spanx style="verb">application/json</spanx>.</t>
       </section>
       
       <section anchor="pollRequest" title="Poll Request">
       
       <t>The Event Receiver performs an HTTP POST (see
       <xref target="RFC7231">Section 4.3.4</xref>) to a pre-arranged 
       polling endpoint URI to check for SETs that are available. 
       Because the Event Receiver has no prior SETs to 
       acknowledge, the <spanx style="verb">ack</spanx> and 
       <spanx style="verb">errs</spanx> request parameters are omitted.</t>

       <t>If after a period of time, negotiated between the Event 
       Transmitter and Receiver, an Event Transmitter MAY re-issue SETs
       it has previously delivered. The Event Receiver SHOULD accept
       repeat SETs and acknowledge the SETs regardless of whether the
       Receiver believes it has already acknowledged the SETs previously.
       An Event Transmitter MAY limit the number of times it attempts to
       deliver a SET. Upon abandoning delivery of a SET, the Event Transmitter
       SHOULD have a method to notify the Event Receiver of the loss
       such as through a status service (not defined by this specification).
       </t>
       
        <t>If the Event Receiver has received SETs from the 
        Event Transmitter, the Event Receiver SHOULD parse and validate 
        received SETs to meet its own requirements and SHOULD acknowledge 
        receipt in a timely (e.g. minutes) fashion so that the Event 
        Transmitter may mark the SETs as received. Event Receivers SHOULD
        acknowledge receipt before taking any local actions based on
        the SETs to avoid unnecessary delay in acknowledgement where 
        possible.</t>
        
        <t>Poll requests have three variations:
        <list style="hanging">
          <t hangText="Poll Only"><vspace/>In which an Event Receiver 
          asks for the next set of Events where no previous SET deliveries 
          are acknowledged (such as in the initial poll request).</t>
          <t hangText="Acknowledge Only"><vspace/>In which an Event 
          Receiver sets the <spanx style="verb">maxEvents</spanx> 
          attribute to <spanx style="verb">0</spanx> along with 
          <spanx style="verb">ack</spanx> and
          <spanx style="verb">err</spanx> attributes indicating the 
          Event Receiver is acknowledging previously received SETs and 
          does not want to receive any new SETs in response to the 
          request. </t>
          <t hangText="Combined Acknowledge and Poll"><vspace/>In 
          which an Event Receiver is both acknowledging previously
          received SETs using the <spanx style="verb">ack</spanx> and
          <spanx style="verb">err</spanx> attributes
          and will wait for the next group of SETs in the Event Transmitters
          response.</t>
        </list></t>
       
       <section title="Poll Only Request">
       <t>In the case where no SETs were received in a previous poll (see 
        <xref target="emptyPollResponse"/>), the Event Receiver simply
        polls without acknowledgement parameters (<spanx style="verb">sets</spanx>
        and <spanx style="verb">setErrs</spanx>).</t>  
        
       <t>The following is an example request made by an Event Receiver
       that has no outstanding SETs to acknowledge and is polling 
       for available SETs.</t>
       
       <figure anchor="pollInitRequest" title="Example Initial Poll Request">
       <preamble>The following is a non-normative example poll request to the
       endpoint: <spanx style="verb">https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events</spanx>.</preamble>
       <artwork align="left">POST /Events  HTTP/1.1

Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Accept: application/json

{
 "returnImmediately":true
}</artwork>
       </figure>
       
       <t>An Event Receiver MAY poll with no parameters at all by passing
       an empty JSON object.</t>
       
       <figure anchor="pollDefaultRequest" title="Example Default Poll Request">
       <preamble>The following is a non-normative example default poll request to the
       endpoint: <spanx style="verb">https://nofity.exampleidp.com/Events</spanx>.</preamble>
       <artwork align="left">POST /Events  HTTP/1.1

Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Accept: application/json

{}</artwork>
       </figure>
       
       </section>
       
       <section title="Acknowledge Only Request">
       <t>In this variation, the Event Receiver acknowledges previously 
       received SETs and indicates it does not want to receive SETs in 
       response by setting the <spanx style="verb">maxEvents</spanx> 
       attribute to <spanx style="verb">0</spanx>.</t>
       
       <t>This variation is typically used when an Event Receiver needs to 
       acknowledge received SETs independently (e.g. on separate threads)
       from the process of receiving SETs.</t>
       
       <figure anchor="pollAckOnly" title="Example Acknowledge Only equest">
        <preamble>The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement 
        of SETs received (for example as shown in 
        <xref target="pollResponse"/>).</preamble>
        <artwork>POST /Events  HTTP/1.1

Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8

{
  "ack":[
    "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8",
    "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
  ],
  "maxEvents":0
}</artwork>
        </figure>
       
       </section>
       
       <section anchor="pollAck" title="Poll with Acknowledgement">
       
       <t>This variation allows a receiver thread to simultaneously 
       acknowledge previously received SETs and wait for the next
       group of SETs in a single request.</t>
     
        <figure anchor="pollGoodResponse" title="Example Poll With Acknowledgement and No Errors">
        <preamble>The following is a non-normative example poll with acknowledgement 
        of SETs received in <xref target="pollResponse"/>.</preamble>
        <artwork>POST /Events  HTTP/1.1

Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8

{
  "ack":[
    "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8",
    "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"
  ],
  "returnImmediately":false
}</artwork>
        </figure>
        
        <t>In the above acknowledgement, the Event Receiver has acknowledged
        receipt of two SETs and has indicated it wants to wait until
        the next SET is available.</t>       
       </section>
       
       <section anchor="pollAckErr" title="Poll with Acknowledgement and Errors">
        <t>In the case where errors were detected in previously 
        delivered SETs, the Event Receiver MAY use the 
        <spanx style="verb">setErrs</spanx> attribute to indicate errors
        in the following poll request.
        </t>
        
        <figure anchor="pollErrorResponse" 
        title="Example Poll Acknowledgement With Error">
        <preamble>The following is a non-normative example of a response
        acknowledging 1 error and 1 receipt of two SETs received 
        in <xref target="pollResponse"/>.</preamble>
        <artwork>POST /Events  HTTP/1.1

Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8

{
  "ack":["3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30"],
  "setErrs":{
    "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":{
      "err":"jwtAud",
      "description":"The audience value was incorrect."
    }
  },
  "returnImmediately":true
}</artwork>
        </figure>     
        
        <!-- DocId errors removed from current version
        <figure anchor="pollDocErrorAck" 
        title="Example Poll Acknowledgement With Document Error">
        <preamble>The following is a non-normative example of a response
        acknowledging a document parsing error from a previous poll.</preamble>
        <artwork>POST /Events  HTTP/1.1

Host: notify.exampleidp.com
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8
Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer h480djs93hd8

{
  "docErrs":{
    "1c7cb28146f24b08aba8ac1aaf27fece":{
      "err":"json",
      "description":"Received document was not a valid JSON document."
    }
  }
}</artwork>
        </figure>               
         -->
         
       </section>
       </section>
 
       <section anchor="pollGetAck" 
       title="Poll Response">
        
       <t>In response to a poll request, the service provider MAY
       respond immediately if SETs are available to be delivered. 
       If no SETs are available at the time of the request, the 
       Event Transmitter SHALL delay responding until a SET is 
       available unless the poll request parameter 
       <spanx style="verb">returnImmediately</spanx> is <spanx style="verb">true</spanx>.</t>
       
       <t>As described in <xref target="pollRespAttrs"/> a JSON document
       is returned containing a number of attributes including
       <spanx style="verb">sets</spanx> which SHALL contain zero or more 
       SETs.</t>
       <figure anchor="pollResponse" title="Example Poll Response">
       <preamble>The following is a non-normative example response to
       the request shown <xref target="pollRequest"/>. This example
       shows two SETs are returned.</preamble>
       <artwork align="left">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events

{
"sets":{
  "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8":
   "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.
   eyJqdGkiOiI0ZDM1NTllYzY3NTA0YWFiYTY1ZDQwYjAzNjNmYWFkOCIsImlhdCI6MTQ
   1ODQ5NjQwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiYXVkIjpbIm
   h0dHBzOi8vc2NpbS5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MWZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M
   2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0ZlZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIx
   ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwiZXZlbnRzIjp7InVybjppZXRmOnBhcmFtczpzY2ltOmV
   2ZW50OmNyZWF0ZSI6eyJyZWYiOiJodHRwczovL3NjaW0uZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVXNlcn
   MvNDRmNjE0MmRmOTZiZDZhYjYxZTc1MjFkOSIsImF0dHJpYnV0ZXMiOlsiaWQiLCJuY
   W1lIiwidXNlck5hbWUiLCJwYXNzd29yZCIsImVtYWlscyJdfX19.",
  "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30":
   "eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0.
   eyJqdGkiOiIzZDBjM2NmNzk3NTg0YmQxOTNiZDBmYjFiZDRlN2QzMCIsImlhdCI6MTQ
   1ODQ5NjAyNSwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiYXVkIjpbIm
   h0dHBzOi8vamh1Yi5leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9GZWVkcy85OGQ1MjQ2MWZhNWJiYzg3OTU5M
   2I3NzU0IiwiaHR0cHM6Ly9qaHViLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL0ZlZWRzLzVkNzYwNDUxNmIx
   ZDA4NjQxZDc2NzZlZTciXSwic3ViIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zY2ltLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tL1V
   zZXJzLzQ0ZjYxNDJkZjk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkiLCJldmVudHMiOnsidXJuOmlldG
   Y6cGFyYW1zOnNjaW06ZXZlbnQ6cGFzc3dvcmRSZXNldCI6eyJpZCI6IjQ0ZjYxNDJkZ
   jk2YmQ2YWI2MWU3NTIxZDkifSwiaHR0cHM6Ly9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9zY2ltL2V2ZW50
   L3Bhc3N3b3JkUmVzZXRFeHQiOnsicmVzZXRBdHRlbXB0cyI6NX19fQ."
 }
}</artwork></figure>
       <t>In the above example, a two SETs whose <spanx style="verb">jti</spanx>
       are <spanx style="verb">4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8</spanx> 
       and <spanx style="verb">3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30</spanx> 
       are delivered.</t>
       
       <figure anchor="emptyPollResponse" title="Example No SETs Poll Response">
       <preamble>The following is a non-normative example response to
       the request shown <xref target="pollRequest"/> showing no new
       SETs or unacknowledged SETs are available.</preamble>
       <artwork align="left">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Location: https://notify.exampleidp/Events

{
 "sets":{ }
}</artwork></figure>
       
       <t>Upon receiving the JSON document (e.g. as shown in 
       <xref target="pollResponse"/>), the Event Receiver parses
       and verifies the received SETs and notifies the Event Transmitter 
       via the next poll request to the Event Transmitter as described in 
       <xref target="pollAck"/> or <xref target="pollAckErr"/>.</t>      
    
     </section>
     
     </section>
     
     <section anchor="errorResponse" title="Error Response Handling">
        <t></t>
        <t>If a SET is invalid, the following error codes are defined:</t>
        <texttable anchor="reqErrors" title="SET Errors">
          <ttcol>Err Value</ttcol><ttcol>Description</ttcol>
          <c>json</c><c>Invalid JSON object.</c>
          <c>jwtParse</c><c>Invalid or unparsable JWT or JSON structure.</c>
          <c>jwtHdr</c><c>In invalid JWT header was detected.</c>
          <c>jwtCrypto</c><c>Unable to parse due to unsupported algorithm.</c>
          <c>jws</c><c>Signature was not validated.</c>
          <c>jwe</c><c>Unable to decrypt JWE encoded data.</c>
          <c>jwtAud</c><c>Invalid audience value.</c>
          <c>jwtIss</c><c>Issuer not recognized.</c>
          <c>setType</c><c>An unexpected Event type was received.</c>
          <c>setParse</c><c>Invalid structure was encountered such as an 
          inability to parse or an incomplete set of Event claims.</c>
          <c>setData</c><c>SET event claims incomplete or invalid.</c>
          <c>dup</c><c>A duplicate SET was received and has been ignored.</c>
        </texttable>
            
        <t>An error response SHALL include a JSON
        object which provides details about the error. The JSON object
        includes the JSON attributes: <list style="hanging">
          <t hangText="err"><vspace />A value which is a keyword that 
          describes the error (see <xref target="reqErrors" />).</t>
          <t hangText="description"><vspace />A human-readable text that provides
          additional diagnostic information.</t>
        </list>
        When included as part of an HTTP Status 400 response, the above
        JSON is the HTTP response body (see <xref target="badPostResponse"/>). 
        When included as part of a batch of SETs, the above JSON is included
        as part of the <spanx style="verb">setErrs</spanx> attribute as
        defined in <xref target="pollRespAttrs"/> and <xref target="pollAckErr"/></t>
         
        </section>  
       
   </section>
   
   <section anchor="aa" title="Authentication and Authorization" toc="default">
      <t>The SET delivery methods described in this specification are
      based upon HTTP and depend on the use of TLS and/or standard 
      HTTP authentication and authorization schemes as per 
      <xref target="RFC7235" />. For example, the following
      methodologies could be used among others: <list style="hanging">
          <t hangText="TLS Client Authentication"><vspace />Event delivery
          endpoints MAY request TLS mutual client authentication. 
          See <xref target="RFC5246">Section 7.3</xref>. </t>

          <t hangText="Bearer Tokens"><vspace />Bearer tokens 
          <xref target="RFC6750" /> MAY be used when combined with TLS and a token
          framework such as OAuth 2.0 <xref target="RFC6749" />. 
          For security considerations regarding the use of bearer tokens in
          SET delivery see <xref target="bearerConsiderations" />.</t>

          <t hangText="Basic Authentication"><vspace />Usage of basic
          authentication should be avoided due to its use of a single factor
          that is based upon a relatively static, symmetric secret.
          Implementers SHOULD combine the use of basic authentication with
          other factors. The security considerations of HTTP BASIC, are well
          documented in <xref target="RFC7617" /> and SHOULD be considered
          along with using signed SETs (see SET Payload Authentication below).</t>
          
          <t hangText="SET Payload Authentication"><vspace/>In scenarios 
          where SETs are signed and
          the delivery method is HTTP POST (see <xref target="httpPost" />),
          Event Receivers MAY elect to use Basic Authentication or not 
          to use HTTP or TLS based authentication at all. See 
          <xref target="payloadAuthentication" /> for considerations.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>As per <xref target="RFC7235">Section 4.1 of</xref>, a SET
      delivery endpoint SHALL indicate supported HTTP authentication 
      schemes via the <spanx style="verb">WWW-Authenticate</spanx> header.</t>

      <t>Because SET Delivery describes a simple function, authorization
      for the ability to pick-up or deliver SETs can be derived by
      considering the identity of the SET issuer, or via an authentication
      method above. This specification considers authentication as a
      feature to prevent denial-of-service attacks. Because SETs are
      not commands (see ), Event Receivers are free to ignore SETs that 
      are not of interest.</t>

      <t>For illustrative purposes only, SET delivery examples show an OAuth2
      bearer token value <xref target="RFC6750" /> in the authorization header.
      This is not intended to imply that bearer tokens are
      preferred. However, the use of bearer tokens in the specification does
      reflect common practice. </t>

      <section anchor="authzTokens" title="Use of Tokens as Authorizations">
        <t>When using bearer tokens or proof-of-possession tokens that
        represent an authorization grant such as issued by OAuth (see <xref target="RFC6749" />), implementers SHOULD consider the type of
        authorization granted, any authorized scopes (see Section 3.3 of <xref target="RFC6749" />), and the security subject(s) that SHOULD be mapped
        from the authorization when considering local access control rules.
        Section 6 of the OAuth Assertions draft <xref target="RFC7521" />, documents common scenarios for
        authorization including:<list style="symbols">
            <t>Clients using an assertion to authenticate and/or act on behalf
            of itself;</t>

            <t>Clients acting on behalf of a user; and,</t>

            <t>A Client acting on behalf of an anonymous user (e.g., see next
            section).</t>
          </list>When using OAuth authorization tokens, implementers MUST take
        into account the threats and countermeasures documented in the
        security considerations for the use of client authorizations (see
        Section 8 of <xref target="RFC7521" />). When using
        other token formats or frameworks, implementers MUST take into account
        similar threats and countermeasures, especially those documented by
        the relevant specifications.</t>
      </section>
  
  </section>
  <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations" toc="default">
      
      <section anchor="payloadAuthentication" title="Authentication Using Signed SETs">
      <t>In scenarios where HTTP authorization or TLS mutual authentication
      are not used or are considered weak, JWS signed SETs SHOULD be 
      used (see <xref target="RFC7515"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-secevent-token">
      Security Considerations</xref>). This enables the Event Receiver
      to validate that the SET issuer is authorized to deliver SETs.
      </t>
      </section>
      <section title="HTTP Considerations">
        <t>SET delivery depends on the use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol and thus
        subject to the security considerations of HTTP <xref
        target="RFC7230">Section 9</xref> and its related specifications.</t>

        <t>As stated in <xref target="RFC7230">Section 2.7.1</xref>, an 
        HTTP requestor MUST NOT generate the <spanx style="verb">userinfo</spanx>
        (i.e., username and password) component (and its "@" delimiter) when
        an "http" URI reference is generated with a message as they are now
        disallowed in HTTP.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="TLS Support Considerations">
        <t>SETs contain sensitive information that is considered PII
        (e.g. subject claims). Therefore, Event Transmitters and
        Event Receivers MUST require the use of a transport-layer 
        security mechanism. Event delivery endpoints MUST support TLS 
        1.2 <xref target="RFC5246"/> and MAY support additional 
        transport-layer mechanisms meeting its security requirements. 
        When using TLS, the client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server
        certificate check, per <xref target="RFC6125"/>. Implementation
        security considerations for TLS can be found in "Recommendations for
        Secure Use of TLS and DTLS" <xref target="RFC7525"/>.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Authorization Token Considerations">
        <t>When using authorization tokens such as those issued by OAuth 2.0
        <xref target="RFC6749"/>, implementers MUST take into account threats
        and countermeasures documented in Section 8 of <xref
        target="RFC7521"/>.</t>
        
        <section anchor="bearerConsiderations"
               title="Bearer Token Considerations">
        <t>Due to the possibility of interception, Bearer tokens MUST be 
        exchanged using TLS.</t>

        <t>Bearer tokens MUST have a limited lifetime that can be determined
        directly or indirectly (e.g., by checking with a validation service)
        by the service provider. By expiring tokens, clients are forced to
        obtain a new token (which usually involves re-authentication) for
        continued authorized access. For example, in OAuth2, a client MAY use
        OAuth token refresh to obtain a new bearer token after authenticating
        to an authorization server. See Section 6 of <xref
        target="RFC6749"/>.</t>

        <t>Implementations supporting OAuth bearer tokens need to factor in
        security considerations of this authorization method <xref
        target="RFC7521"/>. Since security is only as good
        as the weakest link, implementers also need to consider authentication
        choices coupled with OAuth bearer tokens. The security considerations
        of the default authentication method for OAuth bearer tokens, HTTP
        BASIC, are well documented in <xref
        target="RFC7617"/>, therefore implementers
        are encouraged to prefer stronger authentication methods. Designating
        the specific methods of authentication and authorization are
        out-of-scope for the delivery of SET tokens, however this 
        information is provided as a resource to implementers.</t>
      </section>
      </section>

      
   </section>
   
   <section title="Privacy Considerations">
   
      <t>If a SET needs to be retained for audit purposes, JWS MAY 
      be used to provide verification of its authenticity.</t>
      
      <t>Event Transmitters SHOULD attempt to specialize Event Streams 
      so that the content is targeted to the specific business and 
      protocol needs of subscribers.</t>
      
      <t>When sharing personally identifiable information or information
      that is otherwise considered confidential to affected users, Event 
      Transmitters and Receivers MUST have the appropriate legal agreements
      and user consent or terms of service in place.</t>
      
      <t>The propagation of subject identifiers can be perceived as personally
      identifiable information. Where possible, Event Transmitters and Receivers
      SHOULD devise approaches that prevent propagation -- for example, the
      passing of a hash value that requires the subscriber to already know
      the subject.</t>

   </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      
      <t>There are no IANA considerations.</t>
  
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml' ?>
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3986.xml' ?>
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5246.xml' ?><!-- TLS 1.2 -->

      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5988.xml' ?>

      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6125.xml' ?><!-- TLS Certs -->
      
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7159.xml' ?><!-- JSON -->
      
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7231.xml' ?><!-- HTTP Semantics -->
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7519.xml' ?><!-- JWT -->
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7517.xml' ?><!-- JWK -->
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7525.xml' ?><!-- TLS Recos -->

      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml' ?>
   
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-secevent-token-00.xml'?>

    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include='http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3339.xml' ?>
    
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6202.xml' ?><!-- HTTP Long Polling -->
    
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6749.xml' ?><!-- OAuth -->
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6750.xml' ?><!-- OAuth Bearer-->
      
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7515.xml' ?><!-- JWS -->
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7516.xml' ?><!-- JWE -->
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7521.xml' ?><!-- Client Auth Assertions -->
      
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7230.xml' ?><!-- HTTP Msg -->
      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7235.xml' ?><!-- HTTP Auth -->

      <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7617.xml' ?><!-- Basic Auth Update -->
      
     <reference anchor="POSIX.1">
  <front>
    <title>The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7</title>
    <author>
      <organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2013"/>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo value="Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition" name="IEEE"/>
  <format target="http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_15"
    type="HTML" />
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="openid-connect-core">
        <front>
          <title>OpenID Connect Core 1.0</title>
          <author fullname="Nat Sakimura et al"><organization>NRI</organization></author>
          <date day="8" month="Nov" year="2014"/>
        </front>
        <format type="HTML" target="http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="saml-core-2.0">
        <front>
          <title>Assertions and Protocols for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0</title>
          <author fullname="Scott Cantor et al"><organization>Internet2</organization></author>
          <date day="15" month="March" year="2005"/>
        </front>
        <format type="PDF" target="http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-core-2.0-os.pdf"/>
      </reference>

    </references>

    <section title="Other Streaming Specifications">
    <t>[[EDITORS NOTE: This section to be removed prior to publication]]</t>
    
    <t>The following pub/sub, queuing, streaming systems were reviewed 
    as possible solutions or as input to the current draft:</t>
    
    <t>XMPP Events</t>
    <t>The WG considered the XMPP events ands its ability to provide a single
    messaging solution without the need for both polling and push modes.
    The feeling was the size and methodology of XMPP was to far apart from
    the current capabilities of the SECEVENTs community which focuses in
    on HTTP based service delivery and authorization.</t>
    
    <t>Amazon Simple Notification Service</t>
    <t>Simple Notification Service, is a pub/sub messaging product from 
    AWS. SNS supports a variety of subscriber types: HTTP/HTTPS endpoints, 
    AWS Lambda functions, email addresses (as JSON or plain text), phone 
    numbers (via SMS), and AWS SQS standard queues. It doesn’t directly 
    support pull, but subscribers can get the pull model by creating an 
    SQS queue and subscribing it to the topic. Note that this puts the 
    cost of pull support back onto the subscriber, just as it is in the 
    push model. It is not clear that one way is strictly better than the 
    other; larger, sophisticated developers may be happy to own message 
    persistence so they can have their own internal delivery guarantees. 
    The long tail of OIDC clients may not care about that, or may fail 
    to get it right. Regardless, I think we can learn something from the 
    Delivery Policies supported by SNS, as well as the delivery controls 
    that SQS offers (e.g. Visibility Timeout, Dead-Letter Queues). I’m 
    not suggesting that we need all of these things in the spec, but 
    they give an idea of what features people have found useful.</t>
    <t>Other information:<list style="symbols">
     <t>API Reference: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/APIReference/Welcome.html</t>
     <t>Visibility Timeouts: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/SQSDeveloperGuide/sqs-visibility-timeout.html</t>
    </list></t>
    
    <t>Apache Kafka</t>
    <t>Apache Kafka is an Apache open source project based upon TCP for 
    distributed streaming. It prescribes some interesting general 
    purpose features that seem to extend far beyond the simpler 
    streaming model SECEVENTs is after. A comment from MS has been that 
    Kafka does an acknowledge with poll combination event which seems 
    to be a performance advantage. See: https://kafka.apache.org/intro</t>
    
    <t>Google Pub/Sub</t>
    <t>Google Pub Sub system favours a model whereby polling and acknowledgement
    of events is done as separate endpoints as separate functions.</t>
    <t>Information:<list style="symbols">
      <t>Cloud Overview - https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/</t>
      <t>Subscriber Overview - https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/subscriber</t>
      <t>Subscriber Pull(poll) - https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/pull</t>
    </list></t>
    
    
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgments">
      <t>The editors would like to thanks the members of the SCIM WG which 
      began discussions of provisioning events starting with: draft-hunt-scim-notify-00 in 2015.</t>
      
      <t>The editor would like to thank the participants in the the SECEVENTS
      working group for their support of this specification.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Change Log">
      <t>Draft 00 - PH - Based on draft-hunt-secevent.distribution with the 
      following additions:<list style="symbols">
        <t>Removed Control Plane from specification</t>
        <t>Added new HTTP Polling delivery method</t>
        <t>Added general HTTP security considerations</t>
        <t>Added authentication and authorization</t>
        <t>Revised Verify Event to work with both types of delivery</t>
 
      </list></t>
      
      <t>Draft 01 - PH - Removed Verification section per feedback from IETF99.</t>
	    
      <t>Draft 02 - MS - <list style="symbols">
        <t>Minor editorial improvements</t>
        <t>Removed Identity Provider / Relying Party Terminology</t>
        <t>Changed boilerplate language according to RFC8174</t>     
      </list> </t>
      
      <t>This draft was based on draft-hunt-secevent.distribution revision history:<list style="symbols">
      <t>Draft 00 - PH - First Draft based on reduced version of draft-hunt-idevent-distribution</t>
      <t>Draft 01 - PH - <list style="symbols">
        <t>Reworked terminology to match new WG Transmitter/Receiver terms</t>
        <t>Reworked sections into Data Plane vs. Control Plane</t>
        <t>Removed method transmission registry in order to simplify the specification</t>
        <t>Made Create, Update operations optional for Control Plane (Read is MTI)</t>
      </list></t>
      <t>Draft 02 - PH <list style="symbols">
        <t>Added iss metadata for Event Stream</t>
        <t>Changed to using JWKS_uri for issuer and receiver.</t>
        <t>Control Plane sections moved to draft-hunt-secevent-stream-mgmt</t>
        <t>Added support for delivering multiple events using HTTP POST polling</t>
      </list></t>
      </list></t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>