2004/id/draft-ietf-http-trust-state-mgt-02.txt



HTTP Working Group                                           Daniel Jaye
INTERNET DRAFT                                       Engage Technologies


<draft-ietf-http-trust-state-mgt-02.txt>
March 4, 1998                                  Expires September 4, 1998


       HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Management


             Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are
   working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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.''

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please
   check the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the
   Internet- Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
   nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
   ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West
   Coast).

   This is author's draft 2.06.


ABSTRACT

HTTP TRUST MECHANISM FOR STATE MANAGEMENT
March 3, 1998

1. ABSTRACT

This document specifies an addition to the state management protocol
specified in draft-ietf-http-state-man-mec-08[Kristol].  The intent is
to provide a mechanism that allows user agents to determine the privacy
practices of a server and to accept or reject cookies based on those 
practices.  Allowing the user to establish preferences for how to handle
cookies based on the server's practices provides a practical mechanism 


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt              [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998


to provide users control over the privacy implications of cookies.

To provide verification of server privacy practices, we assume the
existence of one or more independent Trust Authorities.  The authority 
establishes PICS ratings representing server privacy practices. It then
issues trust-labels, in the form of digitally signed PICS labels, to 
organizations for specific domains and paths based on the server privacy
practices.  The Trust Authority must be able to audit domains to 
verify their adherence to a given level.  Passing these trust-labels 
along with cookies allows the user agent to support cookie handling 
preferences based on trusted privacy practices.

This document describes how PICS-headers are used in conjunction with
Set-Cookie or Set-Cookie2 headers in [Kristol] to provide trust-labels
to communicate the privacy practices of servers regarding cookies.


2. TERMINOLOGY

The terms user agent, client, server, proxy, and origin server have the
same meaning as in the HTTP/1.1 specification [RFC 2068].  The terms 
domain-match, verifiable transaction, and unverifiable transaction are 
defined in [Kristol], and those definitions are also used here.

The term trust-label is used to mean a PICS label [PICS] used to 
communicate the cookie-related privacy practices of a server.
The term Trust Authority refers to the PICS label rating service for
trust-labels who may issue digitally signed trust-labels to domains.


3. OUTLINE

The server sends a Set-Cookie and/or a Set-Cookie2 header to the user 
Agent along with a PICS-Label header containing the trust-label.  The 
user agent may then use that information to guide the acceptance or 
rejection of the cookie.  If the trust-label has a digital signature,
the user agent may use the well-known public key of the Trust 
Authority to decrypt the signature of the trust-label to verify the 
identity and practices of the server and scope of the trust-label.

3.1  Syntax: General

This specification describes how the PICS-Label header, described in 
[PICS], is used to convey the privacy practices of the server to the 
user-agent The new PICS-Label header syntax is specified below:

trust-label     = "PICS-Label:" labellist

The header is recognized as a trust-label by the existence of the 
cookieinfo extension.  This trust-label applies to cookies in the 
response that are compatible (as described in section 3.3.1) with 
the domain and path of the "for" labelattr of the PICS-Label header.  


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt              [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998


The specific cookies are listed in the cookieinfo extension to the 
PICS label or to all compatible cookies if no cookies listed in the 
cookieinfo extension.  "labellist" is as specified in the PICS 1.1 label
syntax in [PICS], except for the following changes:
    an extension to include a list of the specific cookies to 
        to which the trust-label applies;
    an optional extension according to the digital signatures 
        working draft [DSIG];
    the optional label attributes "by" "gen" "for" "on" and "exp" 
        are required. 

The modified PICS label syntax is listed here.  

labellist       = "(" "PICS-1.1" service-info ")"
service-info    = serviceID "label" 1*label
serviceID       = 
      "http://www.w3.org/PICS/systems/P3P-http-trust-state-01.rat" |
                  quotedURL
label           = labelattr "ratings" "(" privacypractice ")" 
                  cookieinfo [sigblock]
labelattr       = ["by" quotedname]
                  "gen" boolean
                  "for" quotedURL
                  "on" quoted-ISO-date
                  "exp" quoted-ISO-date
privacypractice = "purpose" 1*purposerating 
                  "identifiable" idrating
                  "domain of use" dourating
cookieinfo      = "extension" "(" "mandatory"
      <"> "http://www.w3.org/PICS/extensions/cookieinfo-1_0.html" <">
                  *cookiename ")"
cookiename      = NAME
purposerating   = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5"
idrating        = "0" | "1"
dourating       = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4"

"quotedname", "quotedURL", "rating",  and "quoted-ISO-date" are as 
    defined in the PICS specification [PICS].  
ServiceID references a quoted URL that defines the rating service and
    rating system.  The well-known rating service proposed here is the
    privacy rating system developed by the Platform for Privacy Project
    (P3P) at the World-Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
"for" is the URL or root URL for which this label applies.  
"by" is the email address of the issuing trust authority.
The "gen" boolean indicates whether the label is generic to the web site
    or for a specific page.  A value of "True"  indicates that the label
    is generic for all cookies with a Path attribute for which the path 
    component of the URL in the "for" attribute is a prefix.
"on" is the date the label was issued.  
"exp" is the date the label expires.  
"mandatory" in cookieinfo causes legacy browsers to ignore the label.
cookiename is the "NAME" of each cookie to which this label applies.


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt              [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998


sigblock is the digital signature extension as described in the digital 
    signature working draft[DSIG].  
The sigblock must contain the SigCrypto token within the SigData block.
The SigCrypto token must contain the encrypted trust-label-data 
described below.

trust-label-data = labelattr-data privacy-practice [cookielist]
labelattr-data   = gen-boolean for-URL exp-date
gen-boolean      = boolean
for-URL          = quotedURL
exp-date         = quoted-ISO-date

"gen-boolean", "for-URL", and "exp-date" refer to the values of the 
"gen", "for", and "exp" attributes in the "labelattr" section.  
"cookielist" refers to the list of cookie names in the cookieblock 
extension.

Three well-known privacy-practice categories are described here to 
provide recognized behavior that should be handled by user agents.  
These categories are taken from the rating service developed by the 
Platform for Privacy Project (P3P) at the World-Wide Web Consortium 
(W3C).

Purpose

The purpose rating specifies and defines a set of six purposes for data 
processing (data practices) relevant to the Web. Services must disclose 
all that apply for each data element or data class they collect. If a 
service does not disclose that a data element is used for a given 
purpose, that is a representation that data is not used for that 
purpose. Services that disclose that they use data for "other" purposes 
should provide human readable explanations of those purposes. 

"Completion and Support of Current Activity"     value = 0
"Web Site and System Administration"             value = 1
"Customization of Content and/or Design of Site" value = 2
"Research & Development"                         value = 3
"Contacting Visitors for Marketing of Services or Products" 
                                                 value = 4
"Other Uses"                                     value = 5

Identifiable

The Identifiable rating specifies whether the information gathered is in 
identifiable form, is associated with identifiable information, or used 
to derive personal identity.

"non-identifiable"                               value = 0
"identifiable"                                   value = 1


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt              [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998


Domainofuse

The domain of use defines an organizational area, or domain, where data is likely to be used or redistributed by the service once collected. 

"Only by ourselves and agents"                  value = 0
    The data is used only by the service or its agents for the purposes
    identified at the time of collection. 
"Organizations following the same practices"    value = 1
    The data may be used by organizations that are obligated to use it  
    under the same constraints as those observed by the service that 
    collected it. For instance, the service may give data collected for
    marketing purposes in non-identifiable form to a subsidiary who 
    could use it for marketing purposes in non-identifiable form.
"Organizations following different practices"   value = 2
    The data may be used by organizations that are constrained by and 
    accountable to the original service, but may use the data in a way 
    not specified in that service's practices. 
"Unrelated third parties"                       value = 3
    The data may be used by organizations that are not constrained by or
    accountable to the original service. 
"Public"                                        value = 4
    The data may be used in the public domain. For example, this might
    apply to an alias stored in a cookie that is used to identify the 
    author of messages posted to a public bulletin board. 

All other items above are as described in the PICS label syntax [PICS] 
or in the Digital Signatures working draft [DSIG].

3.2     Server Role

A server communicates its privacy practices by sending an unsigned or
signed trust-label in the same response as the cookie header(s).
Any server wishing to provide a digitally signed trust-label must 
request the label from a Trust Authority.  The Trust Authority must have 
the ability to evaluate the server and determine the trust rating
for which a label will be issued. That evaluation takes place outside
the protocol described here, as does the actual granting of the label
to the origin server.

The labels should expire no more than thirteen months and no less than 
one month after they are issued.  The server should store the trust 
labels and only request a new trust-label from the Trust Authority when 
the current trust-label is about to expire.

3.3     User Agent Role

The user agent receives a cookie headers and trust-labels from
an origin server.

3.3.1 Interpreting the trust-label
User agents interpret cookies as described in RFC 2109.  In addition 


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt              [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998

to the cookie attributes, the user agent must now interpret the 
trust-labels as well.  If the user agent receives a PICS label with a 
serviceID from a recognized label service for trust-labels, it is 
assumed to be a trust-label for all "compatible" cookies, as defined 
below.

A trust-label and a cookie are defined as "compatible" if the following 
conditions are met:
1) The domain portion of the URL specified in the "for" attribute of
   labelattr domain-matches the Domain attribute of the cookie
   response header, according to the matching rules in [Kristol].  
2) The path portion of the URL specified in the "for" attribute of
   labelattr is either a), a prefix of the Path attribute of the cookie 
   if the trust-label is generic or, b), an exact match with the Path 
   attribute of the cookie if the trust-label is not generic.
 
If the cookieinfo extension does not contain any cookie names, then 
the trust-label applies to all cookies in the response that are 
compatible.

A trust-label is ignored if the "exp-date" attribute of labelattr
is less than or equal to the current date.

To help verify the trustworthiness of the server, the user agent may 
look for a digital signature and use the Trust Authority's well known 
public key to decrypt the trust-label-data from the SigCrypto term.

The user agent obtains that public key outside this protocol.  Given 
that we expect only a few well-known Trust Authorities, the user agent 
implementer should cache public keys from standard trust authorities 
to avoid extra network traffic.

The labelattr-data, privacy-practice, and cookielist in the decrypted 
trust-label-data from the sigblock must match the plaintext labelattr,
privacy-practice, and cookielist for the signature to be valid.

If the digital signature is invalid, then the trust-label should be 
ignored and the cookie should not be set.

If the user agent is set to accept all cookies then all trust-label 
processing can be skipped.

3.3.2   Accepting or rejecting Cookies

In addition to the rules for rejecting cookies specified in [Kristol], a
user or a user-designated agent should be able to designate preferences
for accepting or rejecting cookies based on the privacy-practice of the
server, whether the transaction is verifiable or unverifiable, and
whether the privacy-practice is signed by a recognized Trust Authority.

For example, a user may have a preference to accept all cookies from 
verifiable transactions or rated "identifiable 0" and signed by a 
recognized Trust Authority.


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt              [Page 6]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998

User agents should have the following default preferences:
  Automatically accept:
    Cookies from verifiable transactions with trust-labels with 
      purposerating 0 through 4 and dourating 0;
    Cookies from unverifiable transactions with trust-labels with 
      purposerating 0 through 4 and idrating 0 and 
      dourating 1.
  Automatically reject:
    Cookies from unverifiable transactions without trust-labels.

3.3.3  User intervention
The user agent may prompt the user to verify that it wishes to reject a
cookie in conditions where the cookie is being rejected based on
a default preference or no preference applies.

User agents that solicit user input for cookie handling may wish to 
display the URL of the rating service to better inform the user of the 
meaning of the privacy ratings for the server.

3.3.4  Cookie request header syntax
The syntax for the Cookie request header has not been modified.

3.4  Trust Authority Role

The Trust Authority referred to in this document must be a neutral third
party that can be trusted to accurately characterize the privacy
behavior of web sites.  The issuing of trust-labels occurs outside the
scope of this protocol.  However, the protocol depends on user trust in
the Trust Authority.  The Trust Authority must understand the scope to
which a trust-label applies to ensure that for all situations in which 
the trust-label would be deemed to be applicable, the server(s) are in 
fact operating in accordance with the specified privacy rating.

3.4.1 Issuing trust-labels
On receiving a request for a signed trust-label, the authority should 
verify the privacy practices of the site requesting the trust-label and 
issue the appropriate trust-label.  To issue the trust-label, the Trust 
Authority assembles the trust-label-data, it canonicalizes whitespace 
for the trust-label-data, and it encrypts the trust-label-data for the 
site request using its private key and the algorithm specified in the 
attribution of the digital signature.  The encryption method must be a
public-private key pair with a well-known public key to eliminate 
round-trips to the Trust Authority. 

3.4.2 Revocation of trust-labels
Trust-labels must have expiration dates.  When a trust-label is issued,
the Trust Authority must receive agreement from the requesting
organization that the privacy practices for which the trust-label was 
assigned will be maintained until the trust-label expires, the domain 
becomes inactive, or those cookies are no longer set or examined by the
organization's servers.

3.4.3 Discovery of privacy-practice ratings


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt              [Page 7]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998


Privacy-practice ratings are defined in the PICS label rating system
referenced by the Trust Authority's label rating service.  The
well-known rating service, http:\www.w3.org\PICS\1.0\P3P\v1.0, is referenced in this document.


4. EXAMPLES

4.1 Example 1

1.  User Agent preferences:

    In this example, the user agent has a preference for automatically
    accepting cookies from domains that have valid rating of 
    "domainofuse 0".

2.  User Agent -> Server

      POST /acme/login HTTP/1.1
      Host: www.acme.com
      [form data]

    User identifies self via a form.

3.  Server -> User Agent
      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Set-Cookie2: Customer="WILE_E_COYOTE"; Max-Age = 94608000; 
        Version="1"; Path="/acme" 
      PICS-Label: (PICS-1.1 
        "http://www.w3.org/PICS/systems/P3P-http-trust-state-01.rat"
        label
        for "http://www.acme.com/"
        exp "1998.12.31T23:59-0000" 
        extension
          (mandatory 
            "http://www.w3.org/PICS/extensions/cookieinfo-1_0.html")
        ratings (purpose 0:4 identifiable 1 domainofuse 0))

    A cookie that includes the user's identity and an unsigned trust 
    label header are sent back to the user agent with the response.  The
    cookie is accepted because rating "domainofuse 0" is acceptable 
    according to the privacy preferences of the user agent.

4.2 Example 2

1.  User Agent preferences:

    In this example, the user agent has a preference for automatically 
    accepting cookies that are rated "domainofuse 0" or cookies in 
    unverifiable transactions that are rated "identifiable 0" and 
    "domainofuse 0" or "domainofuse 1 by www.aaa.org.


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt              [Page 8]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998


2.  User Agent -> Server

      POST /acme/login HTTP/1.1
      Host: www.acme.com
      [form data]

User requests page with embedded IMG SRC reference to
    "http://www.roadrunnermaps.com/cgi-bin/maps?TER=deserts&FE=cliffs"
3.  Server -> User Agent
      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Set-Cookie2: Customer="0000000123"; Max-Age = 94608000; 
        Version="1"; Path="/birds" 
      PICS-Label: (PICS-1.1 
        "http://www.w3.org/PICS/systems/P3P-http-trust-state-01.rat"
        label
        by "auditor@aaa.org" gen true
        for "http://www.acme.com/"
        exp "1997.12.31T23:59-0000" 
        extension
          (mandatory 
            "http://www.w3.org/PICS/extensions/cookieinfo-1_0.html")
        ratings (purpose 0:4 identifiable 0 domainofuse 0))

    A Cookie reflecting the users identity is transmitted with an 
    unsigned trust-label back to the user agent.  The Cookie is accepted
    by the user agent because the rating "domainofuse 0" is compatible 
    with the user agent's privacy preference.

4.  User Agent -> Server

      GET cgi-bin/maps?TER=deserts&FE=cliffs HTTP/1.1
      Host: www.roadrunnermaps.com

User requests an image via CGI script from a third party map 
    provider.  This is an unverifiable transaction.

5.  Server -> User Agent
      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Set-Cookie2: Customer="0000000123"; Max-Age = 94608000; 
        Version="1" 
      PICS-Label: (PICS-1.1 
        "http://www.w3.org/PICS/systems/P3P-http-trust-state-01.rat"
        label
        by "auditor@aaa.org" gen true
        for "http://www.roadrunnermaps.com/"
        exp "1997.12.31T23:59-0000" 
        extension
          (optional 
            "http://www.w3.org/PICS/extensions/cookieinfo-1_0.html"
            Customer)


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt              [Page 9]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998


        extension 
          (mandatory "http://www.w3.org/PICS/DSig/sigblock-1_0.html"
            ("AttribInfo" 
              ("http://www.w3.org/PICS/DSig/X509.html" 
                "base64-x.509-cert"))
            ("Signature" "http://www.aaa.org/trust.html" 
              ("byName" "aaapublickey") 
              ("SigCrypto" 
                "8E53B19D35A3F198930E5D815B235A38930E53FDA815B2158")))
        ratings (purpose 0:3 identifiable 0 domainofuse 1))

A cookie containing the user's system generated id number is 
    transmitted with a signed label back to user agent.  The cookie is 
    accepted by user agent because a cookie rated "identifiable 0" and 
    "domainofuse 1" in an unverifiable transaction signed by 
    www.aaa.org" is acceptable to the user agent.


5. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Revocation of trust-labels

A site could receive a trust-label for a particular trust level rating 
and later change its policies before the trust-label has expired.  To 
address this Trust Authorities should execute agreements with trust
label recipients to provide legal remedies to discourage this behavior.

5.2 False representation

A site could state a privacy practice that it either intentionally or
unintentionally does not follow.  If the trust-label is not signed by a
recognized trust authority, there is no independent verification of the
site's adherence to its stated privacy practice.  However, if the site digitally signs the label, then that may represents a legally binding contract on the site to follow the professed privacy practice.  In addition, the site may be in violation of consumer fraud statutes in some jurisdictions if they misrepresent their privacy practices.


6. SUMMARY

This document presents an extension to the state management protocol 
defined in RFC2109.  It describes only changes to that protocol. Any 
parts of the state management mechanism not explicitly described here 
are assumed to remain as defined in RFC 2109.

The protocol described here allows a user agent to verify that the 
origin server is using cookies in a manner consistent with the privacy 
expectations of the user, by providing a trust-label which may be signed
by a Trust Authority.


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt             [Page 10]


INTERNET DRAFT HTTP Trust Mechanism for State Mgt          March 4, 1998


7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document represents input from Dave Kristol, Yaron Goland, Joseph Reagle, and Jonathan Stark..


8. REFERENCES

[PICS] Jim Miller et al, PICS Label Distribution Label Syntax and 
Communication Protocols, Version 1.1, REC-PICS-labels-961031
http://www.w3.org/PICS/labels.html
 [Kristol] Kristol, David M., Montulli, Lou, HTTP State Management 
Mechanism (Rev 1).  
Internet Draft <draft-ietf-http-state-man-mec-08.txt>
ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-http-state-man-mec-08.txt

[DSIG] Philip DesAutels et al, DSIG 1.0 Signature Labels, Version 1.0, 
WD-DSIG-label-970605
http:/www.w3.org/TR/WD-DSIG-label.html/


9. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS

Daniel Jaye
Engage Technologies
100 Brickstone Square, 1st Floor
Andover, MA 01810
djaye@engagetech.com
978 684-3641 voice
978 684-3636 fax


Jaye            draft-ietf-trust-state-mgt-02.txt             [Page 11]
