| Internet-Draft | CDNI URI Signing | December 2021 |
| van Brandenburg, et al. | Expires 4 July 2022 | [Page] |
This document describes how the concept of URI Signing supports the content access control requirements of Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) and proposes a URI Signing method as a JSON Web Token (JWT) profile.¶
The proposed URI Signing method specifies the information needed to be included in the URI to transmit the signed JWT, as well as the claims needed by the signed JWT to authorize a User Agent (UA). The mechanism described can be used both in CDNI and single Content Delivery Network (CDN) scenarios.¶
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 4 July 2022.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
This document describes the concept of URI Signing and how it can be used to provide access authorization in the case of redirection between cooperating CDNs and between a Content Service Provider (CSP) and a CDN. The primary goal of URI Signing is to make sure that only authorized UAs are able to access the content, with a CSP being able to authorize every individual request. It should be noted that URI Signing is not a content protection scheme; if a CSP wants to protect the content itself, other mechanisms, such as Digital Rights Management (DRM), are more appropriate. In addition to access control, URI Signing also has benefits in reducing the impact of denial-of-service attacks.¶
The overall problem space for CDN Interconnection (CDNI) is described in CDNI Problem Statement [RFC6707]. This document, along with the CDNI Requirements [RFC7337] document and the CDNI Framework [RFC7336], describes the need for interconnected CDNs to be able to implement an access control mechanism that enforces a CSP's distribution policies.¶
Specifically, the CDNI Framework [RFC7336] states:¶
In particular, the following requirement is listed in the CDNI Requirements [RFC7337]:¶
This document defines a method of signing URIs that allows Surrogates in interconnected CDNs to enforce a per-request authorization initiated by the CSP. Splitting the role of initiating per-request authorization by the CSP and the role of verifying this authorization by the CDN allows any arbitrary distribution policy to be enforced across CDNs without the need of CDNs to have any awareness of the specific CSP distribution policies.¶
The method is implemented using Signed JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) [RFC7519].¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This document uses the terminology defined in the CDNI Problem Statement [RFC6707].¶
This document also uses the terminology of the JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519].¶
In addition, the following terms are used throughout this document:¶
A CSP and CDN are assumed to have a trust relationship that enables the CSP to authorize access to a content item, which is realized in practice by including a set of claims in a signed JWT in the URI before redirecting a UA to the CDN. Using these attributes, it is possible for a CDN to check an incoming content request to see whether it was authorized by the CSP (e.g., based on the UA's IP address or a time window). To prevent the UA from altering the claims a JWT MUST be signed.¶
Figure 1, shown below, presents an overview of the URI Signing mechanism in the case of a CSP with a single CDN. When the UA browses for content on CSP's website (#1), it receives HTML web pages with embedded content URIs. Upon requesting these URIs, the CSP redirects to a CDN, creating a Target CDN URI (#2) (alternatively, the Target CDN URI itself is embedded in the HTML). The Target CDN URI is the Signed URI which may include the IP address of the UA and/or a time window. The signed URI always contains a signed JWT generated by the CSP using a shared secret or private key. Once the UA receives the response with the Signed URI, it sends a new HTTP request using the Signed URI to the CDN (#3). Upon receiving the request, the CDN authenticates the Signed URI by verifying the signed JWT. If applicable, the CDN checks whether the source IP address of the HTTP request matches the one in the Signed URI and/or if the time window is still valid. After these claims are verified, the CDN delivers the content (#4).¶
Note: While using a symmetric shared key is supported, it is NOT RECOMMENDED. See the Security Considerations (Section 7) section about the limitations of shared keys.¶
--------
/ \
| CSP |< * * * * * * * * * * *
\ / Trust *
-------- relationship *
^ | *
| | *
1. Browse | | 2. Signed *
for | | URI *
content | | *
| v v
+------+ 3. Signed URI --------
| User |----------------->/ \
| Agent| | CDN |
| |<-----------------\ /
+------+ 4. Content --------
Delivery
In a CDNI environment, as shown in Figure 2 below, URI Signing operates the same way in the initial steps #1 and #2 but the later steps involve multiple CDNs delivering the content. The main difference from the single CDN case is a redirection step between the uCDN and the dCDN. In step #3, the UA may send an HTTP request or a DNS request, depending on whether HTTP-based or DNS-based request routing is used. The uCDN responds by directing the UA towards the dCDN using either a Redirection URI (i.e., a Signed URI generated by the uCDN) or a DNS reply, respectively (#4). Once the UA receives the response, it sends the Redirection URI/Target CDN URI to the dCDN (#5). The received URI is verified by the dCDN before delivering the content (#6). Note: The CDNI call flows are covered in Detailed URI Signing Operation (Section 5).¶
+-------------------------+
|Request Redirection Modes|
+-------------------------+
| a) HTTP |
| b) DNS |
+-------------------------+
--------
/ \< * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
| CSP |< * * * * * * * * * * * *
\ / Trust * *
-------- relationship * *
^ | * *
| | 2. Signed * *
1. Browse | | URI in * *
for | | HTML * *
content | | * *
| v 3.a)Signed URI v *
+------+ b)DNS request -------- * Trust
| User |----------------->/ \ * relationship
| Agent| | uCDN | * (optional)
| |<-----------------\ / *
+------+ 4.a)Redirection URI------- *
^ | b)DNS Reply ^ *
| | * *
| | Trust relationship * *
| | * *
6. Content | | 5.a)Redirection URI * *
delivery | | b)Signed URI(after v v
| | DNS exchange) --------
| +---------------------->/ \ [May be
| | dCDN | cascaded
+--------------------------\ / CDNs]
--------
The trust relationships between CSP, uCDN, and dCDN have direct implications for URI Signing. In the case shown in Figure 2, the CSP has a trust relationship with the uCDN. The delivery of the content may be delegated to a dCDN, which has a relationship with the uCDN but may have no relationship with the CSP.¶
In CDNI, there are two methods for request routing: DNS-based and HTTP-based. For DNS-based request routing, the Signed URI (i.e., the Target CDN URI) provided by the CSP reaches the dCDN directly. In the case where the dCDN does not have a trust relationship with the CSP, this means that either an asymmetric public/private key method needs to be used for computing the signed JWT (because the CSP and dCDN are not able to exchange symmetric shared secret keys), or the CSP needs to allow the uCDN to redistribute shared keys to a subset of their dCDNs.¶
For HTTP-based request routing, the Signed URI (i.e., the Target CDN URI) provided by the CSP reaches the uCDN. After this URI has been verified by the uCDN, the uCDN creates and signs a new Redirection URI, redirecting the UA to the dCDN. Since this new URI can have a new signed JWT, the relationship between the dCDN and CSP is not relevant. Because a relationship between uCDN and dCDN always exists, either asymmetric public/private keys or symmetric shared secret keys can be used for URI Signing with HTTP-based request routing. Note that the signed Redirection URI MUST maintain HTTPS as the scheme if it was present in the original and it MAY be upgraded from HTTP to HTTPS.¶
Two types of keys can be used for URI Signing: asymmetric keys and symmetric shared keys. Asymmetric keys are based on a public/private key pair mechanism and always contain a private key known only to the entity signing the URI (either CSP or uCDN) and a public key for the verification of the Signed URI. With symmetric keys, the same key is used by both the signing entity for signing the URI and the verifying entity for verifying the Signed URI. Regardless of the type of keys used, the verifying entity has to obtain the key in a manner that allows trust to be placed in the assertions made using that key (either the public or the symmetric key). There are very different requirements (outside the scope of this document) for distributing asymmetric keys and symmetric keys. Key distribution for symmetric keys requires confidentiality to prevent third parties from getting access to the key, since they could then generate valid Signed URIs for unauthorized requests. Key distribution for asymmetric keys does not require confidentiality since public keys can typically be distributed openly (because they cannot be used to sign URIs) and the corresponding private keys are kept secret by the URI signer.¶
Note: While using a symmetric shared key is supported, it is NOT RECOMMENDED. See the Security Considerations (Section 7) section about the limitations of shared keys.¶
While the URI Signing method defined in this document was primarily created for the purpose of allowing URI Signing in CDNI scenarios, i.e., between a uCDN and a dCDN, there is nothing in the defined URI Signing method that precludes it from being used in a non-CDNI context. As such, the described mechanism could be used in a single-CDN scenario such as shown in Figure 1 in Section 1.2, for example to allow a CSP that uses different CDNs to only have to implement a single URI Signing mechanism.¶
The concept behind URI Signing is based on embedding a signed JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] in an HTTP or HTTPS URI [RFC7230] (see [RFC7230] Section 2.7). The signed JWT contains a number of claims that can be verified to ensure the UA has legitimate access to the content.¶
This document specifies the following attribute for embedding a signed JWT in a Target CDN URI or Redirection URI:¶
The parameter name of the URI Signing Package Attribute is defined in the CDNI Metadata (Section 4.4). If the CDNI Metadata interface is not used, or does not include a parameter name for the URI Signing Package Attribute, the parameter name can be set by configuration (out of scope of this document).¶
The URI Signing Package will be found by parsing any path-style parameters and form-style parameters looking for a key name matching the URI Signing Package Attribute. Both parameter styles MUST be supported to allow flexibility of operation. The first matching parameter SHOULD be taken to provide the signed JWT, though providing more than one matching key is undefined behavior. Path-style parameters generated in the form indicated by Section 3.2.7 of [RFC6570] MUST be supported. Form-style parameters generated in the form indicated by Sections 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 of [RFC6570] MUST be supported.¶
The following is an example where the URI Signing Package Attribute name is "token" and the signed JWT is "SIGNEDJWT":¶
http://example.com/media/path?come=data&token=SIGNEDJWT&other=data¶
This section identifies the set of claims that can be used to enforce the CSP distribution policy. New claims can be introduced in the future to extend the distribution policy capabilities.¶
In order to provide distribution policy flexibility, the exact subset of claims used in a given signed JWT is a runtime decision. Claim requirements are defined in the CDNI Metadata (Section 4.4). If the CDNI Metadata interface is not used, or does not include claim requirements, the claim requirements can be set by configuration (out of scope of this document).¶
The following claims (where the "JSON Web Token Claims" registry claim name is specified in parenthesis below) are used to enforce the distribution policies. All of the listed claims are mandatory to implement in a URI Signing implementation, but are not mandatory to use in a given signed JWT. (The "optional" and "mandatory" identifiers in square brackets refer to whether or not a given claim MUST be present in a URI Signing JWT.)¶
Note: The time on the entities that generate and verify the signed URI MUST be in sync. In the CDNI case, this means that CSP, uCDN, and dCDN servers need to be time-synchronized. It is RECOMMENDED to use NTP [RFC5905] for time synchronization.¶
Note: See the Security Considerations (Section 7) section on the limitations of using an expiration time and client IP address for distribution policy enforcement.¶
Issuer (iss) [optional] - The semantics in [RFC7519] Section 4.1.1 MUST be followed. If this claim is used, it MUST be used to confirm that the indicated key was provided by said issuer and used to sign the JWT. If the CDN verifying the signed JWT does not support Issuer verification, or if the Issuer in the signed JWT does not match the list of known acceptable Issuers, the CDN MUST reject the request. If the received signed JWT contains an Issuer claim, then any JWT subsequently generated for CDNI redirection MUST also contain an Issuer claim, and the Issuer value MUST be updated to identify the redirecting CDN. If the received signed JWT does not contain an Issuer claim, an Issuer claim MAY be added to a signed JWT generated for CDNI redirection.¶
Subject (sub) [optional] - The semantics in [RFC7519] Section 4.1.2 MUST be followed. If this claim is used, it MUST be a JSON Web Encryption (JWE [RFC7516]) Object in compact serialization form, because it contains personally identifiable information. This claim contains information about the subject (for example, a user or an agent) that MAY be used to verify the signed JWT. If the received signed JWT contains a Subject claim, then any JWT subsequently generated for CDNI redirection MUST also contain a Subject claim, and the Subject value MUST be the same as in the received signed JWT. A signed JWT generated for CDNI redirection MUST NOT add a Subject claim if no Subject claim existed in the received signed JWT.¶
Audience (aud) [optional] - The semantics in [RFC7519] Section 4.1.3 MUST be followed. This claim is used to ensure that the CDN verifying the JWT is an intended recipient of the request. The claim MUST contain an identity on behalf of whom the CDN can verify the token (e.g., the CSP or any CDN in the chain). A CDN MAY modify the claim as long it can generate a valid signature.¶
Expiry Time (exp) [optional] - The semantics in [RFC7519] Section 4.1.4 MUST be followed, though URI Signing implementations MUST NOT allow for any time synchronization "leeway". If this claim is used and the CDN verifying the signed JWT does not support Expiry Time verification, or if the Expiry Time in the signed JWT corresponds to a time equal to or earlier than the time of the content request, the CDN MUST reject the request. If the received signed JWT contains a Expiry Time claim, then any JWT subsequently generated for CDNI redirection MUST also contain an Expiry Time claim, and the Expiry Time value MUST be the same as in the received signed JWT. A signed JWT generated for CDNI redirection MUST NOT add an Expiry Time claim if no Expiry Time claim existed in the received signed JWT.¶
Not Before (nbf) [optional] - The semantics in [RFC7519] Section 4.1.5 MUST be followed, though URI Signing implementations MUST NOT allow for any time synchronization "leeway". If this claim is used and the CDN verifying the signed JWT does not support Not Before time verification, or if the Not Before time in the signed JWT corresponds to a time later than the time of the content request, the CDN MUST reject the request. If the received signed JWT contains a Not Before time claim, then any JWT subsequently generated for CDNI redirection MUST also contain a Not Before time claim, and the Not Before time value MUST be the same as in the received signed JWT. A signed JWT generated for CDNI redirection MUST NOT add a Not Before time claim if no Not Before time claim existed in the received signed JWT.¶
Issued At (iat) [optional] - The semantics in [RFC7519] Section 4.1.6 MUST be followed. If the received signed JWT contains an Issued At claim, then any JWT subsequently generated for CDNI redirection MUST also contain an Issued At claim, and the Issued At value MUST be updated to identify the time the new JWT was generated. If the received signed JWT does not contain an Issued At claim, an Issued At claim MAY be added to a signed JWT generated for CDNI redirection.¶
JWT ID (jti) [optional] - The semantics in [RFC7519] Section 4.1.7 MUST be followed. A JWT ID can be used to prevent replay attacks if the CDN stores a list of all previously used values, and verifies that the value in the current JWT has never been used before. If the signed JWT contains a JWT ID claim and the CDN verifying the signed JWT either does not support JWT ID storage or has previously seen the value used in a request for the same content, then the CDN MUST reject the request. If the received signed JWT contains a JWT ID claim, then any JWT subsequently generated for CDNI redirection MUST also contain a JWT ID claim, and the value MUST be the same as in the received signed JWT. If the received signed JWT does not contain a JWT ID claim, a JWT ID claim MUST NOT be added to a signed JWT generated for CDNI redirection. Sizing of the JWT ID is application dependent given the desired security constraints.¶
CDNI Claim Set Version (cdniv) [optional] - The CDNI Claim Set Version (cdniv) claim provides a means within a signed JWT to tie the claim set to a specific version of this specification. The cdniv claim is intended to allow changes in and facilitate upgrades across specifications. The type is JSON integer and the value MUST be set to "1", for this version of the specification. In the absence of this claim, the value is assumed to be "1". For future versions this claim will be mandatory. Implementations MUST reject signed JWTs with unsupported CDNI Claim Set versions.¶
CDNI Critical Claims Set (cdnicrit) [optional] - The CDNI Critical Claims Set (cdnicrit) claim indicates that extensions to this specification are being used that MUST be understood and processed. Its value is a comma separated listing of claims in the Signed JWT that use those extensions. If any of the listed extension claims are not understood and supported by the recipient, then the Signed JWT MUST be rejected. Producers MUST NOT include claim names defined by this specification, duplicate names, or names that do not occur as claim names within the Signed JWT in the cdnicrit list. Producers MUST NOT use the empty list "" as the cdnicrit value. Recipients MAY consider the Signed JWT to be invalid if the cdnicrit list contains any claim names defined by this specification or if any other constraints on its use are violated. This claim MUST be understood and processed by all implementations.¶
Client IP (cdniip) [optional] - The Client IP (cdniip) claim holds an IP address or IP prefix for which the Signed URI is valid. This is represented in CIDR notation, with dotted decimal format for IPv4 addresses [RFC0791] or canonical text representation for IPv6 addresses [RFC5952]. The request MUST be rejected if sourced from a client outside of the specified IP range. Since the client IP is considered personally identifiable information this field MUST be a JSON Web Encryption (JWE [RFC7516]) Object in compact serialization form. If the CDN verifying the signed JWT does not support Client IP verification, or if the Client IP in the signed JWT does not match the source IP address in the content request, the CDN MUST reject the request. The type of this claim is a JSON string that contains the JWE. If the received signed JWT contains a Client IP claim, then any JWT subsequently generated for CDNI redirection MUST also contain a Client IP claim, and the Client IP value MUST be the same as in the received signed JWT. A signed JWT generated for CDNI redirection MUST NOT add a Client IP claim if no Client IP claim existed in the received signed JWT.¶
It should be noted that use of this claim can cause issues, for example, in situations with dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 networks, MPTCP, QUIC, and mobile clients switching from WiFi to Cellular networks where the client's source address can change, even between address families. This claim exists mainly for legacy feature parity reasons, therefore use of this claim should be done judiciously. An example of a reasonable use case would be making a signed JWT for an internal preview of an asset where the end consumer understands that they must be originated from the same IP for the entirety of the session. Using this claim at large is NOT RECOMMENDED.¶
URI Container (cdniuc) [mandatory] - The URI Container (cdniuc) holds the URI representation before a URI Signing Package is added. This representation can take one of several forms detailed in Section 2.1.15. If the URI Container used in the signed JWT does not match the URI of the content request, the CDN verifying the signed JWT MUST reject the request. When comparing the URI, the percent encoded form as defined in [RFC3986] Section 2.1 MUST be used. When redirecting a URI, the CDN generating the new signed JWT MAY change the URI Container to comport with the URI being used in the redirection.¶
CDNI Expiration Time Setting (cdniets) [optional] - The CDNI Expiration Time Setting (cdniets) claim provides a means for setting the value of the Expiry Time (exp) claim when generating a subsequent signed JWT in Signed Token Renewal. Its type is a JSON numeric value. It denotes the number of seconds to be added to the time at which the JWT is verified that gives the value of the Expiry Time (exp) claim of the next signed JWT. The CDNI Expiration Time Setting (cdniets) SHOULD NOT be used when not using Signed Token Renewal and MUST be present when using Signed Token Renewal.¶
CDNI Signed Token Transport (cdnistt) [optional] - The CDNI Signed Token Transport (cdnistt) claim provides a means of signalling the method through which a new signed JWT is transported from the CDN to the UA and vice versa for the purpose of Signed Token Renewal. Its type is a JSON integer. Values for this claim are defined in Section 6.5. If using this claim you MUST also specify a CDNI Expiration Time Setting (cdniets) as noted above.¶
CDNI Signed Token Depth (cdnistd) [optional] - The CDNI Signed Token Depth (cdnistd) claim is used to associate a subsequent signed JWT, generated as the result of a CDNI Signed Token Transport claim, with a specific URI subset. Its type is a JSON integer. Signed JWTs MUST NOT use a negative value for the CDNI Signed Token Depth claim.¶
If the transport used for Signed Token Transport allows the CDN to associate the path component of a URI with tokens (e.g., an HTTP Cookie Path as described in section 4.1.2.4 of [RFC6265]), the CDNI Signed Token Depth value is the number of path segments that should be considered significant for this association. A CDNI Signed Token Depth of zero means that the client SHOULD be directed to return the token with requests for any path. If the CDNI Signed Token Depth is greater than zero, then the client SHOULD be directed to return the token for future requests wherein the first CDNI Signed Token Depth segments of the path match the first CDNI Signed Token Depth segments of the signed URI path. This matching MUST use the URI with the token removed, as specified in Section 2.1.15.¶
If the URI path to match contains fewer segments than the CDNI Signed Token Depth claim, a signed JWT MUST NOT be generated for the purposes of Signed Token Renewal. If the CDNI Signed Token Depth claim is omitted, it means the same thing as if its value were zero. If the received signed JWT contains a CDNI Signed Token Depth claim, then any JWT subsequently generated for CDNI redirection or Signed Token Transport MUST also contain a CDNI Signed Token Depth claim, and the value MUST be the same as in the received signed JWT.¶
The URI Container (cdniuc) claim takes one of the following forms: 'hash:' or 'regex:'. More forms may be added in the future to extend the capabilities.¶
Before comparing a URI with contents of this container, the following steps MUST be performed:¶
Prefixed with 'hash:', this string is a URL Segment form ([RFC6920] Section 5) of the URI.¶
Prefixed with 'regex:', this string is any POSIX Section 9 [POSIX.1] Extended Regular Expression compatible regular expression used to match against the requested URI. These regular expressions MUST be evaluated in the POSIX locale (POSIX Section 7.2 [POSIX.1]).¶
Note: Because '\' has special meaning in JSON [RFC8259] as the escape character within JSON strings, the regular expression character '\' MUST be escaped as '\\'.¶
An example of a 'regex:' is the following:¶
[^:]*\\://[^/]*/folder/content/quality_[^/]*/segment.{3}\\.mp4(\\?.*)?
¶
Note: Due to computational complexity of executing arbitrary regular expressions, it is RECOMMENDED to only execute after verifying the JWT to ensure its authenticity.¶
The header of the JWT MAY be passed via the CDNI Metadata interface instead of being included in the URISigningPackage. The header value MUST be transmitted in the serialized encoded form and prepended to the JWT payload and signature passed in the URISigningPackage prior to verification. This reduces the size of the signed JWT token.¶
For content that is delivered via HTTP in a segmented fashion, such as MPEG-DASH [MPEG-DASH] or HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) [RFC8216], special provisions need to be made in order to ensure URI Signing can be applied. In general, segmented protocols work by breaking large objects (e.g., videos) into a sequence of small independent segments. Such segments are then referenced by a separate manifest file, which either includes a list of URLs to the segments or specifies an algorithm through which a User Agent can construct the URLs to the segments. Requests for segments therefore originate from the manifest file and, unless the URLs in the manifest file point to the CSP, are not subjected to redirection and URI Signing. This opens up a vulnerability to malicious User Agents sharing the manifest file and deep-linking to the segments.¶
One method for dealing with this vulnerability would be to include, in the manifest itself, Signed URIs that point to the individual segments. There exist a number of issues with that approach. First, it requires the CDN delivering the manifest to rewrite the manifest file for each User Agent, which would require the CDN to be aware of the exact segmentation protocol used. Secondly, it could also require the expiration time of the Signed URIs to be valid for an extended duration if the content described by the manifest is meant to be consumed in real time. For instance, if the manifest file were to contain a segmented video stream of more than 30 minutes in length, Signed URIs would require to be valid for a at least 30 minutes, thereby reducing their effectiveness and that of the URI Signing mechanism in general. For a more detailed analysis of how segmented protocols such as HTTP Adaptive Streaming protocols affect CDNI, see Models for HTTP-Adaptive-Streaming-Aware CDNI [RFC6983].¶
The method described in this section allows CDNs to use URI Signing for segmented content without having to include the Signed URIs in the manifest files themselves.¶
In order to allow for effective access control of segmented content, the URI Signing mechanism defined in this section is based on a method through which subsequent segment requests can be linked together. As part of the JWT verification procedure, the CDN can generate a new signed JWT that the UA can use to do a subsequent request. More specifically, whenever a UA successfully retrieves a segment, it receives, in the HTTP 2xx Successful message, a signed JWT that it can use whenever it requests the next segment. As long as each successive signed JWT is correctly verified before a new one is generated, the model is not broken and the User Agent can successfully retrieve additional segments. Given the fact that with segmented protocols, it is usually not possible to determine a priori which segment will be requested next (i.e., to allow for seeking within the content and for switching to a different representation), the Signed Token Renewal uses the URI Regular Expression Container scoping mechanisms in the URI Container (cdniuc) claim to allow a signed JWT to be valid for more than one URL.¶
In order for this renewal of signed JWTs to work, it is necessary for a UA to extract the signed JWT from the HTTP 2xx Successful message of an earlier request and use it to retrieve the next segment. The exact mechanism by which the client does this is outside the scope of this document. However, in order to also support legacy UAs that do not include any specific provisions for the handling of signed JWTs, Section 3.3 defines a mechanism using HTTP Cookies [RFC6265] that allows such UAs to support the concept of renewing signed JWTs without requiring any additional UA support.¶
The cdnistt claim (Section 2.1.13) and cdniets claim (Section 2.1.12) MUST both be present for Signed Token Renewal. cdnistt MAY be set to a value of '0' to mean no Signed Token Renewal, but there still MUST be a corresponding cdniets that verifies as a JSON number. However, if use of Signed Token Renewal is not desired, it is RECOMMENDED to simply omit both.¶
This section assumes the value of the CDNI Signed Token Transport (cdnistt) claim has been set to 1.¶
When using the Signed Token Renewal mechanism, the signed JWT is transported to the UA via a 'URISigningPackage' cookie added to the HTTP 2xx Successful message along with the content being returned to the UA, or to the HTTP 3xx Redirection message in case the UA is redirected to a different server.¶
For security purposes, the use of cross-domain cookies is not supported in some application environments. As a result, the Cookie-based method for transport of the Signed Token described in Section 3.3 might break if used in combination with an HTTP 3xx Redirection response where the target URL is in a different domain. In such scenarios, Signed Token Renewal of a signed JWT SHOULD be communicated via the query string instead, in a similar fashion to how regular signed JWTs (outside of Signed Token Renewal) are communicated. Note the value of the CDNI Signed Token Transport (cdnistt) claim MUST be set to 2.¶
Note that the process described herein only works in cases where both the manifest file and segments constituting the segmented content are delivered from the same domain. In other words, any redirection between different domains needs to be carried out while retrieving the manifest file.¶
Some of the CDNI Interfaces need enhancements to support URI Signing. A dCDN that supports URI Signing needs to be able to advertise this capability to the uCDN. The uCDN needs to select a dCDN based on such capability when the CSP requires access control to enforce its distribution policy via URI Signing. Also, the uCDN needs to be able to distribute via the CDNI Metadata interface the information necessary to allow the dCDN to verify a Signed URI. Events that pertain to URI Signing (e.g., request denial or delivery after an access authorization decision has been made) need to be included in the logs communicated through the CDNI Logging interface.¶
URI Signing has no impact on this interface.¶
The CDNI Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics document [RFC8008] defines support for advertising CDNI Metadata capabilities, via CDNI Payload Type. The CDNI Payload Type registered in Section 6.1 can be used for capability advertisement.¶
The CDNI Request Routing Redirection Interface [RFC7975] describes the recursive request redirection method. For URI Signing, the uCDN signs the URI provided by the dCDN. URI Signing therefore has no impact on this interface.¶
The CDNI Metadata Interface [RFC8006] describes the CDNI metadata distribution needed to enable content acquisition and delivery. For URI Signing, a new CDNI metadata object is specified.¶
The UriSigning Metadata object contains information to enable URI Signing and verification by a dCDN. The UriSigning properties are defined below.¶
Property: enforce¶
Property: issuers¶
Property: package-attribute¶
Property: jwt-header¶
The following is an example of a URI Signing metadata payload with all default values:¶
{
"generic-metadata-type": "MI.UriSigning"
"generic-metadata-value": {}
}
¶
The following is an example of a URI Signing metadata payload with explicit values:¶
{
"generic-metadata-type": "MI.UriSigning"
"generic-metadata-value":
{
"enforce": true,
"issuers": ["csp", "ucdn1", "ucdn2"],
"package-attribute": "usp",
"jwt-header":
{
"alg": "ES256",
"kid": "P5UpOv0eMq1wcxLf7WxIg09JdSYGYFDOWkldueaImf0"
}
}
}
¶
For URI Signing, the dCDN reports that enforcement of the access control was applied to the request for content delivery. When the request is denied due to enforcement of URI Signing, the reason is logged.¶
The following CDNI Logging field for URI Signing SHOULD be supported in the HTTP Request Logging Record as specified in CDNI Logging Interface [RFC7937], using the new "cdni_http_request_v2" record-type registered in Section 6.2.1.¶
s-uri-signing (mandatory):¶
s-uri-signing-deny-reason (optional):¶
URI Signing supports both HTTP-based and DNS-based request routing. JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] defines a compact, URL-safe means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a Signed JWT are encoded as a JSON object that is used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) structure enabling the claims to be digitally signed or integrity protected with a Message Authentication Code (MAC).¶
For HTTP-based request routing, a set of information that is unique to a given end user content request is included in a Signed JWT, using key information that is specific to a pair of adjacent CDNI hops (e.g., between the CSP and the uCDN or between the uCDN and a dCDN). This allows a CDNI hop to ascertain the authenticity of a given request received from a previous CDNI hop.¶
The URI Signing method (assuming HTTP redirection, iterative request routing, and a CDN path with two CDNs) includes the following steps:¶
End-User dCDN uCDN CSP
| | | |
| 1.CDNI FCI interface used to | |
| advertise URI Signing capability| |
| |------------------->| |
| | | |
| 2.Provides information to verify Signed JWT |
| | |<-------------------|
| | | |
| 3.CDNI Metadata interface used to| |
| provide URI Signing attributes| |
| |<-------------------| |
: : : :
: (Later in time) : : :
|4.Authorization request | |
|------------------------------------------------------------->|
| | | [Apply distribution
| | | policy] |
| | | |
| | (ALT: Authorization decision)
|5.Request is denied | | <Negative> |
|<-------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | |
|6.CSP provides signed URI | <Positive> |
|<-------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | |
|7.Content request | | |
|---------------------------------------->| [Verifiy URI |
| | | signature] |
| | | |
| | (ALT: Verification result) |
|8.Request is denied | <Negative>| |
|<----------------------------------------| |
| | | |
|9.Re-sign URI and redirect to <Positive>| |
| dCDN (newly signed URI) | |
|<----------------------------------------| |
| | | |
|10.Content request | | |
|------------------->| [Verify URI | |
| | signature] | |
| | | |
| (ALT: Verification result) | |
|11.Request is denied| <Negative> | |
|<-------------------| | |
| | | |
|12.Content delivery | <Positive> | |
|<-------------------| | |
: : : :
: (Later in time) : : :
|13.CDNI Logging interface to include URI Signing information |
| |------------------->| |
With HTTP-based request routing, URI Signing matches well the general chain of trust model of CDNI both with symmetric and asymmetric keys because the key information only needs to be specific to a pair of adjacent CDNI hops.¶
Note: While using a symmetric shared key is supported, it is NOT RECOMMENDED. See the Security Considerations (Section 7) section about the limitations of shared keys.¶
For DNS-based request routing, the CSP and uCDN must agree on a trust model appropriate to the security requirements of the CSP's particular content. Use of asymmetric public/private keys allows for unlimited distribution of the public key to dCDNs. However, if a shared secret key is preferred, then the CSP may want to restrict the distribution of the key to a (possibly empty) subset of trusted dCDNs. Authorized Delivery CDNs need to obtain the key information to verify the signed URI.¶
Note: While using a symmetric shared key is supported, it is NOT RECOMMENDED. See the Security Considerations (Section 7) section about the limitations of shared keys.¶
The URI Signing method (assuming iterative DNS request routing and a CDN path with two CDNs) includes the following steps.¶
End-User dCDN uCDN CSP
| | | |
| 1.CDNI FCI interface used to | |
| advertise URI Signing capability| |
| |------------------->| |
| | | |
| 2.Provides information to verify Signed JWT |
| | |<-------------------|
| 3.CDNI Metadata interface used to| |
| provide URI Signing attributes| |
| |<-------------------| |
: : : :
: (Later in time) : : :
|4.Authorization request | |
|------------------------------------------------------------->|
| | | [Apply distribution
| | | policy] |
| | | |
| | (ALT: Authorization decision)
|5.Request is denied | | <Negative> |
|<-------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | |
|6.Provides signed URI | <Positive> |
|<-------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | |
|7.DNS request | | |
|---------------------------------------->| |
| | | |
|8.Redirect DNS to dCDN | |
|<----------------------------------------| |
| | | |
|9.DNS request | | |
|------------------->| | |
| | | |
|10.IP address of Surrogate | |
|<-------------------| | |
| | | |
|11.Content request | | |
|------------------->| [Verify URI | |
| | signature] | |
| | | |
| (ALT: Verification result) | |
|12.Request is denied| <Negative> | |
|<-------------------| | |
| | | |
|13.Content delivery | <Positive> | |
|<-------------------| | |
: : : :
: (Later in time) : : :
|14.CDNI Logging interface to report URI Signing information |
| |------------------->| |
With DNS-based request routing, URI Signing matches well the general chain of trust model of CDNI when used with asymmetric keys because the only key information that needs to be distributed across multiple, possibly untrusted, CDNI hops is the public key, which is generally not confidential.¶
With DNS-based request routing, URI Signing does not match well with the general chain of trust model of CDNI when used with symmetric keys because the symmetric key information needs to be distributed across multiple CDNI hops, to CDNs with which the CSP may not have a trust relationship. This raises a security concern for applicability of URI Signing with symmetric keys in case of DNS-based inter-CDN request routing. Due to these concerns, this architecture is NOT RECOMMENDED.¶
Note: While using a symmetric shared key is supported, it is NOT RECOMMENDED. See the Security Considerations (Section 7) section about the limitations of shared keys.¶
This document requests the registration of the following CDNI Payload Type under the IANA "CDNI Payload Types" registry:¶
| Payload Type | Specification |
|---|---|
| MI.UriSigning | RFCthis |
[RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for this document.]¶
Purpose: The purpose of this payload type is to distinguish UriSigning MI objects (and any associated capability advertisement).¶
Interface: MI/FCI¶
Encoding: see Section 4.4¶
This document requests the registration of the following CDNI Logging record-type under the IANA "CDNI Logging record-types" registry:¶
| record-types | Reference | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cdni_http_request_v2 | RFCthis | Extension to CDNI Logging Record version 1 for content delivery using HTTP, to include URI Signing logging fields |
[RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for this document.]¶
The "cdni_http_request_v2" record-type supports all of the fields supported by the "cdni_http_request_v1" record-type [RFC7937] plus the two additional fields "s-uri-signing" and "s-uri-signing-deny-reason", registered by this document in Section 6.3. The name, format, field value, and occurence information for the two new fields can be found in Section 4.5 of this document.¶
This document requests the registration of the following CDNI Logging fields under the IANA "CDNI Logging Field Names" registry:¶
| Field Name | Reference |
|---|---|
| s-uri-signing | RFCthis |
| s-uri-signing-deny-reason | RFCthis |
[RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for this document.]¶
The IANA is requested to create a new "CDNI URI Signing Verification Code" subregistry, in the "Content Delivery Networks Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters" registry. The "CDNI URI Signing Verification Code" namespace defines the valid values associated with the s-uri-signing CDNI Logging Field. The CDNI URI Signing Verification Code is a 3DIGIT value as defined in Section 4.5. Additions to the CDNI URI Signing Verification Code namespace will conform to the "Specification Required" policy as defined in [RFC8126]. Updates to this subregistry are expected to be infrequent.¶
| Value | Reference | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 000 | RFCthis | No signed JWT verification performed |
| 200 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and verified |
| 400 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of incorrect signature |
| 401 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of Issuer enforcement |
| 402 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of Subject enforcement |
| 403 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of Audience enforcement |
| 404 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of Expiration Time enforcement |
| 405 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of Not Before enforcement |
| 406 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because only one of CDNI Signed Token Transport or CDNI Expiration Time Setting present. |
| 407 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of JWT ID enforcement |
| 408 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of Version enforcement |
| 409 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of Critical Extension enforcement |
| 410 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of Client IP enforcement |
| 411 | RFCthis | Signed JWT verification performed and rejected because of URI Container enforcement |
| 500 | RFCthis | Unable to perform signed JWT verification because of malformed URI |
[RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for this document.]¶
The IANA is requested to create a new "CDNI URI Signing Signed Token Transport" subregistry in the "Content Delivery Networks Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters" registry. The "CDNI URI Signing Signed Token Transport" namespace defines the valid values that may be in the Signed Token Transport (cdnistt) JWT claim. Additions to the Signed Token Transport namespace conform to the "Specification Required" policy as defined in [RFC8126]. Updates to this subregistry are expected to be infrequent.¶
The following table defines the initial Enforcement Information Elements:¶
| Value | Description | RFC |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Designates token transport is not enabled | RFCthis |
| 1 | Designates token transport via cookie | RFCthis |
| 2 | Designates token transport via query string | RFCthis |
[RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for this document.]¶
This specification registers the following Claims in the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry [IANA.JWT.Claims] established by [RFC7519].¶
cdniv¶
cdnicrit¶
cdniip¶
cdniuc¶
cdniets¶
cdnistt¶
cdnistd¶
Generally speaking, we should determine the registration has a rational justification and does not duplicate a previous registration. Early assignment should be permissible as long as there is a reasonable expectation that the specification will become formalized. Expert Reviewers should be empowered to make determinations, but generally speaking they should allow new claims that do not otherwise introduce conflicts with implementation or things that may lead to confusion. They should also follow the guidelines of [RFC8126] Section 5 when sensible.¶
This document describes the concept of URI Signing and how it can be used to provide access authorization in the case of CDNI. The primary goal of URI Signing is to make sure that only authorized UAs are able to access the content, with a CSP being able to authorize every individual request. It should be noted that URI Signing is not a content protection scheme; if a CSP wants to protect the content itself, other mechanisms, such as DRM, are more appropriate.¶
CDNI URI Signing Signed Tokens leverage JSON Web Tokens and thus guidelines in [RFC8725] are applicable for all JWT interactions.¶
In general, it holds that the level of protection against illegitimate access can be increased by including more claims in the signed JWT. The current version of this document includes claims for enforcing Issuer, Client IP Address, Not Before time, and Expiration Time, however this list can be extended with other, more complex, attributes that are able to provide some form of protection against some of the vulnerabilities highlighted below.¶
That said, there are a number of aspects that limit the level of security offered by URI Signing and that anybody implementing URI Signing should be aware of.¶
The shared key between CSP and uCDN may be distributed to dCDNs - including cascaded CDNs. Since this key can be used to legitimately sign a URL for content access authorization, it is important to know the implications of a compromised shared key. While using a shared key scheme can be convenient, this architecture is NOT RECOMMENDED due to the risks associated. It is included for legacy feature parity and is highly discouraged in new implementations.¶
If a shared key usable for signing is compromised, an attacker can use it to perform a denial-of-service attack by forcing the CDN to evaluate prohibitively expensive regular expressions embedded in a URI Container (cdniuc) claim. As a result, compromised keys should be timely revoked in order to prevent exploitation.¶
The URI Container (cdniuc) claim can be given a wildcard value. This, combined with the fact that it is the only mandatory claim, means you can effectively make a skeleton key. Doing this does not sufficiently limit the scope of the JWT and is NOT RECOMMENDED. The only way to prevent such a key from being used after it is distributed is to revoke the signing key so it no longer validates.¶
The privacy protection concerns described in CDNI Logging Interface [RFC7937] apply when the client's IP address (cdniip) or Subject (sub) is embedded in the Signed URI. For this reason, the mechanism described in Section 2 encrypts the Client IP or Subject before including it in the URI Signing Package (and thus the URL itself).¶
The authors would like to thank the following people for their contributions in reviewing this document and providing feedback: Scott Leibrand, Kevin Ma, Ben Niven-Jenkins, Thierry Magnien, Dan York, Bhaskar Bhupalam, Matt Caulfield, Samuel Rajakumar, Iuniana Oprescu, Leif Hedstrom, Gancho Tenev, Brian Campbell, and Chris Lemmons.¶
In addition, the authors would also like to make special mentions for certain people who contributed significant sections to this document.¶
This section contains three examples of token usage: a simple example with only the required claim present, a complex example which demonstrates the full JWT claims set, including an encrypted Client IP (cdniip), and one that uses a Signed Token Renewal.¶
Note: All of the examples have whitespace added to improve formatting and readability, but are not present in the generated content.¶
All examples use the following JWK Set [RFC7517]:¶
{ "keys": [
{
"kty": "EC",
"kid": "P5UpOv0eMq1wcxLf7WxIg09JdSYGYFDOWkldueaImf0",
"use": "sig",
"alg": "ES256",
"crv": "P-256",
"x": "be807S4O7dzB6I4hTiCUvmxCI6FuxWba1xYBlLSSsZ8",
"y": "rOGC4vI69g-WF9AGEVI37sNNwbjIzBxSjLvIL7f3RBA"
},
{
"kty": "EC",
"kid": "P5UpOv0eMq1wcxLf7WxIg09JdSYGYFDOWkldueaImf0",
"use": "sig",
"alg": "ES256",
"crv": "P-256",
"x": "be807S4O7dzB6I4hTiCUvmxCI6FuxWba1xYBlLSSsZ8",
"y": "rOGC4vI69g-WF9AGEVI37sNNwbjIzBxSjLvIL7f3RBA",
"d": "yaowezrCLTU6yIwUL5RQw67cHgvZeMTLVZXjUGb1A1M"
},
{
"kty": "oct",
"kid": "f-WbjxBC3dPuI3d24kP2hfvos7Qz688UTi6aB0hN998",
"use": "enc",
"alg": "A128GCM",
"k": "4uFxxV7fhNmrtiah2d1fFg"
}
]}
¶
Note: They are the public signing key, the private signing key, and the shared secret enctyption key, respectively. The public and private signing keys have the same fingerprint and only vary by the 'd' parameter that is missing from the public signing key.¶
This example is a simple common usage example containing a minimal subset of claims that the authors find most useful.¶
The JWT Claim Set before signing:¶
Note: "sha-256;2tderfWPa86Ku7YnzW51YUp7dGUjBS_3SW3ELx4hmWY" is the URL Segment form ([RFC6920] Section 5) of "http://cdni.example/foo/bar".¶
{
"exp": 1641079223,
"iss": "uCDN Inc",
"cdniuc": "hash:sha-256;2tderfWPa86Ku7YnzW51YUp7dGUjBS_3SW3ELx4hmWY"
}
¶
The signed JWT:¶
eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IlA1VXBPdjBlTXExd2N4TGY3V3hJZzA5SmRTWU dZRkRPV2tsZHVlYUltZjAifQ.eyJleHAiOjE2NDEwNzkyMjMsImlzcyI6InVDRE4gS W5jIiwiY2RuaXVjIjoiaGFzaDpzaGEtMjU2OzJ0ZGVyZldQYTg2S3U3WW56VzUxWVV wN2RHVWpCU18zU1czRUx4NGhtV1kifQ.P5It6q0kxNx5NBA76D-bYKIxlourey5JpU 4diFLGHaVTk21QkEskjxoeneDoBj_1C5Ty1smBOovQMrGzuPmEHA¶
This example uses all fields except for those dealing with Signed Token Renewal, including Client IP (cdniip) and Subject (sub) which are encrpyted. This significantly increases the size of the signed JWT token.¶
JWE for Client IP (cdniip) of [2001:db8::1/32]:¶
eyJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIiwiYWxnIjoiZGlyIiwia2lkIjoiZi1XYmp4QkMzZFB1ST NkMjRrUDJoZnZvczdRejY4OFVUaTZhQjBoTjk5OCJ9..s614z__atK4Cijic.ieSm7 o2o7rIqCYbDExdoyQ.JUnPLQzBf2dPhBPRTxHKww¶
JWE for Subject (sub) of "UserToken":¶
eyJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIiwiYWxnIjoiZGlyIiwia2lkIjoiZi1XYmp4QkMzZFB1ST NkMjRrUDJoZnZvczdRejY4OFVUaTZhQjBoTjk5OCJ9..MbT8tWet01VVHjuS.4KP7A JefU70b.Rc_o3tCfWoPkIdySsYtfMw¶
The JWT Claim Set before signing:¶
{
"aud": "dCDN LLC",
"sub": "eyJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIiwiYWxnIjoiZGlyIiwia2lkIjoiZi1XYmp4
QkMzZFB1STNkMjRrUDJoZnZvczdRejY4OFVUaTZhQjBoTjk5OCJ9..MbT8tWet01VV
HjuS.4KP7AJefU70b.Rc_o3tCfWoPkIdySsYtfMw",
"cdniip": "eyJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIiwiYWxnIjoiZGlyIiwia2lkIjoiZi1XY
mp4QkMzZFB1STNkMjRrUDJoZnZvczdRejY4OFVUaTZhQjBoTjk5OCJ9..s614z__at
K4Cijic.ieSm7o2o7rIqCYbDExdoyQ.JUnPLQzBf2dPhBPRTxHKww",
"cdniv": 1,
"exp": 1641079223,
"iat": 1640906423,
"iss": "uCDN Inc",
"jti": "5DAafLhZAfhsbe",
"nbf": 1640992823,
"cdniuc": "regex:http://cdni\\.example/foo/bar/[0-9]{3}\\.png"
}
¶
The signed JWT:¶
eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IlA1VXBPdjBlTXExd2N4TGY3V3hJZzA5SmRTWU dZRkRPV2tsZHVlYUltZjAifQ.eyJhdWQiOiJkQ0ROIExMQyIsInN1YiI6ImV5Smxib U1pT2lKQk1USTRSME5OSWl3aVlXeG5Jam9pWkdseUlpd2lhMmxrSWpvaVppMVhZbXA 0UWtNelpGQjFTVE5rTWpSclVESm9ablp2Y3pkUmVqWTRPRlZVYVRaaFFqQm9Uams1T 0NKOS4uTWJUOHRXZXQwMVZWSGp1Uy40S1A3QUplZlU3MGIuUmNfbzN0Q2ZXb1BrSWR 5U3NZdGZNdyIsImNkbmlpcCI6ImV5SmxibU1pT2lKQk1USTRSME5OSWl3aVlXeG5Ja m9pWkdseUlpd2lhMmxrSWpvaVppMVhZbXA0UWtNelpGQjFTVE5rTWpSclVESm9ablp 2Y3pkUmVqWTRPRlZVYVRaaFFqQm9Uams1T0NKOS4uczYxNHpfX2F0SzRDaWppYy5pZ VNtN28ybzdySXFDWWJERXhkb3lRLkpVblBMUXpCZjJkUGhCUFJUeEhLd3ciLCJjZG5 pdiI6MSwiZXhwIjoxNjQxMDc5MjIzLCJpYXQiOjE2NDA5MDY0MjMsImlzcyI6InVDR E4gSW5jIiwianRpIjoiNURBYWZMaFpBZmhzYmUiLCJuYmYiOjE2NDA5OTI4MjMsImN kbml1YyI6InJlZ2V4Omh0dHA6Ly9jZG5pXFwuZXhhbXBsZS9mb28vYmFyL1swLTlde zN9XFwucG5nIn0.MgV1AIvlWf3rjUqWGKlpR1CcCpF8N5FX7xlZ0wGCqfJY3KpqTrV NKaEWVXGoo12oVgQ7J2KoRtcr2ah9dsjqOA¶
This example uses fields for Signed Token Renewal.¶
The JWT Claim Set before signing:¶
{
"cdniets": 30,
"cdnistt": 1,
"cdnistd": 2,
"exp": 1641079223,
"cdniuc": "regex:http://cdni\\.example/foo/bar/[0-9]{3}\\.ts"
}
¶
The signed JWT:¶
eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IlA1VXBPdjBlTXExd2N4TGY3V3hJZzA5SmRTWU dZRkRPV2tsZHVlYUltZjAifQ.eyJjZG5pZXRzIjozMCwiY2RuaXN0dCI6MSwiY2Rua XN0ZCI6MiwiZXhwIjoxNjQxMDc5MjIzLCJjZG5pdWMiOiJyZWdleDpodHRwOi8vY2R uaVxcLmV4YW1wbGUvZm9vL2Jhci9bMC05XXszfVxcLnRzIn0.qp4l3B36rRmIUBXzP WdK7p0_zlq7tvgt5oJSBSMOUEWtMsIZf3q0nXSnHPxsNdLcsTSNoFOAgq5y0EjQmvN QoA¶
Once the server verifies the signed JWT it will return a new signed JWT with an updated expiry time (exp) as shown below. Note the expiry time is increased by the expiration time setting (cdniets) value.¶
The JWT Claim Set before signing:¶
{
"cdniets": 30,
"cdnistt": 1,
"cdnistd": 2,
"exp": 1641079223,
"cdniuc": "regex:http://cdni\\.example/foo/bar/[0-9]{3}\\.ts"
}
¶
The signed JWT:¶
eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IlA1VXBPdjBlTXExd2N4TGY3V3hJZzA5SmRTWU dZRkRPV2tsZHVlYUltZjAifQ.eyJjZG5pZXRzIjozMCwiY2RuaXN0dCI6MSwiY2Rua XN0ZCI6MiwiZXhwIjoxNjQxMDc5MjIzLCJjZG5pdWMiOiJyZWdleDpodHRwOi8vY2R uaVxcLmV4YW1wbGUvZm9vL2Jhci9bMC05XXszfVxcLnRzIn0.Qrixg5gbwCQjvV5Wg W4__NVnOeFXqqudhc202ptkrY8PDQk3BaMop6uG6dzgKk3KT5lTFVzEN9nfN8a1H8b Zow¶