path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9246.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                R. van Brandenburg
Request for Comments: 9246                                    Tiledmedia
Category: Standards Track                                       K. Leung
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                         
                                                               P. Sorber
                                                             Apple, Inc.
                                                               June 2022


    URI Signing for Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)

Abstract

   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.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9246.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Terminology
     1.2.  Background and Overview on URI Signing
     1.3.  CDNI URI Signing Overview
     1.4.  URI Signing in a Non-CDNI Context
   2.  JWT Format and Processing Requirements
     2.1.  JWT Claims
       2.1.1.  Issuer (iss) Claim
       2.1.2.  Subject (sub) Claim
       2.1.3.  Audience (aud) Claim
       2.1.4.  Expiry Time (exp) Claim
       2.1.5.  Not Before (nbf) Claim
       2.1.6.  Issued At (iat) Claim
       2.1.7.  JWT ID (jti) Claim
       2.1.8.  CDNI Claim Set Version (cdniv) Claim
       2.1.9.  CDNI Critical Claims Set (cdnicrit) Claim
       2.1.10. Client IP Address (cdniip) Claim
       2.1.11. CDNI URI Container (cdniuc) Claim
       2.1.12. CDNI Expiration Time Setting (cdniets) Claim
       2.1.13. CDNI Signed Token Transport (cdnistt) Claim
       2.1.14. CDNI Signed Token Depth (cdnistd) Claim
       2.1.15. URI Container Forms
         2.1.15.1.  URI Hash Container (hash:)
         2.1.15.2.  URI Regular Expression Container (regex:)
     2.2.  JWT Header
   3.  URI Signing Token Renewal
     3.1.  Overview
     3.2.  Signed Token Renewal Mechanism
       3.2.1.  Required Claims
     3.3.  Communicating a Signed JWT in Signed Token Renewal
       3.3.1.  Support for Cross-Domain Redirection
   4.  Relationship with CDNI Interfaces
     4.1.  CDNI Control Interface
     4.2.  CDNI Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement Interface
     4.3.  CDNI Request Routing Redirection Interface
     4.4.  CDNI Metadata Interface
     4.5.  CDNI Logging Interface
   5.  URI Signing Message Flow
     5.1.  HTTP Redirection
     5.2.  DNS Redirection
   6.  IANA Considerations
     6.1.  CDNI Payload Type
       6.1.1.  CDNI UriSigning Payload Type
     6.2.  CDNI Logging Record Type
       6.2.1.  CDNI Logging Record Version 2 for HTTP
     6.3.  CDNI Logging Field Names
     6.4.  CDNI URI Signing Verification Code
     6.5.  CDNI URI Signing Signed Token Transport
     6.6.  JSON Web Token Claims Registration
       6.6.1.  Registry Contents
     6.7.  Expert Review Guidance
   7.  Security Considerations
   8.  Privacy
   9.  References
     9.1.  Normative References
     9.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Signed URI Package Example
     A.1.  Simple Example
     A.2.  Complex Example
     A.3.  Signed Token Renewal Example
   Acknowledgements
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   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 the CDNI Problem Statement [RFC6707] specification.  This
   document, along with the Content Distribution Network Interconnection
   (CDNI) Requirements [RFC7337] document and the Framework for Content
   Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) [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:

      The CSP may also trust the CDN operator to perform actions such as
      delegating traffic to additional downstream CDNs, and to enforce
      per-request authorization performed by the CSP using techniques
      such as URI Signing.

   In particular, the following requirement is listed in the CDNI
   Requirements [RFC7337]:

      |  MI-16  {HIGH} The CDNI Metadata interface shall allow signaling
      |     of authorization checks and validation that are to be
      |     performed by the Surrogate before delivery.  For example,
      |     this could potentially include the need to validate
      |     information (e.g., Expiry time, Client IP address) required
      |     for access authorization.

   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].

1.1.  Terminology

   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:

   FCI:  Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface

   Signed URI:  A URI for which a signed JWT is provided.

   Target CDN URI:  A URI created by the CSP to direct a UA towards the
      upstream CDN (uCDN).  The Target CDN URI can be signed by the CSP
      and verified by the uCDN and possibly further downstream CDNs
      (dCDNs).

   Redirection URI:  A URI created by the uCDN to redirect a UA towards
      the dCDN.  The Redirection URI can be signed by the uCDN and
      verified by the dCDN.  In a cascaded CDNI scenario, there can be
      more than one Redirection URI.

   Signed Token Renewal:  A series of signed JWTs that are used for
      subsequent access to a set of related resources in a CDN, such as
      a set of HTTP Adaptive Streaming files.  Every time a signed JWT
      is used to access a particular resource, a new signed JWT is sent
      along with the resource that can be used to request the next
      resource in the set.  When generating a new signed JWT in Signed
      Token Renewal, parameters are carried over from one signed JWT to
      the next.

1.2.  Background and Overview on URI Signing

   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 a time window or
   pattern matching the URI).  To prevent the UA from altering the
   claims, the JWT MUST be signed.

   Figure 1 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 time window is still valid in
   the Signed URI and the pattern matches the URI of the request.  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) 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

                 Figure 1: URI Signing in a CDN Environment

1.3.  CDNI URI Signing Overview

   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 URI Signing Message Flow
   (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]
                                                 --------

                Figure 2: URI Signing in a CDNI Environment

   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 CDN 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).  Shared keys MUST
   NOT be redistributed.

   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) about the
   limitations of shared keys.

1.4.  URI Signing in a Non-CDNI Context

   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.

2.  JWT Format and Processing Requirements

   The concept behind URI Signing is based on embedding a signed JSON
   Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] in an HTTP or HTTPS URI [RFC7230] (see
   Section 2.7 of [RFC7230]).  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:

   URI Signing Package (URISigningPackage):  The URI attribute that
      encapsulates all the URI Signing claims in a signed JWT encoded
      format.  This attribute is exposed in the Signed URI as a path-
      style parameter or a form-style parameter.

   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] and 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

2.1.  JWT Claims

   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 parentheses 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 necessarily
   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) on the limitations
   of using an expiration time and Client IP address for distribution
   policy enforcement.

2.1.1.  Issuer (iss) Claim

   Issuer (iss) [optional] - The semantics in Section 4.1.1 of [RFC7519]
   MUST be followed.  If this claim is used, it MUST be used to identify
   the Issuer (signer) of the JWT.  In particular, the recipient will
   have already received, in trusted configuration, a mapping of Issuer
   name to one or more keys used to sign JWTs and must verify that the
   JWT was signed by one of those keys.  If this claim is used and 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, or if the Issuer claim does not match the key
   used to sign the JWT, 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.

2.1.2.  Subject (sub) Claim

   Subject (sub) [optional] - The semantics in Section 4.1.2 of
   [RFC7519] 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.

2.1.3.  Audience (aud) Claim

   Audience (aud) [optional] - The semantics in Section 4.1.3 of
   [RFC7519] 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 belonging to the chain of entities
   involved in processing the request (e.g., identifying the CSP or any
   CDN in the chain) that the recipient is configured to use for the
   processing of this request.  A CDN MAY modify the claim as long it
   can generate a valid signature.

2.1.4.  Expiry Time (exp) Claim

   Expiry Time (exp) [optional] - The semantics in Section 4.1.4 of
   [RFC7519] 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 an 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.

2.1.5.  Not Before (nbf) Claim

   Not Before (nbf) [optional] - The semantics in Section 4.1.5 of
   [RFC7519] 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.

2.1.6.  Issued At (iat) Claim

   Issued At (iat) [optional] - The semantics in Section 4.1.6 of
   [RFC7519] 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.

2.1.7.  JWT ID (jti) Claim

   JWT ID (jti) [optional] - The semantics in Section 4.1.7 of [RFC7519]
   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.

2.1.8.  CDNI Claim Set Version (cdniv) Claim

   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 a 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.

2.1.9.  CDNI Critical Claims Set (cdnicrit) Claim

   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.

2.1.10.  Client IP Address (cdniip) Claim

   Client IP Address (cdniip) [optional] - The Client IP Address
   (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 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 Wi-Fi 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.

2.1.11.  CDNI URI Container (cdniuc) Claim

   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 Section 2.1 of [RFC3986] 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.

2.1.12.  CDNI Expiration Time Setting (cdniets) Claim

   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.

2.1.13.  CDNI Signed Token Transport (cdnistt) Claim

   CDNI Signed Token Transport (cdnistt) [optional] - The CDNI Signed
   Token Transport (cdnistt) claim provides a means of signaling 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.

2.1.14.  CDNI Signed Token Depth (cdnistd) Claim

   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 CDN SHOULD send the client a token to
   return 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.

2.1.15.  URI Container Forms

   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:

   *  Prior to verification, remove the signed JWT from the URI.  This
      removal is only for the purpose of determining if the URI matches;
      all other purposes will use the original URI.  If the signed JWT
      is terminated by anything other than a sub-delimiter (as defined
      in Section 2.2 of [RFC3986]), everything from the reserved
      character (as defined in Section 2.2 of [RFC3986]) that precedes
      the URI Signing Package Attribute to the last character of the
      signed JWT will be removed, inclusive.  Otherwise, everything from
      the first character of the URI Signing Package Attribute to the
      sub-delimiter that terminates the signed JWT will be removed,
      inclusive.

   *  Normalize the URI according to Section 2.7.3 of [RFC7230] and
      Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 of [RFC3986].  This applies to both
      generation and verification of the signed JWT.

2.1.15.1.  URI Hash Container (hash:)

   Prefixed with 'hash:', this string is a URL Segment form (Section 5
   of [RFC6920]) of the URI.

2.1.15.2.  URI Regular Expression Container (regex:)

   Prefixed with 'regex:', this string is any regular expression
   compatible with POSIX (Section 9 of [POSIX.1]) Extended Regular
   Expression used to match against the requested URI.  These regular
   expressions MUST be evaluated in the POSIX locale (Section 7.2 of
   [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:

   [^:]*\\://[^/]*/dir/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.

2.2.  JWT Header

   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.

3.  URI Signing Token Renewal

3.1.  Overview

   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 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 Content
   Distribution Network Interconnection (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.

3.2.  Signed Token Renewal Mechanism

   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.

3.2.1.  Required Claims

   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.

3.3.  Communicating a Signed JWT in Signed Token Renewal

   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.

3.3.1.  Support for Cross-Domain Redirection

   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.

4.  Relationship with CDNI Interfaces

   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.

4.1.  CDNI Control Interface

   URI Signing has no impact on this interface.

4.2.  CDNI Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement 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.

4.3.  CDNI Request Routing Redirection Interface

   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.

4.4.  CDNI Metadata 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

         Description:  URI Signing enforcement flag.  Specifically, this
            flag indicates if the access to content is subject to URI
            Signing.  URI Signing requires the dCDN to ensure that the
            URI is signed and verified before delivering content.
            Otherwise, the dCDN does not perform verification,
            regardless of whether or not the URI is signed.

         Type:  Boolean

         Mandatory-to-Specify:  No.  The default is true.

      Property: issuers

         Description:  A list of valid Issuers against which the Issuer
            claim in the signed JWT may be cross-referenced.

         Type:  Array of Strings

         Mandatory-to-Specify:  No.  The default is an empty list.  An
            empty list means that any Issuer in the trusted key store of
            Issuers is acceptable.

      Property: package-attribute

         Description:  The attribute name to use for the URI Signing
            Package.

         Type:  String

         Mandatory-to-Specify:  No.  The default is "URISigningPackage".

      Property: jwt-header

         Description:  The header part of JWT that is used for verifying
            a signed JWT when the JWT token in the URI Signing Package
            does not contain a header part.

         Type:  String

         Mandatory-to-Specify:  No.  By default, the header is assumed
            to be included in the JWT token.

   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"
           }
       }
   }

4.5.  CDNI Logging Interface

   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 "Content
   Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Logging Interface"
   [RFC7937] using the new "cdni_http_request_v2" record-type registered
   in Section 6.2.1.

   *  s-uri-signing (mandatory):

      Format:  3DIGIT

      Field value:  this characterizes the URI Signing verification
         performed by the Surrogate on the request.  The allowed values
         are registered in Section 6.4.

      Occurrence:  there MUST be zero or exactly one instance of this
         field.

   *  s-uri-signing-deny-reason (optional):

      Format:  QSTRING

      Field value:  a string for providing further information in case
         the signed JWT was rejected, e.g., for debugging purposes.

      Occurrence:  there MUST be zero or exactly one instance of this
         field.

5.  URI Signing Message Flow

   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).

5.1.  HTTP Redirection

   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 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   |                    |                    |
        |---------------------------------------->| [Verify 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  |
        |                    |------------------->|                    |

           Figure 3: HTTP-Based Request Routing with URI Signing

   1.   Using the CDNI Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface,
        the dCDN advertises its capabilities including URI Signing
        support to the uCDN.

   2.   CSP provides to the uCDN the information needed to verify Signed
        URIs from that CSP.  For example, this information will include
        one or more keys used for validation.

   3.   Using the CDNI Metadata interface, the uCDN communicates to a
        dCDN the information needed to verify Signed URIs from the uCDN
        for the given CSP.  For example, this information may include
        the URI query string parameter name for the URI Signing Package
        Attribute in addition to keys used for validation.

   4.   When a UA requests a piece of protected content from the CSP,
        the CSP makes a specific authorization decision for this unique
        request based on its local distribution policy.

   5.   If the authorization decision is negative, the CSP rejects the
        request and sends an error code (e.g., 403 Forbidden) in the
        HTTP response.

   6.   If the authorization decision is positive, the CSP computes a
        Signed JWT that is based on unique parameters of that request
        and conveys it to the end user as the URI to use to request the
        content.

   7.   On receipt of the corresponding content request, the uCDN
        verifies the Signed JWT in the URI using the information
        provided by the CSP.

   8.   If the verification result is negative, the uCDN rejects the
        request and sends an error code 403 Forbidden in the HTTP
        response.

   9.   If the verification result is positive, the uCDN computes a
        Signed JWT that is based on unique parameters of that request
        and provides it to the end user as the URI to use to further
        request the content from the dCDN.

   10.  On receipt of the corresponding content request, the dCDN
        verifies the Signed JWT in the Signed URI using the information
        provided by the uCDN in the CDNI Metadata.

   11.  If the verification result is negative, the dCDN rejects the
        request and sends an error code 403 Forbidden in the HTTP
        response.

   12.  If the verification result is positive, the dCDN serves the
        request and delivers the content.

   13.  At a later time, the dCDN reports logging events that 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) about the
   limitations of shared keys.

5.2.  DNS Redirection

   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 required, then the distribution SHOULD be
   performed by the CSP directly.

   Note: While using a symmetric shared key is supported, it is NOT
   RECOMMENDED.  See the Security Considerations (Section 7) 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 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   |
        |                    |------------------->|                    |

            Figure 4: DNS-based Request Routing with URI Signing

   1.   Using the CDNI Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface,
        the dCDN advertises its capabilities including URI Signing
        support to the uCDN.

   2.   CSP provides to the uCDN the information needed to verify Signed
        JWTs from that CSP.  For example, this information will include
        one or more keys used for validation.

   3.   Using the CDNI Metadata interface, the uCDN communicates to a
        dCDN the information needed to verify Signed JWTs from the CSP
        (e.g., the URI query string parameter name for the URI Signing
        Package Attribute).  In the case of symmetric shared key, the
        uCDN MUST NOT share the key with a dCDN.

   4.   When a UA requests a piece of protected content from the CSP,
        the CSP makes a specific authorization decision for this unique
        request based on its local distribution policy.

   5.   If the authorization decision is negative, the CSP rejects the
        request and sends an error code (e.g., 403 Forbidden) in the
        HTTP response.

   6.   If the authorization decision is positive, the CSP computes a
        Signed JWT that is based on unique parameters of that request
        and includes it in the URI provided to the end user to request
        the content.

   7.   The end user sends a DNS request to the uCDN.

   8.   On receipt of the DNS request, the uCDN redirects the request to
        the dCDN.

   9.   The end user sends a DNS request to the dCDN.

   10.  On receipt of the DNS request, the dCDN responds with IP address
        of one of its Surrogates.

   11.  On receipt of the corresponding content request, the dCDN
        verifies the Signed JWT in the URI using the information
        provided by the uCDN in the CDNI Metadata.

   12.  If the verification result is negative, the dCDN rejects the
        request and sends an error code 403 Forbidden in the HTTP
        response.

   13.  If the verification result is positive, the dCDN serves the
        request and delivers the content.

   14.  At a later time, dCDN reports logging events that includes 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 flaws, this architecture MUST NOT be
   implemented.

   Note: While using a symmetric shared key is supported, it is NOT
   RECOMMENDED.  See the Security Considerations (Section 7) about the
   limitations of shared keys.

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  CDNI Payload Type

   IANA has registered the following CDNI Payload Type under the IANA
   "CDNI Payload Types" registry:

                     +===============+===============+
                     | Payload Type  | Specification |
                     +===============+===============+
                     | MI.UriSigning | RFC 9246      |
                     +---------------+---------------+

                                  Table 1

6.1.1.  CDNI UriSigning Payload Type

   Purpose:  The purpose of this payload type is to distinguish
      UriSigning Metadata interface (MI) objects (and any associated
      capability advertisement).

   Interface:  MI/FCI

   Encoding:  see Section 4.4

6.2.  CDNI Logging Record Type

   IANA has registered the following CDNI Logging record-type under the
   IANA "CDNI Logging record-types" registry:

     +======================+===========+===========================+
     | record-types         | Reference | Description               |
     +======================+===========+===========================+
     | cdni_http_request_v2 | RFC 9246  | Extension to CDNI Logging |
     |                      |           | Record version 1 for      |
     |                      |           | content delivery using    |
     |                      |           | HTTP, to include URI      |
     |                      |           | Signing Logging fields    |
     +----------------------+-----------+---------------------------+

                                 Table 2

6.2.1.  CDNI Logging Record Version 2 for HTTP

   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 occurrence information for the two new
   fields can be found in Section 4.5 of this document.

6.3.  CDNI Logging Field Names

   IANA has registered the following CDNI Logging fields under the IANA
   "CDNI Logging Field Names" registry:

                 +===========================+===========+
                 | Field Name                | Reference |
                 +===========================+===========+
                 | s-uri-signing             | RFC 9246  |
                 +---------------------------+-----------+
                 | s-uri-signing-deny-reason | RFC 9246  |
                 +---------------------------+-----------+

                                  Table 3

6.4.  CDNI URI Signing Verification Code

   IANA has created 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   | RFC 9246  | No signed JWT verification          |
        |       |           | performed                           |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 200   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and verified                        |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 400   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of incorrect   |
        |       |           | signature                           |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 401   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of Issuer      |
        |       |           | enforcement                         |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 402   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of Subject     |
        |       |           | enforcement                         |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 403   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of Audience    |
        |       |           | enforcement                         |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 404   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of Expiration  |
        |       |           | Time enforcement                    |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 405   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of Not Before  |
        |       |           | enforcement                         |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 406   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because only one of    |
        |       |           | CDNI Signed Token Transport or CDNI |
        |       |           | Expiration Time Setting present     |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 407   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of JWT ID      |
        |       |           | enforcement                         |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 408   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of Version     |
        |       |           | enforcement                         |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 409   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of Critical    |
        |       |           | Extension enforcement               |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 410   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of Client IP   |
        |       |           | enforcement                         |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 411   | RFC 9246  | Signed JWT verification performed   |
        |       |           | and rejected because of URI         |
        |       |           | Container enforcement               |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+
        | 500   | RFC 9246  | Unable to perform signed JWT        |
        |       |           | verification because of malformed   |
        |       |           | URI                                 |
        +-------+-----------+-------------------------------------+

                                  Table 4

6.5.  CDNI URI Signing Signed Token Transport

   IANA has created 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   | RFC 9246 |
    +-------+---------------------------------------------+----------+
    | 1     | Designates token transport via cookie       | RFC 9246 |
    +-------+---------------------------------------------+----------+
    | 2     | Designates token transport via query string | RFC 9246 |
    +-------+---------------------------------------------+----------+

                                 Table 5

6.6.  JSON Web Token Claims Registration

   This specification registers the following claims in the IANA "JSON
   Web Token Claims" registry [IANA.JWT.Claims] established by
   [RFC7519].

6.6.1.  Registry Contents

   Claim Name:  cdniv
   Claim Description:  CDNI Claim Set Version
   Change Controller:  IESG
   Specification Document(s):  Section 2.1.8 of RFC 9246

   Claim Name:  cdnicrit
   Claim Description:  CDNI Critical Claims Set
   Change Controller:  IESG
   Specification Document(s):  Section 2.1.9 of RFC 9246

   Claim Name:  cdniip
   Claim Description:  CDNI IP Address
   Change Controller:  IESG
   Specification Document(s):  Section 2.1.10 of RFC 9246

   Claim Name:  cdniuc
   Claim Description:  CDNI URI Container
   Change Controller:  IESG
   Specification Document(s):  Section 2.1.11 of RFC 9246

   Claim Name:  cdniets
   Claim Description:  CDNI Expiration Time Setting for Signed Token
      Renewal
   Change Controller:  IESG
   Specification Document(s):  Section 2.1.12 of RFC 9246

   Claim Name:  cdnistt
   Claim Description:  CDNI Signed Token Transport Method for Signed
      Token Renewal
   Change Controller:  IESG
   Specification Document(s):  Section 2.1.13 of RFC 9246

   Claim Name:  cdnistd
   Claim Description:  CDNI Signed Token Depth
   Change Controller:  IESG
   Specification Document(s):  Section 2.1.14 of RFC 9246

6.7.  Expert Review Guidance

   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 Section 5 of [RFC8126] when sensible.

7.  Security Considerations

   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.

   Replay attacks:  A (valid) Signed URI may be used to perform replay
      attacks.  The vulnerability to replay attacks can be reduced by
      picking a relatively short window between the Not Before time and
      Expiration Time attributes, although this is limited by the fact
      that any HTTP-based request needs a window of at least a couple of
      seconds to prevent sudden network issues from denying legitimate
      UAs access to the content.  One may also reduce exposure to replay
      attacks by including a unique one-time access ID via the JWT ID
      attribute (jti claim).  Whenever the dCDN receives a request with
      a given unique ID, it adds that ID to the list of 'used' IDs.  In
      the case an illegitimate UA tries to use the same URI through a
      replay attack, the dCDN can deny the request based on the already
      used access ID.  This list should be kept bounded.  A reasonable
      approach would be to expire the entries based on the exp claim
      value.  If no exp claim is present, then a simple Least Recently
      Used (LRU) cache could be used; however, this would allow values
      to eventually be reused.

   Illegitimate clients behind a NAT:  In cases where there are multiple
      users behind the same NAT, all users will have the same IP address
      from the point of view of the dCDN.  This results in the dCDN not
      being able to distinguish between different users based on Client
      IP Address, which can lead to illegitimate users being able to
      access the content.  One way to reduce exposure to this kind of
      attack is to not only check for Client IP but also for other
      attributes, e.g., attributes that can be found in HTTP headers.
      However, this may be easily circumvented by a sophisticated
      attacker.

   A shared key distributed between CSP and uCDN is more likely to be
   compromised.  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.

8.  Privacy

   The privacy protection concerns described in "Content Distribution
   Network Interconnection (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).

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [POSIX.1]  The Open Group, "IEEE Standard for Information Technology
              -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX(TM)) Base
              Specifications, Issue 7", (Revision of IEEE Std
              1003.1-2008), IEEE Std 1003.1-2017, January 2018,
              <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/>.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC5952]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
              Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.

   [RFC6265]  Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6265>.

   [RFC6570]  Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.

   [RFC6707]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content
              Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
              Statement", RFC 6707, DOI 10.17487/RFC6707, September
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6707>.

   [RFC6920]  Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
              Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
              Hashes", RFC 6920, DOI 10.17487/RFC6920, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6920>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7516]  Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
              RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC7937]  Le Faucheur, F., Ed., Bertrand, G., Ed., Oprescu, I., Ed.,
              and R. Peterkofsky, "Content Distribution Network
              Interconnection (CDNI) Logging Interface", RFC 7937,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7937, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7937>.

   [RFC8006]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Murray, R., Caulfield, M., and K. Ma,
              "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
              Metadata", RFC 8006, DOI 10.17487/RFC8006, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8006>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [IANA.JWT.Claims]
              IANA, "JSON Web Token (JWT)",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.

   [MPEG-DASH]
              ISO, "Information technology -- Dynamic adaptive streaming
              over HTTP (DASH) -- Part 1: Media presentation description
              and segment formats", ISO/IEC 23009-1:2019, Edition 4,
              December 2019, <https://www.iso.org/standard/79329.html>.

   [RFC6983]  van Brandenburg, R., van Deventer, O., Le Faucheur, F.,
              and K. Leung, "Models for HTTP-Adaptive-Streaming-Aware
              Content Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI)",
              RFC 6983, DOI 10.17487/RFC6983, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6983>.

   [RFC7336]  Peterson, L., Davie, B., and R. van Brandenburg, Ed.,
              "Framework for Content Distribution Network
              Interconnection (CDNI)", RFC 7336, DOI 10.17487/RFC7336,
              August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7336>.

   [RFC7337]  Leung, K., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Content Distribution
              Network Interconnection (CDNI) Requirements", RFC 7337,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7337, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7337>.

   [RFC7517]  Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>.

   [RFC7975]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed. and R. van Brandenburg, Ed.,
              "Request Routing Redirection Interface for Content
              Delivery Network (CDN) Interconnection", RFC 7975,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7975, October 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7975>.

   [RFC8008]  Seedorf, J., Peterson, J., Previdi, S., van Brandenburg,
              R., and K. Ma, "Content Delivery Network Interconnection
              (CDNI) Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities
              Semantics", RFC 8008, DOI 10.17487/RFC8008, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8008>.

   [RFC8216]  Pantos, R., Ed. and W. May, "HTTP Live Streaming",
              RFC 8216, DOI 10.17487/RFC8216, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8216>.

   [RFC8725]  Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best
              Current Practices", BCP 225, RFC 8725,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8725, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8725>.

Appendix A.  Signed URI Package Example

   This section contains three examples of token usage: a simple example
   with only the required claim present, a complex example that
   demonstrates the full JWT claims set, including an encrypted Client
   IP Address (cdniip), and one that uses a Signed Token Renewal.

   Note: All of the examples have empty space 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 encryption 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.

A.1.  Simple Example

   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 (Section 5 of [RFC6920]) of
   "http://cdni.example/foo/bar".

   {
     "exp": 1646867369,
     "iss": "uCDN Inc",
     "cdniuc":
       "hash:sha-256;2tderfWPa86Ku7YnzW51YUp7dGUjBS_3SW3ELx4hmWY"
   }

   The signed JWT:

   eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IlA1VXBPdjBlTXExd2N4TGY3V3hJZzA5SmRTWU
   dZRkRPV2tsZHVlYUltZjAifQ.eyJleHAiOjE2NDY4NjczNjksImlzcyI6InVDRE4gS
   W5jIiwiY2RuaXVjIjoiaGFzaDpzaGEtMjU2OzJ0ZGVyZldQYTg2S3U3WW56VzUxWVV
   wN2RHVWpCU18zU1czRUx4NGhtV1kifQ.TaNlJM3D96i_9J9XvlICO6FUIDFTqt3E2Y
   JkEUOLfcH0b89wYRKTbJ9Yj6h_GRgSoZoQO0cps3yUPcWGK3smCw

A.2.  Complex Example

   This example uses all fields except for those dealing with Signed
   Token Renewal, including Client IP Address (cdniip) and Subject
   (sub), which are encrypted.  This significantly increases the size of
   the signed JWT token.

   JWE for Client IP Address (cdniip) of [2001:db8::1/32]:

   eyJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIiwiYWxnIjoiZGlyIiwia2lkIjoiZi1XYmp4QkMzZFB1ST
   NkMjRrUDJoZnZvczdRejY4OFVUaTZhQjBoTjk5OCJ9..aUDDFEQBIc3nWjOb.bGXWT
   HPkntmPCKn0pPPNEQ.iyTttnFybO2YBLqwl_YSjA

   JWE for Subject (sub) of "UserToken":

   eyJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIiwiYWxnIjoiZGlyIiwia2lkIjoiZi1XYmp4QkMzZFB1ST
   NkMjRrUDJoZnZvczdRejY4OFVUaTZhQjBoTjk5OCJ9..CLAu80xclc8Bp-Ui.6P1A3
   F6ip2Dv.CohdtLLpgBnTvRJQCFuz-g

   The JWT Claim Set before signing:

   {
     "aud": "dCDN LLC",
     "sub": "eyJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIiwiYWxnIjoiZGlyIiwia2lkIjoiZi1XYmp4
   QkMzZFB1STNkMjRrUDJoZnZvczdRejY4OFVUaTZhQjBoTjk5OCJ9..CLAu80xclc8B
   p-Ui.6P1A3F6ip2Dv.CohdtLLpgBnTvRJQCFuz-g",
     "cdniip": "eyJlbmMiOiJBMTI4R0NNIiwiYWxnIjoiZGlyIiwia2lkIjoiZi1XY
   mp4QkMzZFB1STNkMjRrUDJoZnZvczdRejY4OFVUaTZhQjBoTjk5OCJ9..aUDDFEQBI
   c3nWjOb.bGXWTHPkntmPCKn0pPPNEQ.iyTttnFybO2YBLqwl_YSjA",
     "cdniv": 1,
     "exp": 1646867369,
     "iat": 1646694569,
     "iss": "uCDN Inc",
     "jti": "5DAafLhZAfhsbe",
     "nbf": 1646780969,
     "cdniuc": "regex:http://cdni\\.example/foo/bar/[0-9]{3}\\.png"
   }

   The signed JWT:

   eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IlA1VXBPdjBlTXExd2N4TGY3V3hJZzA5SmRTWU
   dZRkRPV2tsZHVlYUltZjAifQ.eyJhdWQiOiJkQ0ROIExMQyIsInN1YiI6ImV5Smxib
   U1pT2lKQk1USTRSME5OSWl3aVlXeG5Jam9pWkdseUlpd2lhMmxrSWpvaVppMVhZbXA
   0UWtNelpGQjFTVE5rTWpSclVESm9ablp2Y3pkUmVqWTRPRlZVYVRaaFFqQm9Uams1T
   0NKOS4uQ0xBdTgweGNsYzhCcC1VaS42UDFBM0Y2aXAyRHYuQ29oZHRMTHBnQm5UdlJ
   KUUNGdXotZyIsImNkbmlpcCI6ImV5SmxibU1pT2lKQk1USTRSME5OSWl3aVlXeG5Ja
   m9pWkdseUlpd2lhMmxrSWpvaVppMVhZbXA0UWtNelpGQjFTVE5rTWpSclVESm9ablp
   2Y3pkUmVqWTRPRlZVYVRaaFFqQm9Uams1T0NKOS4uYVVEREZFUUJJYzNuV2pPYi5iR
   1hXVEhQa250bVBDS24wcFBQTkVRLml5VHR0bkZ5Yk8yWUJMcXdsX1lTakEiLCJjZG5
   pdiI6MSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ2ODY3MzY5LCJpYXQiOjE2NDY2OTQ1NjksImlzcyI6InVDR
   E4gSW5jIiwianRpIjoiNURBYWZMaFpBZmhzYmUiLCJuYmYiOjE2NDY3ODA5NjksImN
   kbml1YyI6InJlZ2V4Omh0dHA6Ly9jZG5pXFwuZXhhbXBsZS9mb28vYmFyL1swLTlde
   zN9XFwucG5nIn0.IjmVX0uD5MYqArc-M08uEsEeoDQn8kuYXZ9HGHDmDDxsHikT0c8
   jcX8xYD0z3LzQclMG65i1kT2sRbZ7isUw8w

A.3.  Signed Token Renewal Example

   This example uses fields for Signed Token Renewal.

   The JWT Claim Set before signing:

   {
     "cdniets": 30,
     "cdnistt": 1,
     "cdnistd": 2,
     "exp": 1646867369,
     "cdniuc": "regex:http://cdni\\.example/foo/bar/[0-9]{3}\\.ts"
   }

   The signed JWT:

   eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IlA1VXBPdjBlTXExd2N4TGY3V3hJZzA5SmRTWU
   dZRkRPV2tsZHVlYUltZjAifQ.eyJjZG5pZXRzIjozMCwiY2RuaXN0dCI6MSwiY2Rua
   XN0ZCI6MiwiZXhwIjoxNjQ2ODY3MzY5LCJjZG5pdWMiOiJyZWdleDpodHRwOi8vY2R
   uaVxcLmV4YW1wbGUvZm9vL2Jhci9bMC05XXszfVxcLnRzIn0.tlPvoKw3BCClw4Lx9
   PQu7MK6b2IN55ZoCPSaxovGK0zS53Wpb1MbJBow7G8LiGR39h6-2Iq7PWUSr3MdTIz
   HYw

   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": 1646867399,
     "cdniuc": "regex:http://cdni\\.example/foo/bar/[0-9]{3}\\.ts"
   }

   The signed JWT:

   eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IlA1VXBPdjBlTXExd2N4TGY3V3hJZzA5SmRTWU
   dZRkRPV2tsZHVlYUltZjAifQ.eyJjZG5pZXRzIjozMCwiY2RuaXN0dCI6MSwiY2Rua
   XN0ZCI6MiwiZXhwIjoxNjQ2ODY3Mzk5LCJjZG5pdWMiOiJyZWdleDpodHRwOi8vY2R
   uaVxcLmV4YW1wbGUvZm9vL2Jhci9bMC05XXszfVxcLnRzIn0.ivY5d_fKGd-OHTpUs
   8uJUrnHvt-rduzu5H4zM7167pUUAghub53FqDQ5G16jRYX2sY73mA_uLpYDdb-CPts
   8FA

Acknowledgements

   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.

Contributors

   In addition, the authors would also like to make special mentions for
   certain people who contributed significant sections to this document.

   *  Matt Caulfield provided content for Section 4.4, "CDNI Metadata
      Interface".

   *  Emmanuel Thomas provided content for HTTP Adaptive Streaming.

   *  Matt Miller provided consultation on JWT usage as well as code to
      generate working JWT examples.

Authors' Addresses

   Ray van Brandenburg
   Tiledmedia
   Anna van Buerenplein 1
   2595DA Den Haag
   Netherlands
   Phone: +31 88 866 7000
   Email: ray@tiledmedia.com


   Kent Leung
   Email: mail4kentl@gmail.com


   Phil Sorber
   Apple, Inc.
   Suite 410
   1800 Wazee Street
   Denver, CO 80202
   United States
   Email: sorber@apple.com