Internet Engineering Task Force C. Chung Internet-Draft A. Kasyanov Intended status: Informational J. Livingood Expires: April 11, 2010 N. Mody B. Van Lieu Comcast October 8, 2009 Example of an ISP Web Notification System draft-livingood-web-notification-00 Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Abstract The objective of this document is to describe one method of providing notifications to web browsers being developed by Comcast, a large Internet Service Provider (ISP). Such a notification system can be used by an ISP to provide near-immediate notifications to their users, such as to warn them that their traffic exhibits patterns that are indicative of malware or virus infection, for example. There are many proprietary systems that can perform such notifications on the market today, some of which use inline-based Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) systems. This document describes one example of such a system that does not rely upon DPI systems, and is instead based in open standards and open source systems. While the system described herein is in some ways specific to the DOCSIS networks used by most cable- based broadband ISPs, components and concepts described in this document can generally be applied to many different types of networks. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 Table of Contents 1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. High-Level Design of the System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Web Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. ICAP Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Messaging Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Functional Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Functional Components Described . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Functional Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. High Level Communication Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Communication Between Web Proxy and ICAP Server . . . . . . . 11 8. End-to-End Web Notification Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Step-by-Step Description of the End-to-End Web Notification Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. Diagram of the End-to-End Web Notification Flow . . . . . 14 9. Example HTTP Headers for a Web Notification . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2. Introduction Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have a need for a system that is capable of communicating with selected customers in a nearly immediate manner. Given the prevalence of the web browser as the predominant client software in use by Internet users, the web browser is an ideal vehicle for providing notifications. This document describes a system being developed by Comcast, a large broadband ISP, to provide notifications to web browsers, which can be used to provide such near-immediate notifications to users. This type of system is designed to provide a non-intrusive, though obvious, notification to a user's web browser. In evaluating potential solutions, most commercially available systems were either proprietary and/or required inline-based Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) systems. However, Comcast and many other ISPs may desire to use a system based on open standards, non- proprietary software, and which does not require the use of DPI. While the system described herein is specific to the Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications (DOCSIS, [CableLabs DOCSIS]) networks used by most cable-based broadband ISPs, components and concepts described in this document can generally be applied to many different types of networks. 3. High-Level Design of the System The web notification system design is based on the use of the Internet Content Adaptation Protocol [RFC3507]. The design uses open source applications such as the Squid Web Proxy, the GreasySpoon ICAP server, and Apache Tomcat. The ICAP protocol allows for message transformation or adaptation. An ICAP client passes a HyperText Transport Protocol (HTTP, [RFC2616]) message to an ICAP server for some type of processing. The ICAP Server will in turn respond back to the client with the modified HTTP message containing the notification message. Message modification itself may then be provided via either a HTTP request or HTTP response. However, for the specific system described in this document, only the HTTP response is modified, by using the 'respmod' method defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC3507]. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 4. Design Requirements This section describes all of the requirements taken into consideration for the design of this system. 4.1. General REQ1: TCP Port 80: The system should provide notifications via TCP port 80, the well-known port for HTTP traffic. REQ2: Whitelisting: It is possible that the HyperText Markup Language (HTML, [RFC1866]) or JavaScript used for notifications may cause problems for access to a particular website. Therefore, such a system should be capable of using a whitelist of website Uniform Resource Indicators (URIs, [RFC2396]) or Fully Qualified Domain Named (FQDNs, Section 5.1 of [RFC1035]) that conflict with the system, to instruct the system to not provide a notifications related to certain sites, in order to reduce any errors or unexpected results. REQ3: Instant Messaging (IM): Some IM clients use TCP port 80 in their communications, often as an alternate port when standard, well-known ports do not work. This system should not conflict with or cause unexpected results for IM clients. REQ4: Handling of Active Sessions: To the extent that a web notification system must temporarily route TCP port 80 traffic, in order to provide a notification, previously active TCP port 80 sessions should be maintained. REQ5: No TCP Resets: The use of TCP resets has been widely criticized, both in the Internet community generally as well as in [RFC3360]. As such, except for the case of unintentional errors, the use of TCP resets must not be used. REQ6: Non-Disruptive: The web notification system should not disrupt the end user experience, such as causing significant clients errors. REQ7: Notification Acknowledgement: Once a user responds and acknowledges a notification, the notification should immediately stop, so it is not repeatedly and annoyingly presented, again and again, in a short period of time. REQ8: Non-Modification of Content: Such a system should not significantly alter the content of any website the user is accessing. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 REQ9: Unexpected Content: The system should transparently handle traffic for which it cannot provide a web notification. Thus, widely varying content should be expected, and all such unexpected traffic should be able to be handled by the system without generating errors or unexpected results. REQ10: No Caching: Web content must not be cached by the system. REQ11: No Advertising Replacement or Insertion: The system must not be used to replace any advertising provided by a website, or insert advertising into websites where none was intended by the owner of a given website. 4.2. Web Proxy REQ12: Open-Source Software: The system should use an open source web proxy server, such as Squid. (While it is possible to use any web proxy, the use of open source, and openly documented software is recommended.) REQ13: ICAP Client: The web proxy server should have an integrated ICAP client. REQ14: Access Control: Access to the proxy should be limited exclusively to the IP addresses of users for which notifications are intended, and only for limited periods of time. Furthermore, if a Session Management Broker (SMB) is utilized, as described in Section 5.1 below, then the proxy should restrict access only to the IP of the SMB. 4.3. ICAP Server REQ15: Request and Response Support: The system should support both request and response adaptation. REQ16: Consistency: The system must be able to consistently provide a specific notification. REQ17: Multiple Notification Types: The system must be able to provide many different types of notifications. REQ18: Simultaneous Differing Notifications: The system must be able to simultaneously serve multiple notifications, including notifications of varying types, to different users. As a result, User A should be able to get the notification intended specifically for User A, at the same time that User B receives an entirely different notification, which was intended specifically for User B. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 4.4. Messaging Service REQ19: Messaging Service: The Messaging Service, as described in Section 5.1 below caches the notifications for each specific user. Thus, by caching the notification messages, the system may provide notifications without significantly affecting the web browsing experience of the user. REQ20: Process Acknowledgements: The Messaging Service should process acknowledgements to properly remove entries from the cache and forward acknowledgements to the Messaging Service. REQ21: Ensure Notification Targeting Accuracy: The Messaging Service must ensure that notifications are presented to the intended users. REQ22: Keep Records for Customer Care: The Messaging Service should maintain some type of record that a notification has been presented and/or acknowledged, in case a user inquires with customer care personnel. 5. Functional Overview This section defines the various core functional components of the system. These components are then shown in a diagram to describe how the various components are linked and relate to one another. 5.1. Functional Components Described It should be noted that when specific software cited is but one example of a possible selection for each component. As the state of the art changes, so too many the best or most appropriate software choices here vary. 5.1.A. Web Proxy: A standard web proxy server. The initial version of this system uses the Squid Proxy, an open source application in wide use. 5.1.B. ICAP Server: This should be an open source application capable of supporting content adaptation in both request and response modes. The ICAP Server retrieves the notifications from the Messaging service cache when content adaption is needed. The initial version of this system uses GreasySpoon, an open source application. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 5.1.C. Customer Database: The Customer Database holds the user information including the notifications setup for each user. The database may also hold status of which users were notified and users pending notification. 5.1.D. The Messaging Service is a process engine that retrieves specific web notification messages from a catalog of possible notifications. A When a notification for a specific user is not in cache, the process retrieves this information from the Customer Database and populates the cache for a specific period of time. The initial version of this service uses Apache Tomcat, an open source application. 5.1.E. Session Management Broker: A Load Balancer (LB) with a customized layer 7 inspection policy was used to differentiate between HTTP and non-HTTP traffic on TCP port 80. The LB functions as a full stateful TCP proxy with the ability to forward packets from existing TCP sessions that do not exist in the internal session table. New HTTP sessions are load balanced to a proxy layer either transparently or using source Network Address Translation (NAT [RFC1631]) from the LB, with additional layer 7 inspection as needed. Established TCP sessions not in the LB session table are simply forwarded to the destination transparently via the proxy layer. The initial version of this system uses a Session Management Broker which has been developed internally by Comcast. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 5.2. Functional Diagram +--------+ +------------+ +----------+ | ICAP | <----> | Messaging | <----> | Customer | | Server | | Service | | Database | +--------+ +------------+ +----------+ ^ | +----------+ | | | | +-------> | Internet | <-------+ | | | | | | | +----------+ | | | ^ | | | | | v v | | +----------+ V v |+--------+| +-------+ +--------+ || ICAP || <----> | SMB | <---> | Access | || Client || +-------+ | Router | |+--------+| +--------+ || SQUID || ^ || Proxy || | |+--------+| | +----------+ | v +----------+ | Network | | Element* | +----------+ ^ | | v +------+ | PC | +------+ * An access network element, such as a Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS). Figure 1: Web Notification System - Functional Components Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 6. High Level Communication Flow 6.A. Setup Differentiated Services (DiffServ): Using DiffServe [RFC2474] [RFC2475] [RFC2597] [RFC3140] [RFC3246] [RFC3260] [RFC4594], set a policy to direct TCP port 80 traffic to the web notification system's web proxy. 6.B. Session Management: TCP port 80 Packets are routed to a load balancer where the load balancer then distinguishes new TCP port 80 sessions as HTTP or non-HTTP. For HTTP sessions, the load balancer forwards to the proxy. For non-HTTP traffic such as instant messaging (IM), the load balancer either forwards to a TCP proxy layer for handling or operates as a full TCP proxy for non-HTTP sessions and forwards to the destination. Pre- established TCP sessions on port 80 are identified by the load balancer and forwarded with no impact. 6.C. Web Proxy Forwards Request: The web proxy forwards the HTTP request on to the destination site, as a web proxy normally would do. 6.D. On Response, Send Message to ICAP Server: When the HTTP response is received, the web proxy sends a message to the ICAP server for the web notification. 6.E. Messaging Service: Messaging Service should respond with appropriate notification content or null response if notification is not cached. 6.F. ICAP Server Responds: The ICAP server responds and furnishes the appropriate content of the appropriate web notification to the web proxy. 6.G. Web Proxy Sends Response: The web proxy then sends a "200 OK" HTTP message to the original web client, containing the originally requested content and the web notification. 6.H. User Response: The user observes the web notification, and clicks an appropriate option, such as: OK/acknowledged, snooze/ remind me later, etc. 6.I. More Information: Depending upon the notification, the user may be provided with more information. Using the example of a web notification to a user explaining that it is highly likely that they have been infected with a virus or malware, the user may click an acknowledgement that indicates that clicking that will take them to a page with information about virus/malware scanning and remediation. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 6.J. Turn Down DiffServ: Once the notification transaction has completed, remove any special DiffServ settings. 7. Communication Between Web Proxy and ICAP Server Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 +------------+ | | | www URL | | | +------------+ ^ | | | (2)| |(3) | | | v +--------+ (4) +--------+ (4) +--------+ | |------------>| |------------>| | | | | | | | | | (5) | | (5) | | | |<------------| |<------------| | | Proxy | | ICAP | | ICAP | | Module | (6) | Client | (6) | Server | | |------------>| |------------>| | | | | | | | | | (7) | | (7) | | | |<------------| |<------------| | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ ^ | | | (1)| |(8) | | | v +------------+ (9) +------------+ | |----------------------------->| | | | | | | Browser | | Web Server | | | (10) | | | |<-----------------------------| | +------------+ +------------+ (1) - HTTP GET (TCP 80) (2) - Proxy HTTP GET (TCP 80) (3) - HTTP 200 OK w/ Response (4) - ICAP RESPMOD (5) - ICAP 200 OK (6) - TCP Stream - Encapsulate Header (7) - ICAP 200 OK Insert Message (8) - HTTP 200 OK w/ Response + Message Frame (9) - HTTP GET for Message (10) - HTTP 200 w/ Message Content Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 Figure 2: Communication Between Web Proxy and ICAP Server 8. End-to-End Web Notification Flow 8.1. Step-by-Step Description of the End-to-End Web Notification Flow Policy Based Routing 1. TCP port 80 packets from the users that need to be notified maybe routed to the web proxy via policy based routing. 2. Packets are forwarded to the Load Balancer, which establishes a session with the web proxy and routes the packets to the proxy. Web Proxy 1. User's HTTP request is directed to the web proxy. 2. Web proxy received HTTP traffic and retrieves content from the requested web site. 3. Web proxy receives response and forwards it to the ICAP server for response adaptation. 4. The ICAP Server checks the HTTP content in order to determine whether notification message can be inserted. 5. The ICAP Server initiates a HTTP Post to the Messaging Service cache process with the IP address of the user. 6. If a notification message for the user exists then the appropriate notification is cached on the Messaging Service. The Messaging Service then returns the appropriate HTML content to the ICAP Server. 7. A. Once the notification message is retrieved from Messaging Service cache the ICAP server may insert the notification message in the HTTP response body without altering or modifying the original content of the HTTP 200 OK response. B. The ICAP Server then sends the response back to the web proxy, which in turn forwards the HTTP 200 OK response back to the browser. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 8. If the user IP is not found or provisioned for a notification message, then the ICAP Server should return a '204 No modifications needed' response to the ICAP Client as defined in section 4.3.3 of [RFC3507]. As a result, the user will not receive any web notification message. 9. The user observes the web notification, and clicks an appropriate option, such as: OK/acknowledged, snooze/ remind me later, etc. 8.2. Diagram of the End-to-End Web Notification Flow This flow shows the communications flow from the web client, through the entire system. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 ICAP ICAP Message Customer Browser Proxy Client Server Service Internet DB | HTTP | | | | | | | GET | | Proxy | | | | +------->| | Request | | | | | +---------|---------|--------|------->| | | | | | 200 OK | | | | |<--------|---------|--------|--------+ | | | ICAP | | | | | | | RESPMOD | ICAP | | | | | +-------->| RESPMOD | | | | | | +-------->| | | | | | | | Check | | | | | | | Cache | | | | | | | for IP | | Cache | | | | | Match | | Miss | | | | +------->| | Request| | | | | | | Type | | | | | +--------|------->| | | | Cache | | | | | | | Miss | | | | | | | No | | | | | | | Insert | | | | | |<--------|---------|--------+ |Type | | 200 OK | | | | |Returned| | No | | | |<-------|--------+ | Insert | | | | | | |<-------+ | | | | | | | | Cache | | | | | | | Hit | | | | | | | Insert | | | | | 200 OK |<--------|---------|--------+ | | | Insert | | | | | | |<-------+ | | | | | | | | HTTP | | | | | | | GET to | | | | | | | Content | | | | | | | Portal | | | | +--------|---------|---------|--------|------->| | | | | 200 OK | | | | | | | w/ | | | | | | | Notify | | | | |<-------|---------|---------|--------|--------+ | | | | | | | | Figure 3: End-to-End Web Notification Flow Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 9. Example HTTP Headers for a Web Notification Web-Browser HTTP Headers ---------------------------------------------- 1. HTTP Get Request to www.example.com ---------------------------------------------- http://www.example.com/ GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 300 Connection: keep-alive Pragma: no-cache ---------------------------------------------- 2. Response from www.example.com via PROXY ---------------------------------------------- HTTP/1.x 200 OK Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 16:26:29 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:24:10 GMT Etag: "b80f4-1b6-80bfd280" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 438 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Age: 18 X-Cache: HIT from localhost.localdomain Via: 1.0 localhost.localdomain (squid/3.0.STABLE5) Proxy-Connection: keep-alive ----------------------------------------------------------- 3. Example of JavaScript containing Notification Insertion ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Figure 4 10. Deployment Considerations The components of such a web notification system should be distributed throughout a network, close to users. When distributed in such a manner, this ensures that performance remains acceptable across a wide geography. It is also a best practice that a HTTP- aware load balancer is used in each datacenter where servers are located, so that traffic can be spread across N+1 servers and the system can be easily scaled out. 11. Security Considerations There are no security considerations have yet been added document. Will be a focus of a future update. Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 12. IANA Considerations There are no IANA considerations in this document. NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS NULL SECTION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION. 13. Acknowledgements The authors will probably wish to acknowledge someone's review or contribution at some point, which is the purpose of this section. :-) 14. References 14.1. Normative References [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC1631] Egevang, K. and P. Francis, "The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)", RFC 1631, May 1994. [RFC1866] Berners-Lee, T. and D. Connolly, "Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0", RFC 1866, November 1995. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998. [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, December 1998. [RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski, Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999. [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000. [RFC2915] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "The Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) DNS Resource Record", RFC 2915, September 2000. [RFC3140] Black, D., Brim, S., Carpenter, B., and F. Le Faucheur, "Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes", RFC 3140, June 2001. [RFC3246] Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec, J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D. Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002. [RFC3260] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002. [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002. [RFC3507] Elson, J. and A. Cerpa, "Internet Content Adaptation Protocol (ICAP)", RFC 3507, April 2003. [RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, August 2006. 14.2. Informative References [CableLabs DOCSIS] CableLabs, "Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications", CableLabs Specifications Various DOCSIS Reference Documents, . Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 [RFC3360] Floyd, S., "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful", BCP 60, RFC 3360, August 2002. Appendix A. Document Change Log [RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication] -00 version: o -00 published Appendix B. Open Issues 1 - Abstract: change "being developed by Comcast" to "used by Comcast" depending upon status of field testing 2 - Intro: change "system being developed by Comcast" to "system used by Comcast" depending upon status of field testing 3 - Need an RFC reference for JavaScript, upon first use? 4 - Add an informative reference to draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation-03 5 - Add content to Security Considerations Authors' Addresses Chae Chung Comcast Cable Communications One Comcast Center 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 US Email: chae_chung@cable.comcast.com URI: http://www.comcast.com Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Example of an ISP Web Notification System October 2009 Alex Kasyanov Comcast Cable Communications One Comcast Center 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 US Email: alexander_kasyanov@cable.comcast.com URI: http://www.comcast.com Jason Livingood Comcast Cable Communications One Comcast Center 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 US Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com URI: http://www.comcast.com Nirmal Mody Comcast Cable Communications One Comcast Center 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 US Email: nirmal_mody@cable.comcast.com URI: http://www.comcast.com Brian Van Lieu Comcast Cable Communications One Comcast Center 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 US Email: brian_vanlieu@cable.comcast.com URI: http://www.comcast.com Chung, et al. Expires April 11, 2010 [Page 21]