WebSocket over HTTP/2.0
draft-hirano-httpbis-websocket-over-http2-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Yutaka Hirano | ||
| Last updated | 2014-02-14 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-hirano-httpbis-websocket-over-http2-00
HTTPbis Working Group Y. Hirano
Internet-Draft Google, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track February 14, 2014
Expires: August 18, 2014
WebSocket over HTTP/2.0
draft-hirano-httpbis-websocket-over-http2-00
Abstract
The WebSocket protocol enables two-way communication between a client
running untrusted code in a controlled environment to a remote host
that has opted-in to communications from that code. Since it
requires one TCP connection for every WebSocket connection, having
multiple WebSocket connections between the same client and the same
server is inefficient. On the other hand, HTTP/2.0 specifies a fast,
secure, multiplexed framing protocol. This document provides bi-
directional multiplexed communication by layering WebSocket on top of
HTTP/2.0.
Please send feedback to the ietf-http-wg@w3.org mailing list.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Document Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conformance Requirements and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Cross Protocol Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Supported scheme negotiation using SETTINGS frame . . . . 6
4. Opening Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Handshake Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Handshake Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Data Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Frame representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. Tunneling RFC6455 framing (Plan D) . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. Tunneling RFC6455 framing with END_SEGMENT mark
(Plan A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.3. HEADERS + DATAs (Plan C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Masking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Closing the Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.1. Close the WebSocket Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.2. Start the WebSocket Closing Handshake . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.3. The WebSocket Closing Handshake is Started . . . . . . 12
6.1.4. The WebSocket Connection is Closed . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.5. The WebSocket Connection Close Code . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.6. The WebSocket Connection Close Reason . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.7. Fail the WebSocket Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Abnormal Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2.1. Client-Initiated Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2.2. Server-initiated closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2.3. Recovering from Abnormal Closure . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Normal Closure of Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4. Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
1. Introduction
The WebSocket protocol was standardized to enable efficient
bidirectional messaging mainly for browsers. However, the core spec
in RFC 6455 left one problem about scalability unaddressed. That is
that one WebSocket connection uses one TCP connection. Use of
multiple WebSocket connections provides flexibility for web apps,
while using more TCP connections leads to more load to the end hosts
and also to network intermediaries.
For the HTTP/1.1, there has been effort to multiplex HTTP traffic
into one TCP connection called HTTP/2.0. The HTTP/2.0 defines a
general multiplexed transport on which not only HTTP but other
messaging application protocol may be layered onto. We can address
the scalability issue of WebSocket by using HTTP/2.0 framing's
multiplexing functionality.
In this document, we describe how to layer WebSocket semantics onto
HTTP/2.0 semantics by defining detailed mapping, replacement of
operations and events defined in RFC 6455.
1.1. Document Organization
WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 is a protocol that layers the WebSocket
protocol over an HTTP/2.0 stream rather than a TCP connection. This
document introduces some abstractions and overrides some definitions
in [RFC6455]. Definitions in [RFC6455] not overridden by this
document such as Error Handling or Extensions are still valid.
Section 3 describes how to choose the protocol to use between native
WebSocket and WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 for each server. Each of
Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6 overrides definitions and rules in
its counterpart in [RFC6455].
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
2. Conformance Requirements and Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
Requirements phrased in the imperative as part of algorithms (such as
"strip any leading space characters" or "return false and abort these
steps") are to be interpreted with the meaning of the key word
("MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY", etc.) used in introducing the algorithm.
Conformance requirements phrased as algorithms or specific steps can
be implemented in any manner, so long as the end result is
equivalent. In particular, the algorithms defined in this
specification are intended to be easy to understand and are not
intended to be performant.
Native WebSocket means the WebSocket specified in [RFC6455].
"Frame" has two meanings, WebSocket frame and HTTP/2.0 frame. When
it is obvious "WebSocket" and "HTTP/2.0" can be omitted. For
example, "DATA frame" means "HTTP/2.0 DATA frame" and "Close frame"
means "WebSocket Close frame".
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
3. Cross Protocol Negotiation
To establish a WebSocket connection, a client needs to decide the
protocol to use by the following steps.
1. If the client has an HTTP/2.0 connection established by previous
requests and it knows that the connection supports WebSocket over
HTTP/2.0 by the SETTINGS_SUPPORTED_SCHEMES notification, the
client SHOULD create a new HTTP/2.0 stream in the existing
HTTP/2.0 connection and start the opening handshake on it with an
appropriate scheme. Both of WebSocket (ws) and secure WebSocket
(wss) could share the same HTTP/2.0 connection.
2. If the client is going to establish a secure WebSocket
connection, create a WebSocket connection over TLS with
Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) [ALPN draft]. The
client SHOULD send one or two of the following application
protocols as ProtocolNameList as specified in [ALPN draft] in any
order.
* "HTTP/1.1[wss]" for the native WebSocket over TLS
* "HTTP/2.0[wss]" for secure WebSocket over HTTP/2.0.
If the server does not support ALPN, the client SHOULD establish
a TLS connection and start a native WebSocket opening handshake.
If the server returns "no_application_protocol" alert, the client
MUST _Fail the WebSocket connection_. If the server selects
"HTTP/1.1[wss]" protocol, the client SHOULD establish a TLS
connection and start a native WebSocket opening handshake. If
the server selects "HTTP/2.0[wss]" protocol, the client SHOULD
create an HTTP/2.0 connection, create an HTTP/2.0 stream on it
and start the WebSocket opening handshake on the stream with the
"wss" scheme.
3. If the client is going to establish a non-secure WebSocket
connection, try the native WebSocket protocol negotiation. If
the server advertises WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 in its opening
handshake via an Alternate-Protocol header, the client MAY switch
its protocol to WebSocket over HTTP/2.0. Otherwise, the client
continues to use the native WebSocket protocol.
EXAMPLE:
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
GET /chat HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: Upgrade
Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==
Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: chat, superchat
Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13
Origin: http://example.com
Then, the server responds as follows:
HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: Upgrade
Sec-WebSocket-Accept: s3pPLMBiTxaQ9kYGzzhZRbK+xOo=
Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: chat
Alternate-Protocol: 443:http/2[http,ws]
If the client wants to switch its protocol, the client SHOULD
send a Close frame with code 1006 and reason like "Switching
Protocols: 443:http/2;websocket" after the opening handshake,
then close the WebSocket connection as soon as possible. These
transactions MUST be hidden and MUST NOT be notified to upper
layers like the JavaScript event queue. Then, the client SHOULD
reconnect to the advertised server via HTTP/2.0.
3.1. Supported scheme negotiation using SETTINGS frame
_THIS SECTION SHOULD BE INTRODUCED IN THE HTTP/2.0 SPEC_.
By default, a client can send HEADERS frames with schemes advertised
by the selected ALPN protocol. A server SHOULD send a SETTINGS frame
as soon as possible whether it supports other schemes or not.
EXAMPLE: Imagine a client creates an HTTP/2.0 connection to a server
which supports both HTTP/2.0 and WebSocket over HTTP/2.0. Assume
that the client advertised "http/2" and the server selected it. Now
the client knows that the client knows that server supports HTTP/2.0
with schemes "http" and "https". The server SHOULD send a SETTINGS
frame as soon as possible to let the client know that the server
supports "ws" and "wss" schemes as well. Once the client receives
the SETTINGS frame, the client can use the information on the next
WebSocket protocol selection.
Here is a proposed ID and value which should be defined in the
HTTP/2.0 specification. If the server received a HEADERS with an
unsupported scheme, the server MUST send an RST_STREAM frame.
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
9 - SETTINGS_SUPPORTED_SCHEMES allows the sender to inform the remote
endpoint the supported protocol schemes. The corresponding value
must be a 32-bit value, and which contains flags as follows:
bit 0: http
bit 1: https
bit 2: ws
bit 3: wss
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
4. Opening Handshake
4.1. Handshake Request
The client initiates an opening handshake by sending a HEADERS frame.
The frame MUST NOT set the END_STREAM flag because WebSocket intends
to establish a bi-directional communication port and to send
arbitrary data after success in opening handshake. The HEADERS Name/
Value section will contain all of the following headers which are
associated with the WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] opening handshake.
Upgrade, Connection, Sec-WebSocket-Key, and Sec-WebSocket-Version
headers MUST NOT be included because we do not have to take care of
protocol upgrading or verification over HTTP. The following name/
value pairs MUST be present in every request:
":path": /resource name/ as used in the "Client Requirements"
section of the WebSocket protocol specification. (See [RFC6455])
":host": /host:port/ (e.g. "www.example.com:1234") as used in the
"Client Requirements" section of the WebSocket protocol
specification. (See [RFC6455])
":version": the WebSocket protocol version of this request. MUST
be "WebSocket/13" or so. The number MUST be matched with the Sec-
WebSocket-Version header. (See [RFC6455])
":scheme": the scheme portion of the URI. MUST be "ws" or "wss".
(See also /secure/ flag in [RFC6455])
":origin": /origin/ as used in the "Client Requirements" section
of the WebSocket protocol specification. (See [RFC6455])
In addition, the following OPTIONAL name/value pairs MAY be present:
":sec-websocket-protocol" - the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header (See
[RFC6455])
":sec-websocket-extensions" - the Sec-WebSocket-Extensions header
(See [RFC6455])
Also, other HTTP compatible header name/value pairs MAY be present.
4.2. Handshake Response
The server responds to a client request with a HEADERS frame. If the
server intends to allow the client connection, the HEADERS frame MUST
NOT set the END_STREAM flag and MUST have ":status" containing "101".
Any status code other than 101 indicates that the WebSocket handshake
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
has not completed and that the semantics of HTTP still apply. The
client MAY send some data to the server before receiving the
successful response. The server MUST ignore this data when opening
handshake fails. After sending successful response, the server can
send arbitrary data frames at any time. The response status line is
unfolded into name/value pairs like other WebSocket handshake headers
and MUST be present: ":status" - The WebSocket or fallback HTTP
response status code (e.g. "101" or "101 Switching Protocols". See
[RFC6455]). In addition, the following OPTIONAL name/value pairs MAY
be present:
":sec-websocket-protocol" - the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header (See
[RFC6455])
":sec-websocket-extensions" - the Sec-WebSocket-Extensions header
(See [RFC6455])
Also, other HTTP compatible header name/value pairs MAY be present.
All header names MUST be lowercase. The successful server response
MUST have ":status" containing "101".
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
5. Data Framing
5.1. Overview
[RFC6455] states that data is transmitted using a sequence of
WebSocket frames. This protocol follows that abstraction. This
section corresponds to "5. Data Framing" section in [RFC6455] and
specifies the following things:
o The representation of a WebSocket frame.
o The masking mechanism.
Other things such as fragmentation and control frames remain
unchanged.
5.2. Frame representation
Several representations are proposed. In each representation, an
endpoint MUST set END_STREAM flag at the last HTTP/2.0 frame it sends
on the WebSocket connection.
5.2.1. Tunneling RFC6455 framing (Plan D)
The WebSocket frame byte representation is embedded in payload in
HTTP/2.0 DATA frame. DATA frames can be re-framed, i.e. One
WebSocket frame can be split over multiple DATA frames and one DATA
frames can contain multiple WebSocket frames.
5.2.2. Tunneling RFC6455 framing with END_SEGMENT mark (Plan A)
This plan is almost same as Plan D, but it uses END_SEGMENT flag in a
DATA frame to make intermediaries enable to flush data appropriately
without understanding the embedded WebSocket framing.
An endpoint MUST set END_SEGMENT on an HTTP/2.0 DATA frame containing
the end of a WebSocket frame with FIN flag set.
5.2.3. HEADERS + DATAs (Plan C)
In this plan, an HTTP/2.0 HEADERS frame and subsequent multiple DATA
frames represent a WebSocket frame. END_SEGMENT flag MUST be set at
the last HTTP/2.0 DATA frame for each WebSocket frame. That is,
WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 defines _segment_ in [HTTP/2.0 draft] as
_WebSocket frame_. The WebSocket frame headers are stored in the
HEADERS frame in the following manner.
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
o The ":fin" header field
If the FIN WebSocket frame header is set, the HEADERS frame
MUST contain this field with value of "1". Otherwise the
HEADERS frame MUST NOT contain this field.
o The ":rsv1" header field
If the RSV1 WebSocket frame header is set, the HEADERS frame
MUST contain this field with value of "1". Otherwise the
HEADERS frame MUST NOT contain this field.
o The ":rsv2" header field
If the RSV2 WebSocket frame header is set, the HEADERS frame
MUST contain this field with value of "1". Otherwise the
HEADERS frame MUST NOT contain this field.
o The ":rsv3" header field
If the RSV3 WebSocket frame header is set, the HEADERS frame
MUST contain this field with value of "1". Otherwise the
HEADERS frame MUST NOT contain this field.
o The ":length" header field
The HEADERS frame MUST contain this field with the hexadecimal
text representation of the payload length represented by
"Payload len" WebSocket header field and "Extended payload
length" WebSocket header field" if present, without leading
zeros.
5.3. Masking
[RFC6455] defines the masking mechanism which masks WebSocket frame
data payload with a random masking-key. On WebSocket over HTTP/2.0,
masking mechanism MUST be disabled.
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
6. Closing the Connection
Some definitions in [RFC6455] are overridden in this section.
6.1. Definitions
6.1.1. Close the WebSocket Connection
To _Close the WebSocket Connection_, an endpoint closes the
underlying HTTP/2.0 stream. If the stream is already closed, the
endpoint MUST do nothing. Otherwise, the endpoint MUST send an
RST_STREAM frame with an appropriate error code.
6.1.2. Start the WebSocket Closing Handshake
To _Start the WebSocket Closing Handshake_ with a status code
(Section 6.4) /code/ and an optional close reason (Section 6.1.6)
/reason/, an endpoint MUST send a Close control frame, as described
in [RFC6455] whose status code is set to /code/ and whose close
reason is set to /reason/. The last HTTP/2.0 frame of the WebSocket
Close control frame MUST turn END_STREAM flag on.
6.1.3. The WebSocket Closing Handshake is Started
Same as Section 7.1.3 in [RFC6455].
6.1.4. The WebSocket Connection is Closed
When the underlying HTTP stream is closed, it is said that _The
WebSocket Connection is Closed_ and that the WebSocket connection is
in the CLOSED state. If the stream was closed after the WebSocket
closing handshake was completed, the WebSocket connection is said to
have been closed _cleanly_.
If the WebSocket connection could not be established, it is also said
that _The WebSocket Connection is Closed_, but not cleanly.
6.1.5. The WebSocket Connection Close Code
Same as Section 7.1.5 in [RFC6455].
6.1.6. The WebSocket Connection Close Reason
Same as Section 7.1.6 in [RFC6455].
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
6.1.7. Fail the WebSocket Connection
Same as Section 7.1.7 in [RFC6455].
6.2. Abnormal Closures
6.2.1. Client-Initiated Closure
If at any point the underlying HTTP/2.0 stream is unexpectedly
terminated, the client MUST _Fail the WebSocket Connection_.
Except as indicated above or as specified by the application layer
(e.g. a script using the WebSocket API), clients SHOULD NOT close the
connection.
6.2.2. Server-initiated closure
Same as Section 7.2.2 in [RFC6455].
6.2.3. Recovering from Abnormal Closure
Same as Section 7.2.3 in [RFC6455].
6.3. Normal Closure of Connections
Same as Section 7.3 in [RFC6455].
6.4. Status Codes
Same as Section 7.4 in [RFC6455].
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
7. Security Considerations
[RFC6455] frame has the masking mechanism for two purposes.
o To prevent a misbehavior of transparent proxies.
o To prevent TLS side-channel attacks such as [BEAST].
These should be addressed at the HTTP/2.0 framing layer and WebSocket
over HTTP/2.0 has no masking mechanism.
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
8. IANA Considerations
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",
RFC 6455, December 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[HTTP/2.0 draft]
Belshe, M., Peon, R., Thomson, M., and A. Melnikov,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2.0", September 2012.
[ALPN draft]
Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", January 2014.
9.2. Informative References
[BEAST] Duong, T. and J. Rizzo, "The BEAST attack".
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft WebSocket over HTTP/2.0 February 2014
Author's Address
Yutaka Hirano
Google, Inc.
Email: yhirano@google.com
Hirano Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 17]