The Idempotency-Key HTTP Header Field
draft-ietf-httpapi-idempotency-key-header-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (httpapi WG)
Authors Jayadeba Jena  , Sanjay Dalal 
Last updated 2021-07-01
Replaces draft-idempotency-header
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                            J. Jena
Internet-Draft                                              PayPal, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                                S. Dalal
Expires: 2 January 2022                                      1 July 2021

                 The Idempotency-Key HTTP Header Field
              draft-ietf-httpapi-idempotency-key-header-00

Abstract

   The HTTP Idempotency-Key request header field can be used to carry
   idempotency key in order to make non-idempotent HTTP methods such as
   "POST" or "PATCH" fault-tolerant.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 January 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include 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
     1.1.  Notational Conventions
   2.  The Idempotency-Key HTTP Request Header Field
     2.1.  Syntax
     2.2.  Uniqueness of Idempotency Key
     2.3.  Idempotency Key Validity and Expiry
     2.4.  Idempotency Fingerprint
     2.5.  Responsibilities
     2.6.  Idempotency Enforcement Scenarios
     2.7.  Error Scenarios
   3.  IANA Considerations
     3.1.  The Idempotency-Key HTTP Request Header Field
   4.  Implementation Status
     4.1.  Implementing the Concept
   5.  Security Considerations
   6.  Examples
   7.  References
     7.1.  Normative References
     7.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments
   Appendix B.  Appendix
     B.1.  Appendix A.  Imported ABNF
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   Idempotence is the property of certain operations in mathematics and
   computer science whereby they can be applied multiple times without
   changing the result beyond the initial application.  It does not
   matter if the operation is called only once, or 10s of times over.
   The result SHOULD be the same.

   Idempotency is important in building a fault-tolerant HTTP API.  An
   HTTP request method is considered "idempotent" if the intended effect
   on the server of multiple identical requests with that method is the
   same as the effect for a single such request.  According to
   [RFC7231], HTTP methods "OPTIONS", "HEAD", "GET", "PUT" and "DELETE"
   are idempotent while methods "POST" and "PATCH" are not.

   Let's say a client of an HTTP API wants to create (or update) a
   resource using a "POST" method.  Since "POST" is NOT an idempotent
   method, calling it multiple times can result in duplication or wrong
   updates.  Consider a scenario where the client sent a "POST" request
   to the server, but it got a timeout.  Following questions arise : Is
   the resource actually created (or updated)?  Did the timeout occur
   during sending of the request, or when receiving of the response?
   Can the client safely retry the request, or does it need to figure
   out what happened in the first place?  If "POST" had been an
   idempotent method, such questions may not arise.  Client would safely
   retry a request until it actually gets a valid response from the
   server.

   For many use cases of HTTP API, duplicate resource is a severe
   problem from business perspective.  For example, duplicate records
   for requests involving any kind of money transfer "MUST NOT" be
   allowed.  In other cases, processing of duplicate webhook delivery is
   not expected.

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   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, and without quotes.

   This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
   notation of [RFC5234] and includes, by reference, the IMF-fixdate
   rule as defined in Section 7.1.1.1 of [RFC7231].

   The term "resource" is to be interpreted as defined in Section 2 of
   [RFC7231], that is identified by an URI.  The term "resource server"
   is to be interpreted as "origin server" as defined in Section 3 of
   [RFC7231].

2.  The Idempotency-Key HTTP Request Header Field

   An idempotency key is a unique value generated by the client which
   the resource server uses to recognize subsequent retries of the same
   request.  The "Idempotency-Key" HTTP request header field carries
   this key.

2.1.  Syntax

   The "Idempotency-Key" request header field describes

   Idempotency-Key       = idempotency-key-value

   idempotency-key-value = opaque-value
   opaque-value          = DQUOTE *idempotencyvalue DQUOTE
   idempotencyvalue      = %x21 / %x23-7E / obs-text
          ; VCHAR except double quotes, plus obs-text

   Clients MUST NOT include more than one "Idempotency-Key" header field
   in the same request.

   The following example shows an idempotency key using "UUID"
   [RFC4122]:

   Idempotency-Key: "8e03978e-40d5-43e8-bc93-6894a57f9324"

2.2.  Uniqueness of Idempotency Key

   The idempotency key that is supplied as part of every "POST" request
   MUST be unique and MUST NOT be reused with another request with a
   different request payload.

   Uniqueness of the key MUST be defined by the resource owner and MUST
   be implemented by the clients of the resource server.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that "UUID" [RFC4122] or a similar random identifier be
   used as an idempotency key.

2.3.  Idempotency Key Validity and Expiry

   The resource MAY enforce time based idempotency keys, thus, be able
   to purge or delete a key upon its expiry.  The resource server SHOULD
   define such expiration policy and publish in related documentation.

2.4.  Idempotency Fingerprint

   An idempotency fingerprint MAY be used in conjunction with an
   idempotency key to determine the uniqueness of a request.  Such a
   fingerprint is generated from request payload data by the resource
   server.  An idempotency fingerprint generation algorithm MAY use one
   of the following or similar approaches to create a fingerprint.

   *  Checksum of the entire request payload.

   *  Checksum of selected element(s) in the request payload.

   *  Field value match for each field in the request payload.

   *  Field value match for selected element(s) in the request payload.

   *  Request digest/signature.

2.5.  Responsibilities

   Client

   Clients of HTTP API requiring idempotency, SHOULD understand the
   idempotency related requirements as published by the server and use
   appropriate algorithm to generate idempotency keys.

   For each request, client SHOULD

   *  Send a unique idempotency key in the HTTP "Idempotency-Key"
      request header field.

   Resource Server

   Resource server MUST publish idempotency related specification.  This
   specification MUST include expiration related policy if applicable.
   Server is responsible for managing the lifecycle of the idempotency
   key.

   For each request, server SHOULD

   *  Identify idempotency key from the HTTP "Idempotency-Key" request
      header field.

   *  Generate idempotency fingerprint if required.

   *  Check for idempotency considering various scenarios including the
      ones described in section below.

2.6.  Idempotency Enforcement Scenarios

   *  First time request (idempotency key or fingerprint has not been
      seen)

      The resource server SHOULD process the request normally and
      respond with an appropriate response and status code.

   *  Duplicate request (idempotency key or fingerprint has been seen)

      Retry

      The request was retried after the original request completed.  The
      resource server MUST respond with the result of the previously
      completed operation, success or an error.

      Concurrent Request

      The request was retried before the original request completed.
      The resource server MUST respond with a resource conflict error.
      See Error Scenarios for details.

2.7.  Error Scenarios

   If the "Idempotency-Key" request header is missing for a documented
   idempotent operation requiring this header, the resource server MUST
   reply with an HTTP "400" status code with body containing a link
   pointing to relevant documentation.  Alternately, using the HTTP
   header "Link", the client can be informed about the error as shown
   below.

   HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
   Link: <https://developer.example.com/idempotency>;
     rel="describedby"; type="text/html"

   If there is an attempt to reuse an idempotency key with a different
   request payload, the resource server MUST reply with a HTTP "422"
   status code with body containing a link pointing to relevant
   documentation.  The status code "422" is defined in Section 11.2 of
   [RFC4918].  The server can also inform the client by using the HTTP
   header "Link" as shown below.

   HTTP/1.1 422 Unprocessable Entity
   Link: <https://developer.example.com/idempotency>;
   rel="describedby"; type="text/html"

   If the request is retried, while the original request is still being
   processed, the resource server MUST reply with an HTTP "409" status
   code with body containing a link or the HTTP header "Link" pointing
   to the relevant documentation.

   HTTP/1.1 409 Conflict
   Link: <https://developer.example.com/idempotency>;
   rel="describedby"; type="text/html"

   For other errors, the resource MUST return the appropriate status
   code and error message.

3.  IANA Considerations

3.1.  The Idempotency-Key HTTP Request Header Field

   The "Idempotency-Key" request header should be added to the permanent
   registry of message header fields (see [RFC3864]), taking into
   account the guidelines given by HTTP/1.1 [RFC7231].

   Header Field Name: Idempotency-Key

   Applicable Protocol: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)

   Status: Standard

   Authors:
           Jayadeba Jena
           Email: jjena@paypal.com

           Sanjay Dalal
           Email: sanjay.dalal@cal.berkeley.edu

   Change controller: IETF

   Specification document: this specification,
               Section 2 "The Idempotency-Key HTTP Request Header Field"

4.  Implementation Status

   Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

   Organization: Stripe

   *  Description: Stripe uses custom HTTP header named "Idempotency-
      Key"

   *  Reference: https://stripe.com/docs/idempotency

   Organization: Adyen

   *  Description: Adyen uses custom HTTP header named "Idempotency-Key"

   *  Reference: https://docs.adyen.com/development-resources/api-
      idempotency/

   Organization: Dwolla

   *  Description: Dwolla uses custom HTTP header named "Idempotency-
      Key"

   *  Reference: https://docs.dwolla.com/

   Organization: Interledger

   *  Description: Interledger uses custom HTTP header named
      "Idempotency-Key"

   *  Reference: https://github.com/interledger/

   Organization: WorldPay

   *  Description: WorldPay uses custom HTTP header named "Idempotency-
      Key"

   *  Reference: https://developer.worldpay.com/docs/wpg/idempotency

   Organization: Yandex

   *  Description: Yandex uses custom HTTP header named "Idempotency-
      Key"

   *  Reference: https://cloud.yandex.com/docs/api-design-
      guide/concepts/idempotency

   Organization: http4s.org

   *  Description: Http4s is a minimal, idiomatic Scala interface for
      HTTP services.

   *  Reference: https://github.com/http4s/http4s

   Organization: Finastra

   *  Description: Finastra uses custom HTTP header named "Idempotency-
      Key"

   *  Reference: https://developer.fusionfabric.cloud/

   Organization: Datatrans

   *  Description: Datatrans focuses on the technical processing of
      payments, including hosting smart payment forms and correctly
      routing payment information.

   *  Reference: https://docs.datatrans.ch/docs/api-endpoints

4.1.  Implementing the Concept

   This is a list of implementations that implement the general concept,
   but do so using different mechanisms:

   Organization: Django

   *  Description: Django uses custom HTTP header named
      "HTTP_IDEMPOTENCY_KEY"

   *  Reference: https://pypi.org/project/django-idempotency-key

   Organization: Twilio

   *  Description: Twilio uses custom HTTP header named "I-Twilio-
      Idempotency-Token" in webhooks

   *  Reference: https://www.twilio.com/docs/usage/webhooks/webhooks-
      connection-overrides

   Organization: PayPal

   *  Description: PayPal uses custom HTTP header named "PayPal-Request-
      Id"

   *  Reference: https://developer.paypal.com/docs/business/develop/
      idempotency

   Organization: RazorPay

   *  Description: RazorPay uses custom HTTP header named "X-Payout-
      Idempotency"

   *  Reference: https://razorpay.com/docs/razorpayx/api/idempotency/

   Organization: OpenBanking

   *  Description: OpenBanking uses custom HTTP header called "x-
      idempotency-key"

   *  Reference: https://openbankinguk.github.io/read-write-api-
      site3/v3.1.6/profiles/read-write-data-api-profile.html#request-
      headers

   Organization: Square

   *  Description: To make an idempotent API call, Square recommends
      adding a property named "idempotency_key" with a unique value in
      the request body.

   *  Reference: https://developer.squareup.com/docs/build-basics/using-
      rest-api

   Organization: Google Standard Payments

   *  Description: Google Standard Payments API uses a property named
      "requestId" in request body in order to provider idempotency in
      various use cases.

   *  Reference: https://developers.google.com/standard-payments/
      payment-processor-service-api/rest/v1/TopLevel/capture

   Organization: BBVA

   *  Description: BBVA Open Platform uses custom HTTP header called "X-
      Unique-Transaction-ID"

   *  Reference:
      https://bbvaopenplatform.com/apiReference/APIbasics/content/x-
      unique-transaction-id

   Organization: WebEngage

   *  Description: WebEngage uses custom HTTP header called "x-request-
      id" to identify webhook POST requests uniquely to achieve events
      idempotency.

   *  Reference: https://docs.webengage.com/docs/webhooks

5.  Security Considerations

   This section is meant to inform developers, information providers,
   and users of known security concerns specific to the idempotency
   keys.

   For idempotent request handling, the resources MAY make use of the
   value in the idempotency key to look up a cache or a persistent store
   for duplicate requests matching the key.  If the resource does not
   validate the value of the idempotency key prior to performing such a
   lookup, it MAY lead to various forms of security attacks and
   compromise.  To avoid such situations, the resource SHOULD publish
   the expected format of the idempotency key, algorithm used to
   generate it and always validate the key value as per the published
   specification before processing any request.

6.  Examples

   The first example shows an idempotency-key header field with key
   value using UUID version 4 scheme:

   Idempotency-Key: "8e03978e-40d5-43e8-bc93-6894a57f9324"

   Second example shows an idempotency-key header field with key value
   using some random string generator:

   Idempotency-Key: "clkyoesmbgybucifusbbtdsbohtyuuwz"

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3864]  Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
              Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3864>.

   [RFC4122]  Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
              Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4122>.

   [RFC4918]  Dusseault, L., Ed., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed
              Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4918, June 2007,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4918>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5234>.

   [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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7942>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Mark Nottingham for his support for
   this Internet Draft.  We would like to acknowledge that this draft is
   inspired by Idempotency related patterns described in API
   documentation of PayPal (https://github.com/paypal/api-
   standards/blob/master/patterns.md#idempotency) and Stripe
   (https://stripe.com/docs/idempotency) as well as Internet Draft on
   POST Once Exactly (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-
   poe-00) authored by Mark Nottingham.

   The authors take all responsibility for errors and omissions.

Appendix B.  Appendix

B.1.  Appendix A.  Imported ABNF

   The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in
   Appendix B.1 of [RFC5234]: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return),
   CRLF (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double
   quote), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any
   8-bit sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
   character).

   The rules below are defined in [RFC7230]:

    obs-text      = <obs-text, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>

Authors' Addresses

   Jayadeba Jena
   PayPal, Inc.

   Email: jjena@paypal.com

   Sanjay Dalal

   Email: sanjay.dalal@cal.berkeley.edu
   URI:   https://github.com/sdatspun2