UDP Proxying Support for HTTP
draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-09
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9298.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | David Schinazi | ||
| Last updated | 2022-04-11 | ||
| Replaces | draft-schinazi-masque-connect-udp | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | In WG Last Call | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9298 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-09
MASQUE D. Schinazi
Internet-Draft Google LLC
Intended status: Standards Track 11 April 2022
Expires: 13 October 2022
UDP Proxying Support for HTTP
draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-09
Abstract
This document describes how to proxy UDP over HTTP. Similar to how
the CONNECT method allows proxying TCP over HTTP, this document
defines a new mechanism to proxy UDP. When using HTTP/2 or HTTP/3,
it uses Extended CONNECT; when using HTTP/1.1, it uses Upgrade.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://ietf-wg-
masque.github.io/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp/draft-ietf-masque-
connect-udp.html. Status information for this document may be found
at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the MASQUE Working Group
mailing list (mailto:masque@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp.
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 13 October 2022.
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Configuration of Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. HTTP Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Proxy Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. HTTP Request over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. HTTP Response over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Note About Draft Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Context Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. HTTP Datagram Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Tunneling of ECN Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. HTTP Upgrade Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Well-Known URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
This document describes how to proxy UDP over HTTP. Similar to how
the CONNECT method (see Section 9.3.6 of [HTTP]) allows proxying TCP
[TCP] over HTTP, this document defines a new mechanism to proxy UDP
[UDP].
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
UDP Proxying supports all versions of HTTP and uses HTTP Datagrams
[HTTP-DGRAM]. When using HTTP/2 [HTTP/2] or HTTP/3 [HTTP/3], UDP
proxying uses HTTP Extended CONNECT as described in [EXT-CONNECT2]
and [EXT-CONNECT3]. When using HTTP/1.x [HTTP/1.1], UDP proxying
uses HTTP Upgrade as defined in Section 7.8 of [HTTP].
1.1. Conventions and Definitions
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.
In this document, we use the term "proxy" to refer to the HTTP server
that acts upon the client's UDP proxying request to open a UDP socket
to a target server, and generates the response to this request. If
there are HTTP intermediaries (as defined in Section 3.7 of [HTTP])
between the client and the proxy, those are referred to as
"intermediaries" in this document.
Note that, when the HTTP version in use does not support multiplexing
streams (such as HTTP/1.1), any reference to "stream" in this
document represents the entire connection.
2. Configuration of Clients
Clients are configured to use UDP Proxying over HTTP via a URI
Template [TEMPLATE] with the variables "target_host" and
"target_port". Examples are shown below:
https://masque.example.org/.well-known/masque/udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/
https://proxy.example.org:4443/masque?h={target_host}&p={target_port}
https://proxy.example.org:4443/masque{?target_host,target_port}
Figure 1: URI Template Examples
The following requirements apply to the URI Template:
* The URI Template MUST be a level 3 template or lower.
* The URI Template MUST be in absolute form, and MUST include non-
empty scheme, authority and path components.
* The path component of the URI Template MUST start with a slash
"/".
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
* All template variables MUST be within the path component of the
URI.
* The URI template MUST contain the two variables "target_host" and
"target_port" and MAY contain other variables.
* The URI Template MUST NOT contain any non-ASCII unicode characters
and MUST only contain ASCII characters in the range 0x21-0x7E
inclusive (note that percent-encoding is allowed).
* The URI Template MUST NOT use Reserved Expansion ("+" operator),
Fragment Expansion ("#" operator), Label Expansion with Dot-
Prefix, Path Segment Expansion with Slash-Prefix, nor Path-Style
Parameter Expansion with Semicolon-Prefix.
If any of the requirements above are not met by a URI Template, the
client MUST reject its configuration and fail the request without
sending it to the proxy.
Since the original HTTP CONNECT method allowed conveying the target
host and port but not the scheme, proxy authority, path, nor query,
there exist proxy configuration interfaces that only allow the user
to configure the proxy host and the proxy port. Client
implementations of this specification that are constrained by such
limitations MAY attempt to access UDP Proxying capabilities using the
default template, which is defined as:
"https://$PROXY_HOST:$PROXY_PORT/.well-known/masque/
udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/" where $PROXY_HOST and $PROXY_PORT
are the configured host and port of the proxy respectively. Proxy
deployments SHOULD offer service at this location if they need to
interoperate with such clients.
Clients MAY interpret HTTP 400, 404, or 405 response codes as
indications that the URI template is not correct. Servers MUST NOT
return these response codes if the request is well-formed and the URI
matches a supported template.
3. HTTP Exchanges
This document defines the "connect-udp" HTTP Upgrade Token. "connect-
udp" uses the Capsule Protocol as defined in Section 3.2 of
[HTTP-DGRAM]. The format of HTTP Datagrams is defined in Section 5.
Clients issue requests containing a "connect-udp" upgrade token to
initiate a UDP tunnel associated with a single HTTP stream. Tunnels
are commonly used to create an end-to-end virtual connection, which
can then be secured using QUIC [QUIC] or another protocol running
over UDP. The target of the tunnel is indicated by the client to the
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
proxy via the "target_host" and "target_port" variables of the URI
Template (see Section 2). If the request is successful, the proxy
commits to converting received HTTP Datagrams into UDP packets and
vice versa until the tunnel is closed.
When sending its UDP proxying request, the client SHALL perform URI
Template expansion to determine the path and query of its request.
target_host supports using DNS names, IPv6 literals and IPv4
literals. Note that this URI Template expansion requires using pct-
encoding, so for example if the target_host is "2001:db8::42", it
will be encoded in the URI as "2001%3Adb8%3A%3A42".
By virtue of the definition of the Capsule Protocol (see
[HTTP-DGRAM]), UDP proxying requests do not carry any message
content. Similarly, successful UDP proxying responses also do not
carry any message content.
Responses to UDP proxying requests are not cacheable.
3.1. Proxy Handling
Upon receiving a UDP proxying request, the recipient proxy extracts
the "target_host" and "target_port" variables from the URI it has
reconstructed from the request headers, and establishes a tunnel by
directly opening a UDP socket to the requested target.
Unlike TCP, UDP is connection-less. The proxy that opens the UDP
socket has no way of knowing whether the destination is reachable.
Therefore it needs to respond to the request without waiting for a
packet from the target. However, if the target_host is a DNS name,
the proxy MUST perform DNS resolution before replying to the HTTP
request. If errors occur during this process (for example, a DNS
resolution failure), the proxy MUST fail the request and SHOULD send
details using the Proxy-Status header field [PROXY-STATUS].
Proxies can use connected UDP sockets if their operating system
supports them, as that allows the proxy to rely on the kernel to only
send it UDP packets that match the correct 5-tuple. If the proxy
uses a non-connected socket, it MUST validate the IP source address
and UDP source port on received packets to ensure they match the
client's request. Packets that do not match MUST be discarded by the
proxy.
The lifetime of the socket is tied to the request stream. The proxy
MUST keep the socket open while the request stream is open. If a
proxy is notified by its operating system that its socket is no
longer usable (for example, this can happen when an ICMP "Destination
Unreachable" message is received, see Section 3.1 of [ICMP6]), it
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
MUST close the request stream. Proxies MAY choose to close sockets
due to a period of inactivity, but they MUST close the request stream
when closing the socket. Proxies that close sockets after a period
of inactivity SHOULD NOT use a period lower than two minutes, see
Section 4.3 of [BEHAVE].
A successful response (as defined in Section 3.3 and Section 3.5)
indicates that the proxy has opened a socket to the requested target
and is willing to proxy UDP payloads. Any response other than a
successful response indicates that the request has failed, and the
client MUST therefore abort the request.
Proxies MUST NOT introduce fragmentation at the IP layer when
forwarding HTTP Datagrams onto a UDP socket. In IPv4, the Don't
Fragment (DF) bit MUST be set if possible, to prevent fragmentation
on the path. Future extensions MAY remove these requirements.
3.2. HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1
When using HTTP/1.1 [HTTP/1.1], a UDP proxying request will meet the
following requirements:
* the method SHALL be "GET".
* the request-target SHALL use absolute-form (see Section 3.2.2 of
[HTTP/1.1]).
* the request SHALL include a single Host header field containing
the origin of the proxy.
* the request SHALL include a single "Connection" header field with
value "Upgrade" (note that this requirement is case-insensitive as
per Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP]).
* the request SHALL include a single "Upgrade" header field with
value "connect-udp".
For example, if the client is configured with URI Template
"https://proxy.example.org/.well-known/masque/
udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/" and wishes to open a UDP proxying
tunnel to target 192.0.2.42:443, it could send the following request:
GET https://proxy.example.org/.well-known/masque/udp/192.0.2.42/443/ HTTP/1.1
Host: proxy.example.org
Connection: Upgrade
Upgrade: connect-udp
Figure 2: Example HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
3.3. HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1
The proxy SHALL indicate a successful response by replying with the
following requirements:
* the HTTP status code on the response SHALL be 101 (Switching
Protocols).
* the reponse SHALL include a single "Connection" header field with
value "Upgrade" (note that this requirement is case-insensitive as
per Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP]).
* the response SHALL include a single "Upgrade" header field with
value "connect-udp".
* the response SHALL NOT include any Transfer-Encoding or Content-
Length header fields.
If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this
proxying attempt as failed and abort the connection.
For example, the proxy could respond with:
HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
Connection: Upgrade
Upgrade: connect-udp
Figure 3: Example HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1
3.4. HTTP Request over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3
When using HTTP/2 [HTTP/2] or HTTP/3 [HTTP/3], UDP proxying requests
use Extended CONNECT. This requires that servers send an HTTP
Setting as specified in [EXT-CONNECT2] and [EXT-CONNECT3], and that
requests use HTTP pseudo-header fields with the following
requirements:
* The ":method" pseudo-header field SHALL be "CONNECT".
* The ":protocol" pseudo-header field SHALL be "connect-udp".
* The ":authority" pseudo-header field SHALL contain the authority
of the proxy.
* The ":path" and ":scheme" pseudo-header fields SHALL NOT be empty.
Their values SHALL contain the scheme and path from the URI
Template after the URI template expansion process has been
completed.
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
A UDP proxying request that does not conform to these restrictions is
malformed (see Section 8.1.1 of [HTTP/2]).
For example, if the client is configured with URI Template
"https://proxy.example.org/{target_host}/{target_port}/" and wishes
to open a UDP proxying tunnel to target 192.0.2.42:443, it could send
the following request:
HEADERS
:method = CONNECT
:protocol = connect-udp
:scheme = https
:path = /.well-known/masque/udp/192.0.2.42/443/
:authority = proxy.example.org
Figure 4: Example HTTP Request over HTTP/2
3.5. HTTP Response over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3
The proxy SHALL indicate a successful response by replying with any
2xx (Successful) HTTP status code, without any Transfer-Encoding or
Content-Length header fields.
If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this
proxying attempt as failed and abort the request.
For example, the proxy could respond with:
HEADERS
:status = 200
Figure 5: Example HTTP Response over HTTP/2
3.6. Note About Draft Versions
[[RFC editor: please remove this section before publication.]]
In order to allow implementations to support multiple draft versions
of this specification during its development, we introduce the
"connect-udp-version" header field. When sent by the client, it
contains a list of draft numbers supported by the client (e.g.,
"connect-udp-version: 0, 2"). When sent by the proxy, it contains a
single draft number selected by the proxy from the list provided by
the client (e.g., "connect-udp-version: 2"). Sending this header
field is RECOMMENDED but not required. The "connect-udp-version"
header field is a List Structured Field, see Section 3.1 of
[STRUCT-FIELD]. Each list member MUST be an Integer.
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
4. Context Identifiers
This protocol allows future extensions to exchange HTTP Datagrams
which carry different semantics from UDP payloads. Some of these
extensions can augment UDP payloads with additional data, while
others can exchange data that is completely separate from UDP
payloads. In order to accomplish this, all HTTP Datagrams associated
with UDP Proxying request streams start with a context ID, see
Section 5.
Context IDs are 62-bit integers (0 to 2^62-1). Context IDs are
encoded as variable-length integers, see Section 16 of [QUIC]. The
context ID value of 0 is reserved for UDP payloads, while non-zero
values are dynamically allocated: non-zero even-numbered context IDs
are client-allocated, and odd-numbered context IDs are proxy-
allocated. The context ID namespace is tied to a given HTTP request:
it is possible for a context ID with the same numeric value to be
simultaneously allocated in distinct requests, potentially with
different semantics. Context IDs MUST NOT be re-allocated within a
given HTTP namespace but MAY be allocated in any order. The context
ID allocation restrictions to the use of even-numbered and odd-
numbered context IDs exist in order to avoid the need for
synchronisation between endpoints. However, once a context ID has
been allocated, those restrictions do not apply to the use of the
context ID: it can be used by any client or proxy, independent of
which endpoint initially allocated it.
Registration is the action by which an endpoint informs its peer of
the semantics and format of a given context ID. This document does
not define how registration occurs. Future extensions MAY use HTTP
header fields or capsules to register contexts. Depending on the
method being used, it is possible for datagrams to be received with
Context IDs which have not yet been registered, for instance due to
reordering of the packet containing the datagram and the packet
containing the registration message during transmission.
5. HTTP Datagram Payload Format
When HTTP Datagrams (see [HTTP-DGRAM]) are associated with UDP
proxying request streams, the HTTP Datagram Payload field has the
format defined in Figure 6. Note that when HTTP Datagrams are
encoded using QUIC DATAGRAM frames, the Context ID field defined
below directly follows the Quarter Stream ID field which is at the
start of the QUIC DATAGRAM frame payload:
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
UDP Proxying HTTP Datagram Payload {
Context ID (i),
Payload (..),
}
Figure 6: UDP Proxying HTTP Datagram Format
Context ID: A variable-length integer (see Section 16 of [QUIC])
that contains the value of the Context ID. If an HTTP/3 datagram
which carries an unknown Context ID is received, the receiver
SHALL either drop that datagram silently or buffer it temporarily
(on the order of a round trip) while awaiting the registration of
the corresponding Context ID.
Payload: The payload of the datagram, whose semantics depend on
value of the previous field. Note that this field can be empty.
UDP packets are encoded using HTTP Datagrams with the Context ID set
to zero. When the Context ID is set to zero, the Payload field
contains the unmodified payload of a UDP packet (referred to as "data
octets" in [UDP]).
Clients MAY optimistically start sending UDP packets in HTTP
Datagrams before receiving the response to its UDP proxying request.
However, implementors should note that such proxied packets may not
be processed by the proxy if it responds to the request with a
failure, or if the proxied packets are received by the proxy before
the request.
By virtue of the definition of the UDP header [UDP], it is not
possible to encode UDP payloads longer than 65527 bytes. Therefore,
endpoints MUST NOT send HTTP Datagrams with a Payload field longer
than 65527 using Context ID zero. An endpoint that receives a
DATAGRAM capsule using Context ID zero whose Payload field is longer
than 65527 MUST abort the stream. If a proxy knows it can only send
out UDP packets of a certain length due to its underlying link MTU,
it SHOULD discard incoming DATAGRAM capsules using Context ID zero
whose Payload field is longer than that limit without buffering the
capsule contents.
6. Performance Considerations
Proxies SHOULD strive to avoid increasing burstiness of UDP traffic:
they SHOULD NOT queue packets in order to increase batching.
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses
congestion control (e.g., [QUIC]), the proxied traffic will incur at
least two nested congestion controllers. This can reduce performance
but the underlying HTTP connection MUST NOT disable congestion
control unless it has an out-of-band way of knowing with absolute
certainty that the inner traffic is congestion-controlled.
If a client or proxy with a connection containing a UDP proxying
request stream disables congestion control, it MUST NOT signal ECN
support on that connection. That is, it MUST mark all IP headers
with the Not-ECT codepoint. It MAY continue to report ECN feedback
via ACK_ECN frames, as the peer may not have disabled congestion
control.
When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses loss
recovery (e.g., [QUIC]), and the underlying HTTP connection runs over
TCP, the proxied traffic will incur at least two nested loss recovery
mechanisms. This can reduce performance as both can sometimes
independently retransmit the same data. To avoid this, UDP proxying
SHOULD be performed over HTTP/3 to allow leveraging the QUIC DATAGRAM
frame.
6.1. MTU Considerations
When using HTTP/3 with the QUIC Datagram extension [DGRAM], UDP
payloads are transmitted in QUIC DATAGRAM frames. Since those cannot
be fragmented, they can only carry payloads up to a given length
determined by the QUIC connection configuration and the path MTU. If
a proxy is using QUIC DATAGRAM frames and it receives a UDP payload
from the target that will not fit inside a QUIC DATAGRAM frame, the
proxy SHOULD NOT send the UDP payload in a DATAGRAM capsule, as that
defeats the end-to-end unreliability characteristic that methods such
as Datagram Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD) depend
on [DPLPMTUD]. In this scenario, the proxy SHOULD drop the UDP
payload and send an ICMP "Packet Too Big" message to the target, see
Section 3.2 of [ICMP6].
6.2. Tunneling of ECN Marks
UDP proxying does not create an IP-in-IP tunnel, so the guidance in
[ECN-TUNNEL] about transferring ECN marks between inner and outer IP
headers does not apply. There is no inner IP header in UDP proxying
tunnels.
Note that UDP proxying clients do not have the ability in this
specification to control the ECN codepoints on UDP packets the proxy
sends to the target, nor can proxies communicate the markings of each
UDP packet from target to proxy.
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
A UDP proxy MUST ignore ECN bits in the IP header of UDP packets
received from the target, and MUST set the ECN bits to Not-ECT on UDP
packets it sends to the target. These do not relate to the ECN
markings of packets sent between client and proxy in any way.
7. Security Considerations
There are significant risks in allowing arbitrary clients to
establish a tunnel to arbitrary targets, as that could allow bad
actors to send traffic and have it attributed to the proxy. Proxies
that support UDP proxying ought to restrict its use to authenticated
users.
Because the CONNECT method creates a TCP connection to the target,
the target has to indicate its willingness to accept TCP connections
by responding with a TCP SYN-ACK before the proxy can send it
application data. UDP doesn't have this property, so a UDP proxy
could send more data to an unwilling target than a CONNECT proxy.
However, in practice denial of service attacks target open TCP ports
so the TCP SYN-ACK does not offer much protection in real scenarios.
While a proxy could potentially limit the number of UDP packets it is
willing to forward until it has observed a response from the target,
that is unlikely to provide any protection against denial of service
attacks because such attacks target open UDP ports where the protocol
running over UDP would respond, and that would be interpreted as
willingness to accept UDP by the proxy.
UDP sockets for UDP proxying have a different lifetime than TCP
sockets for CONNECT, therefore implementors would be well served to
follow the advice in Section 3.1 if they base their UDP proxying
implementation on a preexisting implementation of CONNECT.
The security considerations described in [HTTP-DGRAM] also apply
here.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. HTTP Upgrade Token
This document will request IANA to register "connect-udp" in the
"HTTP Upgrade Tokens" registry maintained at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens>.
Value: connect-udp
Description: Proxying of UDP Payloads
Expected Version Tokens: None
Reference: This document
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
8.2. Well-Known URI
This document will request IANA to register "masque/udp" in the
"Well-Known URIs" registry maintained at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris>.
URI Suffix: masque/udp
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: This document
Status: permanent (if this document is approved)
Related Information: Includes all resources identified with the path
prefix "/.well-known/masque/udp/"
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[DGRAM] Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
Datagram Extension to QUIC", RFC 9221,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9221, March 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9221>.
[EXT-CONNECT2]
McManus, P., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/2",
RFC 8441, DOI 10.17487/RFC8441, September 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8441>.
[EXT-CONNECT3]
Hamilton, R., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-
websockets-04, 8 February 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
h3-websockets-04>.
[HTTP] Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
httpbis-semantics-19, 12 September 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
semantics-19>.
[HTTP-DGRAM]
Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "HTTP Datagrams and the
Capsule Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-09, 11 April 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-
h3-datagram-09>.
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
[HTTP/1.1] Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke,
"HTTP/1.1", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
httpbis-messaging-19, 12 September 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
messaging-19>.
[HTTP/2] Thomson, M. and C. Benfield, "HTTP/2", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-07, 24 January
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
httpbis-http2bis-07>.
[HTTP/3] Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
quic-http-34, 2 February 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
http-34>.
[PROXY-STATUS]
Nottingham, M. and P. Sikora, "The Proxy-Status HTTP
Response Header Field", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-08, 13 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
proxy-status-08>.
[QUIC] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
[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/rfc/rfc2119>.
[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/rfc/rfc8174>.
[STRUCT-FIELD]
Nottingham, M. and P-H. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941>.
[TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc793>.
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
[TEMPLATE] 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/rfc/rfc6570>.
[UDP] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc768>.
9.2. Informative References
[BEHAVE] Audet, F., Ed. and C. Jennings, "Network Address
Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, DOI 10.17487/RFC4787, January
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4787>.
[DPLPMTUD] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8899>.
[ECN-TUNNEL]
Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6040>.
[ICMP6] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4443>.
Acknowledgments
This document is a product of the MASQUE Working Group, and the
author thanks all MASQUE enthusiasts for their contibutions. This
proposal was inspired directly or indirectly by prior work from many
people. In particular, the author would like to thank Eric Rescorla
for suggesting to use an HTTP method to proxy UDP. Thanks to Lucas
Pardue for their inputs on this document. The extensibility design
in this document came out of the HTTP Datagrams Design Team, whose
members were Alan Frindell, Alex Chernyakhovsky, Ben Schwartz, Eric
Rescorla, Lucas Pardue, Marcus Ihlar, Martin Thomson, Mike Bishop,
Tommy Pauly, Victor Vasiliev, and the author of this document.
Author's Address
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft HTTP UDP CONNECT April 2022
David Schinazi
Google LLC
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America
Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com
Schinazi Expires 13 October 2022 [Page 16]