Hypertext Transfer Protocol Working Group C. Benfield
Internet-Draft July 20, 2015
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 21, 2016
Peer-to-peer Extension to HTTP/2
draft-benfield-http2-p2p-00
Abstract
This document introduces a negotiated extension to HTTP/2 that turns
a single HTTP/2 connection into a bi-directional communication
channel.
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 January 21, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
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.
Benfield Expires January 21, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP2-P2P July 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Additions to HTTP/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. CLIENT_AUTHORITY Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.1. Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.2. Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. HTTP Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Client Behavioral Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Server Behavioral Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Other Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Authority Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. HTTP/2 Frame Type Registry Update . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. HTTP/2 Settings Registry Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
The HTTP/2 [RFC7540] specification provides an alternative framing
layer for the semantics of HTTP/1.1 [RFC7231]. This framing layer in
principle allows for both parties in a HTTP/2 session to send
requests and responses. However, the HTTP/2 specification also
requires that the semantics of HTTP/1.1 be preserved. This means
that one party of the conversation is considered the client, and one
the server. Only the client may send requests, and only the server
may send responses.
This document introduces an extension that can be advertised by a
HTTP/2 client. This extension allows both the client and the server
to send requests and responses. Essentially, this extension changes
the protocol such that the notion of 'client' and 'server' are
defined on a per-stream basis, rather than a per-connection basis.
The principle of this extension is similar to the Reverse HTTP
[I-D.lentczner-rhttp] proposal made in 2009. HTTP/2's framing makes
this a substantially more flexible extension than Reverse HTTP by
allowing the client and server to vary on a per-stream basis, rather
than affecting the whole connection.
Benfield Expires January 21, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP2-P2P July 2015
1.1. Notational Conventions
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. Additions to HTTP/2
This document introduces a new HTTP/2 setting ([RFC7540],
Section 11.3) and a new HTTP/2 frame type ([RFC7540], Section 11.2),
to allow for a HTTP/2 client to advertise its support for receiving
server-initiated streams, and to allow a server to advertise its
support for receiving client-initiated pushed streams.
The setting, SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER, is a negotiated setting
([RFC7540], Section 5.5).
2.1. SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER Setting
The following new SETTINGS parameters ([RFC7540], Section 6.5.2) are
defined:
o SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER (0xTBA): Informs the remote endpoint of
whether the sender supports the peer-to-peer extension to HTTP/2.
A value of 1 indicates that the peer-to-peer extension is
supported. Any other value, or the absence of this setting,
indicates that the peer-to-peer extension is not supported.
2.2. CLIENT_AUTHORITY Frame
This document introduces the CLIENT_AUTHORITY frame. This frame MUST
be emitted by a client after it sends a value of
SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER of 1. The purpose of this frame is to allow a
client to advertise the authority or authorities for which it is
prepared to accept requests.
This frame always applies to a whole connection. Therefore, the
stream identifier for CLIENT_AUTHORITY frames MUST be 0. If a server
receives a CLIENT_AUTHORITY frame whose stream identifier field is
anything other than 0, it MUST respond with a connection error
([RFC7540] Section 5.4.1) of type PROTOCOL_ERROR.
Each CLIENT_AUTHORITY frame is made up of one or more of the
following authority segments:
Benfield Expires January 21, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP2-P2P July 2015
+----------------------+
| Authority Length (8) |
+----------------------+----------------------------------+
| Authority (*) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Client Authority Frame Payload
Each segment begins with a one-byte field indicating the length of
the authority string the client is asserting. That field is then
followed by a single authority field. The authority MUST be sent in
whatever character encoding is going to be expected by the client on
receipt of the :authority pseudo-header field.
2.2.2. Semantics
Generally speaking, a server or coalescing intermediary has no in-
band method of validating that a client's authority claims are valid.
Therefore, a conforming server MUST confirm a client's authority
claims using some out-of-band method: see Section 3 for more.
2.3. HTTP Changes
From the perspective of other HTTP RFCs, such as RFC 7231 [RFC7231]
and RFC 7540 [RFC7540], this extension changes whether a peer is
considered a 'client' or a 'server' on a per-stream basis, instead of
a per-connection basis, based on which peer opened the stream and how
they did so. If a stream is initiated by a HEADERS frame, the peer
that sent the HEADERS frame is considered the 'client' for the
remainder of the lifetime of that stream, while the other peer is
considered the 'server'.
Otherwise, the new definition of 'client' and 'server' is preserved
for the purposes of the PUSH_PROMISE frame ([RFC7540], Section 6.6).
As a result, whichever peer is considered the 'server' for a given
stream can push other streams to the 'client' peer.
The rest of the requirements of RFC 7231 [RFC7231] are preserved.
2.4. Client Behavioral Changes
When a client emits the SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER setting with a value of
1, it is informing the server that it is willing to accept HTTP
requests from the server, allowing the server to open streams with
HEADERS frames. This lifts some of the restrictions of RFC 7540
[RFC7540] Section 8.
Benfield Expires January 21, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP2-P2P July 2015
If a client has sent the SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER setting with a value
of 1, and the server has also sent SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER with a value
of 1, the client MUST NOT reject an attempt by the server to change
the value of SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH to 1.
If the client receives from the server a value of
SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER of 1, it MAY open streams by sending
PUSH_PROMISE frames. The client MUST NOT send a PUSH_PROMISE frame
on a stream that it opened by means of a HEADERS frame: only server-
initiated streams may be used for sending PUSH_PROMISE frames. All
other limitations about PUSH_PROMISE frames in RFC 7540 [RFC7540]
continue to apply, except that the words 'server' and 'client' are
defined on a per-stream basis.
2.5. Server Behavioral Changes
When a server emits the SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER setting with a value of
1, it is informing the client that it is willing to accept pushed
responses from the client. This allows clients to open streams with
PUSH_PROMISE frames. This also lifts some of the restrictions of RFC
7540 [RFC7540] Section 8: specifically those sections that only allow
servers to send PUSH_PROMISE frames, and only allow clients to
receive them.
Once a server issues this setting, it MAY also issue a non-zero value
for SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH. A server MUST NOT emit that setting unless
the client has also sent SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER with a value of 1, as
clients that do not implement this extension are likely to reject the
attempt to change the setting, as per RFC 7540 [RFC7540] Section 8.2.
If the client attempts to send a PUSH_PROMISE frame on a stream that
was opened by the client (by sending a HEADERS frame), the server
MUST treat this event as a connection error ([RFC7540] Section 5.4.1)
of type PROTOCOL_ERROR.
2.6. Other Extensions
When this extension is deployed with other extensions to HTTP/2, the
behaviour of this extension does not change. All other extensions
that refer to 'client' or 'server' SHOULD be treated as though those
terms apply on a per-stream basis.
If other extensions apply 'server' or 'client' to the whole
connection (e.g. for settings in SETTINGS frames, which are sent on
stream 0), then both peers SHOULD be considered clients and both
peers should be considered servers.
Benfield Expires January 21, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP2-P2P July 2015
3. Authority Validation
Generally speaking, a server or coalescing intermediary has no in-
band method of validating that a client's authority claims are valid.
Therefore, a conforming server MUST confirm a client's authority
claims using some out-of-band method.
This specification does not lay out in detail any proposed mechanism
for doing this validation, as the best approach may vary from
deployment to deployment. However, some options include:
o validating authorities against a TLS certificate presented by the
client during TLS handshake.
o confirming that a reverse DNS lookup for the client IP returns the
authority asserted by the client.
o a static list of IP addresses trusted for a given authority.
The only requirement is that a server MUST implement some form of
validation, and then MUST treat any attempt by a client to assert an
authority that it cannot validate as a connection error ([RFC7540]
Section 5.4.1) of type PROTOCOL_ERROR.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. HTTP/2 Frame Type Registry Update
This document updates the HTTP/2 Frame Type registry ([RFC7540],
Section 11.2). The entries in the following table are registered by
this document.
+------------------+------+-------------+
| Name | Code | Section |
+------------------+------+-------------+
| CLIENT_AUTHORITY | TBD | Section 2.2 |
+------------------+------+-------------+
4.2. HTTP/2 Settings Registry Update
This document updates the registry for HTTP/2 Settings ([RFC7540],
Section 11.4). The entries in the following table are registered by
this document.
Benfield Expires January 21, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP2-P2P July 2015
+--------------+------+---------------+-------------+
| Name | Code | Initial Value | Section |
+--------------+------+---------------+-------------+
| PEER_TO_PEER | TBD | 0 | Section 2.1 |
+--------------+------+---------------+-------------+
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Fedor Indutny for the original idea, and Amos Jeffries,
Mike Bishop, and Ilari Liusvaara for their follow-up.
Thanks also to Tyrel Souza, Donald Stufft, and Paul Kehrer for
proofreading.
Thanks to David Reid for pointing out the Reverse HTTP proposal
[I-D.lentczner-rhttp].
Thanks to Amos Jeffries for proposing an advertised extension, rather
than a negotiated one.
6. References
6.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, DOI
10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.lentczner-rhttp]
Lentczner, M. and D. Preston, "Reverse HTTP", draft-
lentczner-rhttp-00 (work in progress), March 2009.
Benfield Expires January 21, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP2-P2P July 2015
Author's Address
Cory Benfield
Email: cory@lukasa.co.uk
Benfield Expires January 21, 2016 [Page 8]