HTTPBis Working Group                                          M. Bishop
Internet-Draft                                                 Microsoft
Intended status: Informational                            March 14, 2016
Expires: September 15, 2016

              Decomposing the Hypertext Transfer Protocol


   The Hypertext Transfer Protocol in its various versions combines
   concepts of both an application and transport-layer protocol.  As
   this group contemplates employing alternate transport protocols
   underneath HTTP, this document attempts to delineate the boundaries
   between these functions to define a shared vocabulary in discussing
   the revision and/or replacement of one or more of these components.

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

   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 September 15, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   ( 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

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The Semantic Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Transport Services Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Reliable delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  In-order delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Partial delivery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  Separate request/response, metadata, and payload  . . . .   6
     3.5.  Flow control and throttling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.6.  Other desirable properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.6.1.  Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.6.2.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.6.3.  Efficiency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  The Transport Adaptation Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  HTTP/1.x over TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.1.1.  Metadata and framing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.1.2.  Parallelism and request limiting  . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.1.3.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.1.4.  Attempts to improve the TCP mapping . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  HTTP/1.x over SCTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  HTTP/2 over TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.3.1.  Framing and Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.3.2.  Congestion and flow control . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.3.3.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.  HTTPU(M) and CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.5.  QUIC over UDP, or HTTP/2 over QUIC, or...?  . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Moving Forward  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   The Hypertext Transfer Protocol defines a very flexible tool set
   enabling client applications to make requests of a server for content
   or action.  This general protocol was conceived for "the web,"
   interconnected pages of Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) and
   associated resources used to render the HTML, but has since been used
   as a general-purpose application transport.  Server APIs are commonly
   exposed as REST APIs, accessed over HTTP.

   HTTP/1.0 [RFC1945] was a text-based protocol which did not specify
   its underlying transport, but describes the mapping this way:

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

      On the Internet, HTTP communication generally takes place over
      TCP/IP connections.  The default port is TCP 80, but other ports
      can be used.  This does not preclude HTTP from being implemented
      on top of any other protocol on the Internet, or on other
      networks.  HTTP only presumes a reliable transport; any protocol
      that provides such guarantees can be used, and the mapping of the
      HTTP/1.0 request and response structures onto the transport data
      units of the protocol in question is outside the scope of this

   HTTP/1.1 [RFC7230] expands on the TCP binding, introducing connection
   management concepts into the HTTP layer.

   HTTP/2 [RFC7540] replaced the simple text-based protocol with a
   binary framing.  Conceptually, HTTP/2 achieved the same properties
   required of a TCP mapping using wildly different strategies from
   HTTP/1.1.  HTTP/1.1 achieves properties such as parallelism and out-
   of-order delivery by the use of multiple TCP connections.  HTTP/2
   implements these services on top of TCP to enable the use of a single
   TCP connection.  The working group's charter to maintain HTTP's broad
   applicability meant that there were few or no changes in how HTTP
   surfaces to applications.

   Other efforts have mapped HTTP or a subset of it to various transport
   protocols besides TCP - HTTP can be implemented over SCTP [RFC4960]
   as in [I-D.natarajan-http-over-sctp], and useful profiles of HTTP
   have been mapped to UDP in various ways (HTTPU and HTTPUM in
   [goland-http-udp] and [UPnP], CoAP [RFC7252], QUIC

   With the publication of HTTP/2 over TCP, the working group is
   beginning to consider how a mapping to a non-TCP transport would
   function.  This document aims to enable this conversation by
   describing the services required by the HTTP semantic layer.  A
   mapping of HTTP to a transport other than TCP must define how these
   services are obtained, either from the new transport or by
   implementing them at the application layer.

2.  The Semantic Layer

   At the most fundamental level, the semantic layer of HTTP consists of
   a client's ability to request some action of a server and be informed
   of the outcome of that request.  HTTP defines a number of possible
   actions (methods) the client might request of the server, but permits
   the list of actions to be extended.

   A client's request consists of a desired action (HTTP method) and a
   resource on which that action is to be taken (path).  The server

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   responds which a status code which informs the client of the result
   of the request - the outcome of the action or the reason the action
   was not performed.  Actions may or may not be idempotent or safe, and
   the results may or may not be cached by intermediaries; this is
   defined as part of the HTTP method.

   Each message (request or response) has associated metadata, called
   "headers," which provide additional information about the operation.
   In a request this might include client identification, credentials
   authorizing the client to request the action, or preferences about
   how the client would prefer the server handle the action.  In a
   response, this might include information about the resulting data,
   modifications to the cacheability of the response, details about how
   the server performed the action, or details of the reason the server
   declined to perform the action.

   The headers are key-value pairs, with rules defining how keys which
   occur multiple times should be handled.  Due to artifacts of existing
   usage, these rules vary from key to key.  For similar legacy reasons,
   there is no uniform structure of the values across all keys.  Keys
   are case-insensitive ASCII strings, while values are sequences of
   octets typically interpreted as ASCII.  Many headers are defined by
   the HTTP RFCs, but the space is not constrained and is frequently
   extended with little or no notice.  "Trailing" headers are split,
   with the key declared in advance, but the value coming only after the
   body has been transferred.

   Each message, whether request or response, also has an optional body.
   The presence and content of the body will vary based on the action
   requested and the headers provided.

3.  Transport Services Required

   The HTTP Semantic Layer depends on the availability of several
   services from its lower layer:

   o  Reliable delivery

   o  In-order delivery

   o  Partial delivery

   o  Separate request/response, metadata, and payload

   o  Flow control and throttling

   In this section, each of these properties will be discussed at a high
   level with a focus on why HTTP requires these properties to be

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   present.  The next section (Section 4) will discuss how various HTTP
   mappings have handled the absence of these required services in
   different transports.

3.1.  Reliable delivery

   HTTP does not provide the concept to higher layers that fragments of
   data were received while others were not.  If a request is sent, it
   is assumed that either a response will arrive or the transport will
   report an error.  HTTP itself is not concerned with any intermediate

   There are many ways for a transport to provide reliable delivery of
   messages.  This may take the form of loss recovery, where the loss of
   packets is detected and the corresponding information retransmitted.
   Alternately, a transport may proactively send extra information so
   that the data stream is tolerant to some loss - the full message can
   be reconstructed after receipt of a sufficient fraction of the

   It is worth noting that some consumers of HTTP have relaxed
   requirements in this space - while HTTP itself has no notion of lossy
   delivery, some mappings do have weakened guarantees and are only
   appropriate for scenarios where those weakened guarantees are

3.2.  In-order delivery

   The headers of each message must arrive before any body, since they
   dictate how the body will be processed.  The body is typically
   exposed as a bytestream which can be read from sequentially, though
   there are some consumers who are able to use incomplete fragments of
   certain resource types.

   Regardless of the ability to surface and use fragmentary pieces of an
   HTTP message, the HTTP layer requires the transport be able to
   ultimately provide a correct ordering and full reconstruction of each

3.3.  Partial delivery

   While only some users of HTTP (client or server) are able to deal
   with unordered fragments of an HTTP message, it is almost universally
   necessary to deal with HTTP messages in pieces.  There are multiple
   reasons why that may be necessary:

   o  The message may be too large to maintain in memory at once (the
      download of a large file)

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   o  The beginning of a request may be sufficient to generate a
      response (error due to lack of authorization)

   o  The message may be constructed incrementally, sending each segment
      as it becomes available

   Regardless, HTTP needs the transport to begin sending the message
   before the end of the message is available.

3.4.  Separate request/response, metadata, and payload

   Any protocol defines how the semantics of the protocol are mapped
   onto the wire in a transport.  Most transports are either bytestreams
   or message-based, meaning that higher-layer concepts must be laid out
   in a reasonable structure within the stream or message.  Each HTTP
   request or response contains metadata about the message (headers) and
   an optional body.

   These are separate constructs in HTTP, and mechanisms to carry them
   and keep them appropriately associated must be provided.  Note that
   it's not actually expected that any _generic_ transport layer would
   or should have this property, but is nonetheless involved in
   transporting HTTP messages.

3.5.  Flow control and throttling

   Flow control is a necessary property of any transport.  Because no
   network can handle an uncontrolled burst of data at infinite speeds,
   the transport must determine an appropriate sustained data rate for
   the intervening network.  Even in the presence of a nearly-infinite
   network capacity, the remote server will also have limits on its
   ability to consume data.

   In order to avoid overwhelming either the network or the server, HTTP
   requires a mechanism to limit sending data rates as well as to limit
   the rate of new requests going to a server.  Although it is optimal
   for a server to know about all outstanding client requests (even if
   it chooses not to work on them immediately), the server may wish to
   protect itself by limiting the memory commitment to outstanding data
   or requests.  The transport should facilitate such protection on the
   part of a server (or client, in certain scenarios).

3.6.  Other desirable properties

   There are several properties not properly required for the
   implementation of HTTP, but which users of HTTP have come to assume
   are present.

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

3.6.1.  Parallelism

   Because a client will often desire a single server to perform
   multiple actions at once, all HTTP mappings provide the ability to
   deliver requests in parallel and allow the server to respond to each
   request as the actions complete.  Head-of-line blocking is a
   particular problem here that transports must attempt to avoid -
   client requests should ideally reach the server as quickly as
   possible, allowing the server to choose the correct order in which to
   handle the requests (with input from the client).  Any situation in
   which a request remains unknown to the server until another request
   completes is suboptimal.

3.6.2.  Security

   Integrity and confidentiality are valuable services for communication
   over the Internet, and HTTP is no exception.  While authentication,
   message integrity, and secrecy are not inherently _required_ for the
   implementation of HTTP, they are advantageous properties for any
   mapping to have, so that each party can be sure that what they
   received is what the other party sent.

   Privacy, the control of what data is leaked to the peer and/or third
   parties, is also a desirable attribute.  However, this extends well
   beyond the scope of any particular mapping and into the use of HTTP.

   TLS [RFC5246] is commonly used in mappings to provide this service,
   and itself requires reliable, in-order delivery.  When those services
   are not provided by the underlying transport, the mapping must either
   provide those services to TLS as well as HTTP (as in QUIC) or a
   variant of TLS which provides those services for itself must be
   substituted (DTLS [RFC6347], as used in CoAP).

3.6.3.  Efficiency

   While it would be technically possible to define HTTP over a highly
   inefficient transport or mapping (e.g. format messages in Baudot
   code, transporting them to the server using avian carriers as in
   [RFC1149]), there is little reason for applications to use such
   inefficient mappings when efficient transport mappings exist.

   Efficiency can be characterized on many levels:

   o  Reducing the number of bytes required to transport a message,
      either through lower overhead or better compression

   o  Reducing the time from request generation to response receipt

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   o  Reducing the amount of computation or memory required to process
      or route a request

   o  Reducing the power consumption required to generate or process a

4.  The Transport Adaptation Layer

   No present transport over which HTTP has been mapped actually
   provides all of the services on which the HTTP Semantic Layer
   depends.  In order to compensate for the services not provided by a
   given underlying transport, each mapping of HTTP onto a new transport
   must define an intermediate layer implementing the missing services
   in order to enable the mapping, as well as any additional features
   the mapping finds to be desirable.

   In the following table, we can see multiple transports over which
   HTTP has been deployed and the services which the underlying
   transports do or do not offer.

        |                               | TCP | UDP | SCTP | QUIC |
        | Reliable delivery             |  X  |     |  X   |  X   |
        |                               |     |     |      |      |
        | In-order delivery             |  X  |     |  X   |  X   |
        |                               |     |     |      |      |
        | Partial delivery              |  X  |  X  |  X   |  X   |
        |                               |     |     |      |      |
        | Separate metadata and payload |     |     |      |  *   |
        |                               |     |     |      |      |
        | Flow control & throttling     |  X  |  X  |  X   |  X   |

   Some mappings contain entirely new protocol machinery constructed
   specifically to serve as an adaptation layer and carried within the
   transport (HTTP/2 framing over TCP).  Others rely on implementation-
   level meta-protocol behavior (simultaneous TCP connections handled in
   parallel) not visible to the transport.  Because the existence of
   these adaptation layers has not been explicitly defined in the past,
   a clean separation has not always been maintained between the
   adaptation layer and either the transport or the semantic layer.

   Some adaptation layers are so complex and fully-featured that the
   transport layer plus the adaptation layer can be conceptually treated
   as a new transport.  For example, QUIC was originally designed as a
   transport adaptation layer for HTTP over UDP, but is now being
   refactored into a general-purpose transport layer for arbitrary

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   protocols.  Such a refactoring will require separating the services
   QUIC provides that are general to all applications from the services
   which exist purely to enable a mapping of HTTP to QUIC.  (In the
   table above, QUIC is referenced as a generic transport; the HTTP-
   over-QUIC mapping is discussed below.)

4.1.  HTTP/1.x over TCP

   Since HTTP/1.x is defined over TCP, many of the necessary services
   are provided by the transport, enabling a relatively simple mapping.
   However, there were a number of conventions introduced to fill lacks
   in the underlying transport.

4.1.1.  Metadata and framing

   HTTP/1.x projects a message as an octet sequence which typically
   resembles a block of ASCII text.  Specific octets are used to delimit
   the boundaries between message components.  Within the portion of the
   message dedicated to headers, the key-value pairs are expressed as
   text, with the ':' character and whitespace separating the key from
   the value.

   Because this region appears to be text, many text conventions have
   accidentally crept into HTTP/1.x message parsers and even protocol
   conventions (line-folding, CRLF differences between operating
   systems, etc.).  This is a source of bugs, such as line-folding
   characters which appear in header values even after being unframed.

4.1.2.  Parallelism and request limiting

   HTTP/1.0 used a very simple multi-request model - each request was
   made on a separate TCP connection, and all requests were handled
   independently.  This had the drawback that TCP connection setup was
   required with each request and flow control almost never exited the
   slow-start phase, limiting performance.

   To improve this, new headers were introduced to manage connection
   lifetime (e.g.  "Connection: keep-alive"), blurring the distinction
   between message metadata and connection metadata.  These headers were
   formalized in HTTP/1.1.  This improvement means that connections are
   reused - when the end of a response has been received, a new request
   can be sent.  However, this blurring made it difficult for some
   implementations to correctly identify the presence and length of
   bodies, making request-smuggling attacks possible as in

   Throttling of simultaneous requests was fully in the realm of
   implementations, which constrained themselves to opening only a

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   limited number of connections.  HTTP/1.1 originally recommended two,
   but later implementations increased this to six by default, and more
   under certain conditions.  Because these were fully independent
   flows, TCP was unable to consider them as a group for purposes of
   congestion control, leading to suboptimal behavior on the network.

   Servers which desired additional parallelism could game such
   implementations by exposing resources under multiple hostnames,
   causing the client implementations to open six connections _to each
   hostname_ and gain an arbitrary amount of parallelism, to the
   detriment of functional congestion control.

4.1.3.  Security

   HTTP originally defined no additional integrity or confidentiality
   mechanisms for the TCP mapping, leaving the integrity and
   confidentiality levels to those provided by the network transport.
   These may be minimal (TCP checksums) or rich (IPsec) depending on the
   network environment.

   For situations where the network does not provide integrity and
   confidentiality guarantees sufficient to the content, [RFC2818]
   defines the use of TLS as an additional component of the adaptation
   layer in HTTP/1.1.

4.1.4.  Attempts to improve the TCP mapping

   Pipelining, also introduced in HTTP/1.1, allowed the client to
   eliminate the round-trip that was incurred between the end of the
   server's response to one request and the server's receipt of the
   client's next request.  However, pipelining increases the problem of
   head-of-line blocking since a request on a different connection might
   complete sooner.  The client's inability to predict the length of
   requested actions limited the usefulness of pipelining.

   SMUX [w3c-smux] allowed the use of a single TCP connection to carry
   multiple channels over which HTTP could be carried.  This would
   permit the server to answer requests in any order.  However, this was
   never broadly deployed.

4.2.  HTTP/1.x over SCTP

   Because SCTP permits the use of multiple simultaneous streams over a
   single connection, HTTP/1.1 could be mapped with relative ease.
   Instead of using separate TCP connections, SCTP flows could be used
   to provide a multiplexing layer.  Each flow was reused for new
   requests after the completion of a response, just as HTTP/1.1 used

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   TCP connections.  This allowed for better flow control performance,
   since the transport could consider all flows together.

   SCTP has seen limited deployment on the Internet, though recent
   experience has shown SCTP over UDP [RFC6951] to be a more viable

4.3.  HTTP/2 over TCP

   HTTP/2, also a TCP mapping, attempted to improve the mapping of HTTP
   to TCP without introducing changes at the semantic level.

      HTTP/2 addresses these issues by defining an optimized mapping of
      HTTP's semantics to an underlying connection.  Specifically, it
      allows interleaving of request and response messages on the same
      connection and uses an efficient coding for HTTP header fields.
      It also allows prioritization of requests, letting more important
      requests complete more quickly, further improving performance.

      The resulting protocol is more friendly to the network because
      fewer TCP connections can be used in comparison to HTTP/1.x.  This
      means less competition with other flows and longer-lived
      connections, which in turn lead to better utilization of available
      network capacity.

      Finally, HTTP/2 also enables more efficient processing of messages
      through use of binary message framing.

4.3.1.  Framing and Parallelism

   HTTP/2 introduced a framing layer that incorporated the concept of
   streams.  Because a very large number of idle streams automatically
   exist at the beginning of each connection, each stream can be used
   for a single request and response.  One stream is dedicated to the
   transport of control messages, enabling a cleaner separation between
   metadata about the connection from metadata about the separate
   messages within the connection.

   HTTP/2 projects the requested action into the set of headers, then
   uses separate HEADERS and DATA frames to delimit the boundary between
   metadata and message body on each stream.  These frames are used to
   provide message-like behaviors and parallelism over a single TCP

   Because the text-based transfer of repetitive headers represented a
   major inefficiency in HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2 also introduced HPACK
   [RFC7541], a custom compression scheme which operates on key-value
   pairs rather than text blocks.  HTTP/2 frame types which transport

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   headers always carry HPACK header block fragments rather than an
   uncompressed key-value dictionary.

4.3.2.  Congestion and flow control

   Because HTTP/2's adaptation layer introduces a concurrency construct
   above the transport, the adaptation layer must also introduce a means
   of flow control to keep the concurrent transactions from introducing
   head-of-line blocking above TCP.  This led HTTP/2 to create a flow-
   control scheme within the adaptation layer in addition to TCP's flow
   control algorithms.

   In HTTP/1.1, this was not needed - the application simply reads from
   TCP as space is available, and allow's TCP's own flow control to
   govern.  In HTTP/2, this would cause severe head-of-line blocking due
   to the increased parallelism, and so the control must be exerted at a
   higher level.

   Another drawback to the application-layer multiplexing approach is
   the fact that TCP's congestion-avoidance mechanisms cannot identify
   the flows separately, magnifying the impact of packet losses.  This
   manifests both by reducing the congestion window for the entire
   connection (versus one-sixth of the "connection" in HTTP/1.1) on
   packet loss, and delayed delivery of packets on unaffected streams
   due to head-of-line blocking behind lost packets.

4.3.3.  Security

   HTTP/2 directly defines how TLS may be used to provide security
   services as part of its adaptation layer.

4.4.  HTTPU(M) and CoAP

   UDP mappings of HTTP must define mechanisms to restore the original
   order of message fragments.  HTTPU(M) and the base form of CoAP both
   do this by restricting messages to the size of a single datagram,
   while [I-D.ietf-core-block] extends CoAP to define an in-order
   delivery mechanism in the adaptation layer.

   Adaptation layers of HTTP mappings over UDP have also needed to
   introduce mechanisms for reliable delivery.  CoAP dedicates a portion
   of its message framing to indicating whether a given message requires
   reliability or not.  If reliable delivery is required, the recipient
   acknowledges receipt and the sender continues to repeat the message
   until the acknowledgment is received.  For non-idempotent requests,
   this means keeping additional state about which requests have already
   been processed.

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   Some applications above HTTP are able to provide their own loss-
   recovery messages, and therefore do not actually require the
   guarantees that HTTP provides.  HTTP over UDP Multicast is targeted
   at such applications, and therefore does not provide reliable
   delivery to applications above it.

4.5.  QUIC over UDP, or HTTP/2 over QUIC, or...?

   QUIC is an overloaded term.  QUIC is a rich HTTP mapping to UDP
   [I-D.tsvwg-quic-protocol] which implements many TCP- and SCTP-like
   behaviors in its adaptation layer.  It describes itself this way:

      QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connection) is a new multiplexed and
      secure transport atop UDP, designed from the ground up and
      optimized for HTTP/2 semantics.  While built with HTTP/2 as the
      primary application protocol, QUIC builds on decades of transport
      and security experience, and implements mechanisms that make it
      attractive as a modern general-purpose transport.  QUIC provides
      multiplexing and flow control equivalent to HTTP/2, security
      equivalent to TLS, and connection semantics, reliability, and
      congestion control equivalent to TCP.

   Consequently, QUIC is _also_ a "general-purpose transport" over which
   an HTTP mapping can be defined and implemented.

   This division makes it unclear which parts belong to the transport
   versus an HTTP mapping on top of this new transport.  For example,
   [I-D.tsvwg-quic-protocol] does define how to separately transport the
   headers and body of an HTTP message.  However, this capability is
   likely not relevant in a general-purpose transport and might better
   be removed from QUIC-the-transport and incorporated into HTTP-over-

5.  Moving Forward

   The networks over which we run TCP/IP today look nothing like the
   networks for which TCP/IP was originally designed.  It is the clean
   separation between TCP, IP, and the lower-layer protocols which has
   enabled the continued usefulness of the higher-layer protocols as the
   substrate has changed.  Likewise, the actions and content carried
   over HTTP look very different, reflecting well on the abstraction
   achieved by the HTTP layer.

   It is the layer between HTTP and the transport where abstraction has
   not always been successfully achieved.  New capabilites in transports
   have required new expressions at the HTTP layer to take advantage of
   them, and mappings have defined concepts which are tightly bound to

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   the underlying transport without clearly separating them from the
   semantics of HTTP.

   The goal is not merely architectural purity, but modularity.  HTTP
   has enjoyed a long life as a higher-layer protocol and is useful to
   many varied applications.  As transports continue to evolve, we will
   almost certainly find ourselves in the position of defining a mapping
   of HTTP onto a new transport once again.  With a clear understanding
   of the HTTP semantic layer and the services it requires, we can
   better scope the requirements of a new adaptation layer while reusing
   the components of previous adaptation layers that provide the
   necessary service well in existing implementations.

6.  Informative References

              Goland, Y., "Multicast and Unicast UDP HTTP Messages",
              November 1999,

              Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, "Block-wise transfers in CoAP",
              draft-ietf-core-block-18 (work in progress), September

              Natarajan, P., Amer, P., Leighton, J., and F. Baker,
              "Using SCTP as a Transport Layer Protocol for HTTP",
              draft-natarajan-http-over-sctp-02 (work in progress), July

              Hamilton, R., Iyengar, J., Swett, I., and A. Wilk, "QUIC:
              A UDP-Based Secure and Reliable Transport for HTTP/2",
              draft-tsvwg-quic-protocol-02 (work in progress), January

   [RFC1149]  Waitzman, D., "Standard for the transmission of IP
              datagrams on avian carriers", RFC 1149,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1149, April 1990,

   [RFC1945]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Frystyk, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1945, May 1996,

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <>.

   [RFC6951]  Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream
              Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host
              to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6951, May 2013,

   [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,

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,

   [RFC7541]  Peon, R. and H. Ruellan, "HPACK: Header Compression for
              HTTP/2", RFC 7541, DOI 10.17487/RFC7541, May 2015,

   [UPnP]     "UPnP Device Architecture 2.0", 2015,

Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              Decomposing HTTP                  March 2016

              Nielsen, H., "SMUX Protocol Specification", July 1998,

              Orrin, S., "HTTP Request Smuggling", 2005,

Author's Address

   Mike Bishop


Bishop                 Expires September 15, 2016              [Page 16]