[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08                                    
Network Working Group                                            L. Wood
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Experimental                          December 15, 2008
Expires: June 18, 2009


   Specifying transport mechanisms for retrieval or delivery of URIs
              draft-wood-tae-specifying-uri-transports-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2009.

Abstract

   This document describes a simple extension of the URI format to allow
   preferred transport mechanisms and interfaces to be specified.  This
   explicit configuration is beneficial for separation of HTTP from
   underlying transports, which has been increasingly recognised as
   useful.  Explicit configuration in the URI for programs is valuable
   when TCP, traditionally used to carry HTTP, is not present or not
   desired, or when other methods of determining or negotiating the
   appropriate transport method to use, e.g. the Domain Name System
   (DNS), are absent.






Wood                      Expires June 18, 2009                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Specifying URI transports          December 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Background and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Extending the URI scheme to indicate transports and
       interfaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 7







































Wood                      Expires June 18, 2009                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Specifying URI transports          December 2008


1.  Background and Introduction

   Desire to separate the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [RFC2616]
   from its traditional transport of the Transmission Control Protocol
   (TCP) is increasing.

   There are environments where TCP is not suitable, or absent, yet HTTP
   can still be used as a method to transfer data.  Being able to
   indicate the desired transport and interface to use in the URI for a
   program to interpret when executing HTTP GETs or PUTs is useful when
   a choice of mechanisms and interfaces are available.

   This document outlines how the desired transport and interface can be
   indicated in the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) format [RFC3986]
   by a simple extension to that format using existing syntax.

   This syntax is useful for carrying HTTP over different transport
   protocols.  HTTP can be thought of a session layer, running over a
   transport layer providing reliable delivery of the HTTP stream
   between hops.  This transport layer is commonly (and almost
   universally) TCP in the terrestrial Internet, although alternative
   transport layers, such as SCTP, can also be used under HTTP
   [I-D.natarajan-httpbis-sctp].  For long-delay networks, or for
   network conditions where TCP or an equivalent is not suitable, an
   alternative transport layer such as Saratoga
   [I-D.wood-tsvwg-saratoga] can be used under HTTP instead in hop-by-
   hop communications between nodes.  This has been described in detail
   [I-D.wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery].  HTTP requires only reliable
   streaming that can be used to provide ordered delivery to the
   application; how that reliable streaming is provided is up to the
   local transport layer in the local network.  TCP or SCTP would be
   used to carry HTTP over the congestion-sensitive public Internet,
   while Saratoga would be used for HTTP across private links.

   Steve Deering has often described IP as 'the waist in the hourglass'
   [Deering98] - what is above and touching on IP can be changed, what
   is below and touching on IP can be changed, but provided the new
   elements continue to interface to and work with IP, the hourglass
   remains complete and the network stack remains functional.  Here,
   HTTP is the waist in this particular hourglass; applications can use
   HTTP to communicate, provided HTTP runs over a reliable transport
   stream.  The applications can vary.  The transport stream can be
   changed; HTTP does not have to run over TCP/IP, but could even be
   made to run directly over something else entirely.  Given the
   prevalence of IP in many networks, it is likely that two waists
   exist; IP and HTTP are likely choices, but the transport protocol and
   physical enviroment will vary more.




Wood                      Expires June 18, 2009                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Specifying URI transports          December 2008


   Being able to specify how HTTP or other schemes are carried is useful
   when a variety of methods are available to choose from.  This is far
   more likely to be used for local configuration from e.g. a scripting
   language, in the absence of DNS, than it is to be used for URIs on
   the public world-wide web.


2.  Extending the URI scheme to indicate transports and interfaces

   The URI format syntax ([RFC3986], section 3.1) defines the scheme as:

   scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )

   To quote [RFC2718], section 2.2.2:

   "When a scheme is associated with a network protocol, the
   specification should completely describe how URLs are translated into
   protocol actions in sufficient detail to make the access of the
   network resource unambiguous.  If an implementation of the URL scheme
   requires some configuration, the configuration elements must be
   clearly identified."

   Within these constraints, this draft proposes that schemes can be
   extended to indicate transport and interface, in the format:

   scheme = scheme name [ "+" port ] [ "-" transport ] ["." interface ]

   where the optionally-included +port is a description mapping to the
   default IANA-assigned port number, or the port number, indicating the
   desired behaviour over a transport.  The optionally-included
   -transport is the transport name or IANA protocol identifier number
   that that name maps to.  The optionally-included .interface can
   contain a locally-meaningful specifier identifying that interface.

   This would permit http-sctp:// or http+saratoga-udp:// for the uses
   outlined in [I-D.natarajan-httpbis-sctp] and
   [I-D.wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery].  Port and internet protocol
   numbers assigned by IANA are accepted as equivalents for these
   underlying protocols, so http+7542-17:// specifies HTTP over Saratoga
   over UDP. http-132 is equivalent to http-sctp in specifying HTTP over
   SCTP.  As is usual, these are case insensitive, so that http-sctp,
   HTTP-sctp, and HtTp-ScTp are all equivalent.

   If required, the port the scheme is actually run over, which the
   behaviour of the specified default port is mapped to, is still
   indicated later in the URI as :number, e.g. :80.  When this is not
   specified the default port is used.




Wood                      Expires June 18, 2009                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Specifying URI transports          December 2008


   Knowing that a higher-layer protocol is always associated with TCP or
   UDP would mean that -tcp or -udp could be omitted. http by itself is
   taken to mean http-tcp, and is therefore backwards-compatible with
   current use.

   Being able to specify the local interface to initiate a transaction
   on when a choice of interfaces is available on a multihomed device is
   useful, e.g. http+saratoga.serial0://.


3.  Security Considerations

   No additional security concerns have been thought of at this time.


4.  IANA Considerations

   No additional IANA considerations have been thought of at this time.


5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC2718]  Masinter, L., Alvestrand, H., Zigmond, D., and R. Petke,
              "Guidelines for new URL Schemes", RFC 2718, November 1999.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

5.2.  Informative References

   [Deering98]
              Deering, S., "Watching the Waist of the Protocol
              Hourglass", keynote, IEEE International Conference on
              Network Protocols (ICNP), Austin Texas, October 1998.

   [I-D.natarajan-httpbis-sctp]
              Natarajan, P., Amer, P., Leighton, J., and F. Baker,
              "Using SCTP as a Transport Layer Protocol for HTTP",
              draft-natarajan-httpbis-sctp-00 (work in progress),
              October 2008.




Wood                      Expires June 18, 2009                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Specifying URI transports          December 2008


   [I-D.wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery]
              Wood, L. and P. Holliday, "Using HTTP for delivery in
              Delay/Disruption-Tolerant Networks",
              draft-wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery-02 (work in progress),
              October 2008.

   [I-D.wood-tsvwg-saratoga]
              Wood, L., McKim, J., Eddy, W., Ivancic, W., and C.
              Jackson, "Saratoga: A Scalable File Transfer Protocol",
              draft-wood-tsvwg-saratoga-02 (work in progress),
              October 2008.


Author's Address

   Lloyd Wood
   Cisco Systems
   11 New Square Park, Bedfont Lakes
   Feltham, Middlesex  TW14 8HA
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44-20-8824-4236
   Email: lwood@cisco.com




























Wood                      Expires June 18, 2009                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Specifying URI transports          December 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Wood                      Expires June 18, 2009                 [Page 7]