Network Working Group L. Wood
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Experimental February 27, 2009
Expires: August 31, 2009
Specifying transport mechanisms for retrieval or delivery of URIs
draft-wood-tae-specifying-uri-transports-04
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 August 31, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document describes a simple extension of the URI format that
allows preferred transport mechanisms, including protocols, ports and
interfaces, to be specified as parseable additions to the scheme
Wood Expires August 31, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Specifying URI transports February 2009
name. This explicit configuration is beneficial for separation of
HTTP from underlying transports, which has been increasingly
recognised as useful when a variety of ways of transporting or
configuring use of HTTP are available and a choice of mechanism to
use must be indicated.
Table of Contents
1. Background and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Extending the URI scheme to indicate transports and
interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Relevant work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wood Expires August 31, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Specifying URI transports February 2009
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. This
transport layer has commonly (and almost universally) been TCP in the
terrestrial Internet, although alternative transport layers, such as
SCTP, can also be used under HTTP [I-D.natarajan-http-over-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. In
the examples given, TCP or SCTP are used to carry HTTP over the
congestion-sensitive public Internet, while Saratoga would be used
for HTTP across dedicated 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 even have to run over a TCP/IP stack, 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
popular waists exist; IP and HTTP are likely choices, but the
transport protocol and physical enviroment that IP and HTTP are used
Wood Expires August 31, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Specifying URI transports February 2009
with will vary more.
Being able to specify how HTTP or other schemes are carried is useful
when a variety of methods are available to choose from. The syntax
described here is useful for local configuration, e.g. in a scripting
language that is aware of the local host and remote host's shared
support of a given transport protocol. It is less useful on the
public world-wide web, because users (and web page designers) are not
generally capable of determining which transport protocol(s) are
supported by their web browser, operating system, or network.
However, the option to explicitly choose a communication method is
useful.
2. Extending the URI scheme to indicate transports and interfaces
Before describing this URI scheme syntax, it is worthwhile to lay out
the foundations on which this syntax is based.
HTTP is not explicitly tied to use over TCP. To quote [RFC2616],
section 1.4:
"HTTP communication usually 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;
the mapping of the HTTP/1.1 request and response structures onto the
transport data units of the protocol in question is outside the scope
of this specification."
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."
With this foundation, this draft proposes that schemes can be
extended to include configuration elements that indicate transport
and interface, in the format:
Wood Expires August 31, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Specifying URI transports February 2009
scheme = scheme name [ "+" port ] [ "-" transport ] ["." interface ]
where the optionally-included +port is a description mapping to the
default IANA-assigned port number, or the equivalent name, 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 pecifier
identifying that interface.
This would permit http-sctp:// or http+saratoga-udp:// for the uses
outlined in [I-D.natarajan-http-over-sctp] and
[I-D.wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery]. Port and internet protocol
numbers assigned by IANA are accepted as equivalent to assigned names
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.
Adding these optional transport indicators to the scheme name does
not change the namespace in any way; the URI should still be treated
as if it began http:.
If required, the port the scheme is actually run over, which the
behaviour of any 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 for that tranport behaviour is used.
Knowing that a '+' transport behaviour stated in the scheme is only
associated with either TCP or UDP would mean that -tcp or -udp can be
omitted when that +behaviour is given.
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. Relevant work
[I-D.natarajan-http-over-sctp] proposes carrying http over sctp.
This could be indicated with http-sctp:.
[I-D.wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery] proposes separating HTTP from the
underlying transport entirely, and running it over other other
transports, such as Saratoga [I-D.wood-tsvwg-saratoga].
[I-D.jennings-http-srv] has proposed using DNS lookup of a SRV record
Wood Expires August 31, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Specifying URI transports February 2009
to return a dynamic port value, as well as an address, and indicates
this using http+srv:// and http+srv:// in line with the use of '+'
for ports as indicated above.
Alternatively, some new DNS record type returning address, port and
other access information could be explicitly accessed via e.g.
http-dns:// or some other indication of method. This could take
advantage of DNS Name Authority Pointers (NAPTR) via S-NAPTR and
U-NAPTR [RFC3958] [RFC4848], and encourage the use of those
protocols.
Other work on evolving the URI format to enable service discovery
with DNS for different transport protocols is in e.g. [Uruena05].
It should be possible to combine the static configuration in the
parseable scheme format described here with getting other
configuration information that is not explicitly given, but that is
needed to access the URI dyamically, from DNS records when
appropriate. Any static information given should override
information from dynamic configuration, just as explicitly indicating
a port with e.g. :80 in the URI explicitly overrides the port
returned by http+srv:.
4. Security Considerations
No additional security concerns have been thought of at this time.
5. IANA Considerations
No additional IANA considerations have been thought of at this time.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks go to Fred Baker, Leslie Daigle, Cullen Jennings, Jonathan
Leighton and Dan Wing for discussion on points of this draft.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[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
Wood Expires August 31, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Specifying URI transports February 2009
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
7.2. 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.jennings-http-srv]
Jennings, C., "DNS SRV Records for HTTP",
draft-jennings-http-srv-04 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[I-D.natarajan-http-over-sctp]
Natarajan, P., Amer, P., Leighton, J., and F. Baker,
"Using SCTP as a Transport Layer Protocol for HTTP",
draft-natarajan-http-over-sctp-00 (work in progress),
November 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.
[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.
[RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.
[RFC4848] Daigle, L., "Domain-Based Application Service Location
Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
(DDDS)", RFC 4848, April 2007.
[Uruena05]
Uruena, M. and D. Larrabeiti, "Nested Uniform Resource
Identifiers", Proceedings of the 31st EUROMICRO Conference
Wood Expires August 31, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Specifying URI transports February 2009
on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp.
380-385 , August 2005.
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 August 31, 2009 [Page 8]