Web Packaging (wpack)

WG Name Web Packaging
Acronym wpack
Area Applications and Real-Time Area (art)
State BOF
Charter charter-ietf-wpack-00-04 Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal IESG/IAB Review)
Dependencies Document dependency graph (SVG)
Additional URLs
- Wiki
- Issue tracker
Personnel Chair Sean Turner
Area Director Alexey Melnikov
Mailing list Address wpack@ietf.org
To subscribe https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack
Archive https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wpack/
Jabber chat Room address xmpp:wpack@jabber.ietf.org?join
Logs https://jabber.ietf.org/logs/wpack/

Charter for Working Group

The WPACK working group will develop a specification for a web packaging format that efficiently bundles multiple HTTP resources. It will also specify a way to optionally sign these resources such that a user agent can trust that they came from their claimed web origins. Key goals for WPACK are:

* Efficient storage across a range of resource combinations. Three examples to be supported are: a client-generated snapshot of a complete web page, a web page's tree of JavaScript modules, and a selection of the whole web for peer-to-peer distribution in a country where the internet is blocked.

* The ability to create an unsigned snapshot of a web page without the cooperation of its publisher.

* The ability to use a web app online or offline, with assurance of its publisher, after a package of it was received from a peer.

* Low latency to load a subresource from a package, whether the package is signed or unsigned, and whether the package is streamed or loaded from random-access storage.

* Being extensible and crypto agile.

* Security and privacy properties of using signed bundles as close as practical to TLS 1.3 transport of the same resources. Where properties do change, the group will document exactly what changed and how affected people, including content publishers and users, can compensate. Part of this is analyzing how the shift from transport security to object security changes the security properties of the web's existing features.

* A low likelihood that the new format increases centralization or power imbalances on the web.

* Constraints on how clients load the formats to help achieve the above goals.


The packaging format will also aim to achieve the following secondary goals as long as they don't compromise or delay the above properties.
* Support more-efficient signing of a single, possibly same-origin HTTP resource.

* Support signed statements about subresources beyond just assertions that they're accurate representations of particular URLs.

* Address the threat model of a website compromised after a user first uses the site.

* Support books being published in the format.

* Support long-lived archival storage.

* Optimize transport of large numbers of small same-origin resources.

* Allow the format to be used in self-extracting executables.

* Allow publishers to efficiently combine sub-packages from other publishers.

The following potential goals are out of scope under this charter:
* DRM

* A way to distribute the private portions of a website. For example, WPACK might define a way to distribute a messaging application but wouldn't define a way to distribute individual messages without a direct connection to the messaging application's origin server.

* Defining the details of how web browsers load the formats and interact with any protocols we define here, aside from the constraints mentioned above.

* A way to automatically discover the URL for an accessible package that includes specific content.

Note that consensus is required both for changes to the current protocol mechanisms and retention of current mechanisms. In particular, because something is in the initial document set (consisting of draft-yasskin-wpack-use-cases, draft-yasskin-wpack-bundled-exchanges, and draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses) does not imply that there is consensus around the feature or around how it is specified.

Relationship to Other WGs and SDOs

WPACK will work with the W3C and WHATWG to identify the existing security and privacy models for the web, and to ensure those SDOs can define how this format is used by web browsers.