Internet DRAFT - draft-davidben-http-client-hint-reliability
draft-davidben-http-client-hint-reliability
HTTP D. Benjamin
Internet-Draft Google LLC
Updates: ietf-httpbis-client-hints (if approved) 1 June 2021
Intended status: Experimental
Expires: 3 December 2021
Client Hint Reliability
draft-davidben-http-client-hint-reliability-03
Abstract
This document defines the Critical-CH HTTP response header, and the
ACCEPT_CH HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 frames to allow HTTP servers to reliably
specify their Client Hint preferences, with minimal performance
overhead.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/davidben/http-client-hint-reliability.
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 https://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 3 December 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Critical-CH Response Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. The ACCEPT_CH Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. HTTP/2 ACCEPT_CH Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. HTTP/3 ACCEPT_CH Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Processing ACCEPT_CH Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Interaction with Critical-CH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
[RFC8942] defines a response header, Accept-CH, for servers to
advertise a set of request headers used for proactive content
negotiation. This allows user agents to send request headers only
when used, improving their performance overhead as well as reducing
passive fingerprinting surface.
However, on the first HTTP request to a server, the user agent will
not have received the Accept-CH header and may not take the server
preferences into account. More generally, the server's configuration
may have changed since the most recent HTTP request to the server.
This document defines a pair of mechanisms to resolve this:
1. an HTTP response header, Critical-CH, for the server to instruct
the user agent to retry the request
2. an alternate delivery mechanism for Accept-CH in HTTP/2 [RFC7540]
and HTTP/3 [I-D.ietf-quic-http], which can avoid the performance
hit of a retry in most cases
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of
[RFC5234].
This document uses the variable-length integer encoding and frame
diagram format from [RFC9000].
3. The Critical-CH Response Header Field
When a user agent requests a resource based on a missing or outdated
Accept-CH value, it may not send a desired request header field.
Neither user agent nor server has enough information to reliably and
efficiently recover from this situation. The server can observe that
the header is missing, but the user agent may not have supported the
header, or may have chosen not to send it. Triggering a new request
in these cases would risk an infinite loop or an unnecessary round-
trip.
Conversely, the user agent can observe that a request header appears
in the Accept-CH (Section 3.1 of [RFC8942]) and Vary (Section 7.1.4
of [RFC7231]) response header fields. However, retrying based on
this information would waste resources if the resource only used the
Client Hint as an optional optimization.
This document introduces critical Client Hints. These are the Client
Hints which meaningfully change the resulting resource. For example,
a server may use the Device-Memory Client Hint [DEVICE-MEMORY] to
select simple and complex variants of a resource to different user
agents. Such a resource should be fetched consistently across page
loads to avoid jarring user-visible switches.
The server specifies critical Client Hints with the Critical-CH
response header field. It is a Structured Header [RFC8941] whose
value MUST be an sf-list (Section 3.1 of [RFC8941]) whose members are
tokens (Section 3.3.4 of [RFC8941]). Its ABNF is:
Critical-CH = sf-list
For example:
Critical-CH: Sec-CH-Example, Sec-CH-Example-2
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
Each token listed in the Critical-CH header SHOULD additionally be
present in the Accept-CH and Vary response headers.
When a user agent receives an HTTP response containing a Critical-CH
header, it first processes the Accept-CH header as described in
Section 3.1 of [RFC8942]. It then performs the following steps:
1. If the request did not use a safe method (Section 4.2.1 of
[RFC7231]), ignore the Critical-CH header and continue processing
the response as usual.
2. If the response was already the result of a retry, ignore the
Critical-CH header and continue processing the response as usual.
3. Determine the Client Hints that would have been sent given the
updated Accept-CH value, incorporating the user agent's local
policy and user preferences. See also Section 2.1 of [RFC8942].
4. Compare this result to the Client Hints which were sent. If any
Client Hint listed in the Critical-CH header was not previously
sent and would now have been sent, retry the request with the new
preferences. Otherwise, continue processing the response as
usual.
Note this procedure does not cause the user agent to send Client
Hints it would not otherwise send.
3.1. Example
For example, if the user agent loads https://example.com with no
knowledge of the server's Accept-CH preferences, it may send the
following response:
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Accept-CH: Sec-CH-Example, Sec-CH-Example-2
Vary: Sec-CH-Example
Critical-CH: Sec-CH-Example
In this example, the server, across the whole origin, uses both Sec-
CH-Example and Sec-CH-Example-2 Client Hints. However, this resource
only uses Sec-CH-Example, which it considers critical.
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
The user agent now processes the Accept-CH header and determines it
would have sent both headers. Sec-CH-Example is listed in Critical-
CH, so the user agent retries the request, and receives a more
specific response.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Sec-CH-Example: 1
Sec-CH-Example-2: 2
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Accept-CH: Sec-CH-Example, Sec-CH-Example-2
Vary: Sec-CH-Example
Critical-CH: Sec-CH-Example
4. The ACCEPT_CH Frame
While Critical-CH header provides reliability, it requires a retry on
some requests. This document additionally introduces the ACCEPT_CH
HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 frames as an optimization so the server's Client
Hint preferences are usually available before the client's first
request.
HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 servers which request Client Hints SHOULD send an
ACCEPT_CH frame as early as possible. Connections using TLS
[RFC8446] which negotiate the Application Layer Protocol Settings
(ALPS) [I-D.vvv-tls-alps] extension SHOULD include the ACCEPT_CH
frame in the ALPS value as described in [I-D.vvv-httpbis-alps]. This
ensures the information is available to the user agent when it makes
the first request.
[[TODO: Alternatively, is it time to revive draft-bishop-httpbis-
extended-settings?]]
4.1. HTTP/2 ACCEPT_CH Frame
The HTTP/2 ACCEPT_CH frame type is TBD (decimal TBD) and contains
zero or more entries, each consisting of a pair of length-delimited
strings:
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
+-------------------------------+
| Origin-Len (16) |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Origin ...
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Value-Len (16) |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Value ...
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
The fields are defined as follows:
Origin-Len: An unsigned, 16-bit integer indicating the length, in
octets, of the Origin field.
Origin: A sequence of characters containing the ASCII serialization
of an origin (Section 6.2 of [RFC6454]) that the sender is
providing an Accept-CH value for.
Value-Len: An unsigned, 16-bit integer indicating the length, in
octets, of the Value field.
Value: A sequence of characters containing the Accept-CH value for
the corresponding origin. This value MUST satisfy the Accept-CH
ABNF defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC8942].
Clients MUST NOT send ACCEPT_CH frames. Servers which receive an
ACCEPT_CH frame MUST respond with a connection error (Section 5.4.1
of [RFC7540]) of type PROTOCOL_ERROR.
ACCEPT_CH frames always apply to a single connection, never a single
stream. The stream identifier in the ACCEPT_CH frame MUST be zero.
The flags field of an ACCEPT_CH field is unused and MUST be zero. If
a user agent receives an ACCEPT_CH frame whose stream identifier or
flags field is non-zero, it MUST respond with a connection error of
type PROTOCOL_ERROR.
4.2. HTTP/3 ACCEPT_CH Frame
The HTTP/3 ACCEPT_CH frame type is TBD (decimal TBD) and contains
zero or more entries, each containing an origin and a corresponding
Accept-CH value.
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
HTTP/3 ACCEPT_CH Entry {
Origin Length (i),
Origin (..)
Value Length (i),
Value (..),
}
HTTP/3 ACCEPT_CH Frame {
Type (i) = TBD,
Length (i),
HTTP/3 ACCEPT_CH Entry (..) ...,
}
The fields of each HTTP/3 ACCEPT_CH Entry are defined as follows:
Origin Length: A variable-length integer containing the length, in
bytes, of the Origin field.
Origin: A sequence of characters containing the ASCII serialization
of an origin (Section 6.2 of [RFC6454]) that the sender is
providing an Accept-CH value for.
Value Length: A variable-length integer containing the length, in
bytes, of the Value field.
Value: A sequence of characters containing the Accept-CH value for
the corresponding origin. This value MUST satisfy the Accept-CH
ABNF defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC8942].
Clients MUST NOT send ACCEPT_CH frames. Servers which receive an
ACCEPT_CH frame MUST respond with a connection error (Section 8 of
[I-D.ietf-quic-http]) of type H3_FRAME_UNEXPECTED.
ACCEPT_CH frames may only be sent on the control stream. Clients
which receive an ACCEPT_CH frame on any other stream MUST respond
with a connection error of type H3_FRAME_UNEXPECTED.
4.3. Processing ACCEPT_CH Frames
The user agent remembers the most recently received ACCEPT_CH frame
for each HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 connection. When it receives a new
ACCEPT_CH frame, either in application data or ALPS, it overwrites
this value. As this is an optimization, the user agent MAY bound the
size and ignore or forget entries to reduce resource usage.
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
When the user agent makes an HTTP request to a particular origin over
an HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 connection, it looks up the origin in the
remembered ACCEPT_CH, if any. If it finds a match, it determines
additional Client Hints to send, incorporating its local policy and
user preferences. See Section 2.1 of [RFC8942].
If there are additional Client Hints, the user agent restarts the
request with updated headers. The connection has already been
established, so this restart does not incur any additional network
latency. Note it may result in a different secondary HTTP cache key
(see Section 4.1 of [RFC7234]) and select a different cached
response. If the new cached response does not need revalidation, it
may not use the connection at all.
User agents MUST NOT process Client Hint preferences in ACCEPT_CH
frames corresponding to origins for which the connection is not
authoritative. Note the procedure above implicitly satisfies this by
deferring processing to after the connection has been chosen for a
corresponding request. Unauthoritative origins and other unmatched
entries are ignored.
[[TODO: Some variations on this behavior we could choose instead:
* Do new ACCEPT_CH frames override the whole set or implement some
kind of update? Overriding the whole set seems simplest and most
consistent with an EXTENDED_SETTINGS variant.
* Should the user agent reject the ACCEPT_CH frame if there are
unexpected origins in there? Deferring avoids needing to worry
about this, and ignoring the unused ones may interact better with
secondary certs.
* Should ACCEPT_CH frames be deferred or just written to the cache
when received? Deferred simplifies reasoning about bad origins,
predictive connections, etc., but means interactions between
ACCEPT_CH and Accept-CH are more complex (see below).
* How should ACCEPT_CH and Accept-CH interact? The document
currently proposes unioning them, which is easy. Accept-CH first
would work, but unnecessarily ignore newer connection-level
ACCEPT_CHs. ACCEPT_CH would not; a stale connection-level
preference would get stuck. Whichever is received earlier would
also work, but requires tracking timestamps if deferred (see
above).]]
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
4.4. Interaction with Critical-CH
The ACCEPT_CH frame avoids a round-trip, so relying on it over
Critical-CH would be preferable. However, this is not always
possible:
* The server may be running older software without support for
ACCEPT_CH or ALPS.
* The server's Accept-CH preferences may change while existing
connections are open. Those connections will have outdated
ACCEPT_CH frames. While the server could send a new frame, it may
not arrive in time for the next request. Moreover, if the HTTP
serving frontend is an intermediary like a CDN, it may not be
proactively notified of origin server changes.
* HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 allow connection reuse across multiple origins
(Section 9.1.1 of [RFC7540] and Section 3.4 of
[I-D.ietf-quic-http]). Some origins may not be listed in the
ACCEPT_CH frame, particularly if the server used a wildcard X.509
certificate.
Thus this document defines both mechanisms. Critical-CH provides
reliable Client Hint delivery, while the ACCEPT_CH frame avoids the
retry in most cases.
5. Security Considerations
Request header fields may expose sensitive information about the
user's environment. Section 4.1 of [RFC8942] discusses some of these
considerations. The document augments the capabilities of Client
Hints, but does not change these considerations. The procedure
described in Section 3 does not result in the user agent sending
request headers it otherwise would not have.
The ACCEPT_CH frame does introduce a new way for HTTP/2 or HTTP/3
connections to make assertions about origins they are not
authoritative for, but the procedure in Section 4.3 defers processing
until after the user agent has decided to use the connection for a
particular request (Section 9.1.1 of [RFC7540] and Section 3.4 of
[I-D.ietf-quic-http]). The user agent will thus only use information
from an ACCEPT_CH frame if it considers the connection authoritative
for the origin.
6. IANA Considerations
This specification adds an entry to the "HTTP/2 Frame Type" registry
[RFC7540] with the following parameters:
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
* Frame Type: ACCEPT_CH
* Code: TBD
* Allowed in ALPS: Yes
* Reference: [[this document]]
This specification adds an entry to the "HTTP/3 Frame Type" registry
[I-D.ietf-quic-http] with the following parameters:
* Frame Type: ACCEPT_CH
* Code: TBD
* Allowed in ALPS: Yes
* Reference: [[this document]]
[[TODO: As of writing, the Frame Type registries do not include
Allowed in ALPS columns, but [I-D.vvv-httpbis-alps] adds them. This
document should be updated as that design evolves.]]
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-quic-http]
Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
quic-http-34, 2 February 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-quic-http-
34.txt>.
[I-D.vvv-httpbis-alps]
Vasiliev, V., "Using TLS Application-Layer Protocol
Settings (ALPS) in HTTP", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-vvv-httpbis-alps-01, 21 January 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-vvv-httpbis-alps-
01.txt>.
[I-D.vvv-tls-alps]
Benjamin, D. and V. Vasiliev, "TLS Application-Layer
Protocol Settings Extension", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-vvv-tls-alps-01, 21 September 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-vvv-tls-alps-
01.txt>.
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC6454] Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6454>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8941] Nottingham, M. and P-H. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8941>.
[RFC8942] Grigorik, I. and Y. Weiss, "HTTP Client Hints", RFC 8942,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8942, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8942>.
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Client Hint Reliability June 2021
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
7.2. Informative References
[DEVICE-MEMORY]
Panicker, S., "Device Memory", n.d.,
<https://w3c.github.io/device-memory/>.
Acknowledgments
This document has benefited from contributions and suggestions from
Ilya Grigorik, Nick Harper, Matt Menke, Aaron Tagliaboschi, Victor
Vasiliev, Yoav Weiss, and others.
Author's Address
David Benjamin
Google LLC
Email: davidben@google.com
Benjamin Expires 3 December 2021 [Page 12]
