Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit

draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit







HTTP                                                       M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft                                             31 March 2023
Intended status: Standards Track                                        
Expires: 2 October 2023


                  Retrofit Structured Fields for HTTP
                     draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit-06

Abstract

   This specification nominates a selection of existing HTTP fields as
   having syntax that is compatible with Structured Fields, so that they
   can be handled as such (subject to certain caveats).

   To accommodate some additional fields whose syntax is not compatible,
   it also defines mappings of their semantics into new Structured
   Fields.  It does not specify how to negotiate their use.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the HTTP Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/.  Working Group
   information can be found at https://httpwg.org/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/retrofit.

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."



Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


   This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 October 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 (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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Compatible Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Mapped Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  URLs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  ETags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  Cookies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   Structured Field Values for HTTP [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] introduced a
   data model with associated parsing and serialization algorithms for
   use by new HTTP field values.  Fields that are defined as Structured
   Fields can realise a number of benefits, including:

   *  Improved interoperability and security: precisely defined parsing
      and serialisation algorithms are typically not available for
      fields defined with just ABNF and/or prose.

   *  Reuse of common implementations: many parsers for other fields are
      specific to a single field or a small family of fields.

   *  Canonical form: because a deterministic serialisation algorithm is
      defined for each type, Structure Fields have a canonical
      representation.



Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


   *  Enhanced API support: a regular data model makes it easier to
      expose field values as a native data structure in implementations.

   *  Alternative serialisations: While [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] defines a
      textual serialisation of that data model, other, more efficient
      serialisations of the underlying data model are also possible.

   However, a field needs to be defined as a Structured Field for these
   benefits to be realised.  Many existing fields are not, making up the
   bulk of header and trailer fields seen in HTTP traffic on the
   internet.

   This specification defines how a selection of existing HTTP fields
   can be handled as Structured Fields, so that these benefits can be
   realised -- thereby making them Retrofit Structured Fields.

   It does so using two techniques.  Section 2 lists compatible fields
   -- those that can be handled as if they were Structured Fields due to
   the similarity of their defined syntax to that in Structured Fields.
   Section 3 lists mapped fields -- those whose syntax needs to be
   transformed into an underlying data model which is then mapped into
   that defined by Structured Fields.

   Note that while implementations can parse and serialise compatible
   fields as Structured Fields subject to the caveats in Section 2, a
   sender cannot generate mapped fields from Section 3 and expect them
   to be understood and acted upon by the recipient without prior
   negotiation.  This specification does not define such a mechanism.

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   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.

2.  Compatible Fields

   The HTTP fields listed in Table 1 can usually have their values
   handled as Structured Fields according to the listed parsing and
   serialisation algorithms in [STRUCTURED-FIELDS], subject to the
   listed caveats.








Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


   The listed types are chosen for compatibility with the defined syntax
   of the field as well as with actual internet traffic.  However, not
   all instances of these fields will successfully parse.  This might be
   because the field value is clearly invalid, or it might be because it
   is valid but not parseable as a Structured Field.

   An application using this specification will need to consider how to
   handle such field values.  Depending on its requirements, it might be
   advisable to reject such values, treat them as opaque strings, or
   attempt to recover a structured value from them in an ad hoc fashion.

          +==================================+=================+
          | Field Name                       | Structured Type |
          +==================================+=================+
          | Accept                           | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Accept-Encoding                  | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Accept-Language                  | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Accept-Patch                     | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Accept-Post                      | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Accept-Ranges                    | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Access-Control-Allow-Credentials | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Access-Control-Allow-Headers     | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Access-Control-Allow-Methods     | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Access-Control-Allow-Origin      | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Access-Control-Expose-Headers    | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Access-Control-Max-Age           | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Access-Control-Request-Headers   | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Access-Control-Request-Method    | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Age                              | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Allow                            | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | ALPN                             | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+



Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


          | Alt-Svc                          | Dictionary      |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Alt-Used                         | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Cache-Control                    | Dictionary      |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | CDN-Loop                         | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Clear-Site-Data                  | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Connection                       | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Content-Encoding                 | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Content-Language                 | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Content-Length                   | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Content-Type                     | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Cross-Origin-Resource-Policy     | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | DNT                              | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Expect                           | Dictionary      |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Expect-CT                        | Dictionary      |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Host                             | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Keep-Alive                       | Dictionary      |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Max-Forwards                     | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Origin                           | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Pragma                           | Dictionary      |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Prefer                           | Dictionary      |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Preference-Applied               | Dictionary      |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Retry-After                      | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Sec-WebSocket-Extensions         | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Sec-WebSocket-Protocol           | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+



Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


          | Sec-WebSocket-Version            | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Server-Timing                    | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Surrogate-Control                | Dictionary      |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | TE                               | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Timing-Allow-Origin              | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Trailer                          | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Transfer-Encoding                | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Upgrade-Insecure-Requests        | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | Vary                             | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | X-Content-Type-Options           | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | X-Frame-Options                  | Item            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+
          | X-XSS-Protection                 | List            |
          +----------------------------------+-----------------+

                        Table 1: Compatible Fields

   Note the following caveats regarding compatibility:

   Parsing differences:  Some values may fail to parse as Structured
      Fields, even though they are valid according to their originally
      specified syntax.  For example, HTTP parameter names are case-
      insensitive (per Section 5.6.6 of [HTTP]), but Structured Fields
      require them to be all-lowercase.  Likewise, many Dictionary-based
      fields (e.g., Cache-Control, Expect-CT, Pragma, Prefer,
      Preference-Applied, Surrogate-Control) have case-insensitive keys.
      Similarly, the parameters rule in HTTP (see Section 5.6.6 of
      [HTTP]) allows whitespace before the ";" delimiter, but Structured
      Fields does not.  And, Section 5.6.4 of [HTTP] allows backslash-
      escaping most characters in quoted strings, whereas Structured
      Field Strings only escape "\" and DQUOTE.  The vast majority of
      fields seen in typical traffic do not exhibit these behaviors.

   Error handling:  Parsing algorithms specified (or just widely







Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


      implemented) for current HTTP headers may differ from those in
      Structured Fields in details such as error handling.  For example,
      HTTP specifies that repeated directives in the Cache-Control
      header field have a different precedence than that assigned by a
      Dictionary structured field (which Cache-Control is mapped to).

   Token limitations:  In Structured Fields, tokens are required to
      begin with an alphabetic character or "*", whereas HTTP tokens
      allow a wider range of characters.  This prevents use of mapped
      values that begin with one of these characters.  For example,
      media types, field names, methods, range-units, character and
      transfer codings that begin with a number or special character
      other than "*" might be valid HTTP protocol elements, but will not
      be able to be represented as Structured Field Tokens.

   Integer limitations:  Structured Fields Integers can have at most 15
      digits; larger values will not be able to be represented in them.

   IPv6 Literals:  Fields whose values contain IPv6 literal addresses
      (such as CDN-Loop, Host, and Origin) are not able to be
      represented as Structured Fields Tokens, because the brackets used
      to delimit them are not allowed in Tokens.

   Empty Field Values:  Empty and whitespace-only field values are
      considered errors in Structured Fields.  For compatible fields, an
      empty field indicates that the field should be silently ignored.

   Alt-Svc:  Some ALPN tokens (e.g., h3-Q43) do not conform to key's
      syntax, and therefore cannot be represented as a Token.  Since the
      final version of HTTP/3 uses the h3 token, this shouldn't be a
      long-term issue, although future tokens may again violate this
      assumption.

   Content-Length:  Note that Content-Length is defined as a List
      because it is not uncommon for implementations to mistakenly send
      multiple values.  See Section 8.6 of [HTTP] for handling
      requirements.

   Retry-After:  Only the delta-seconds form of Retry-After can be
      represented; a Retry-After value containing a http-date will need
      to be converted into delta-seconds to be conveyed as a Structured
      Field Value.

3.  Mapped Fields

   Some HTTP field values have syntax that cannot be successfully parsed
   as Structured Fields.  Instead, it is necessary to map them into a
   separate Structured Field with an alternative name.



Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


   For example, the Date HTTP header field carries a date:

   Date: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT

   Its value would be mapped to:

   SF-Date: @784111777

   As in Section 2, these fields are unable to carry values that are not
   valid Structured Fields, and so an application using this
   specification will need to how to support such values.  Typically,
   handling them using the original field name is sufficient.

   Each field name listed below indicates a replacement field name and a
   means of mapping its original value into a Structured Field.

3.1.  URLs

   The field names in Table 2 (paired with their mapped field names)
   have values that can be mapped into Structured Fields by treating the
   original field's value as a String.

                +==================+=====================+
                | Field Name       | Mapped Field Name   |
                +==================+=====================+
                | Content-Location | SF-Content-Location |
                +------------------+---------------------+
                | Location         | SF-Location         |
                +------------------+---------------------+
                | Referer          | SF-Referer          |
                +------------------+---------------------+

                           Table 2: URL Fields

   For example, this Location field

   Location: https://example.com/foo

   could be mapped as:

   SF-Location: "https://example.com/foo"

3.2.  Dates

   The field names in Table 3 (paired with their mapped field names)
   have values that can be mapped into Structured Fields by parsing
   their payload according to Section 5.6.7 of [HTTP] and representing
   the result as a Date.



Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


             +=====================+========================+
             | Field Name          | Mapped Field Name      |
             +=====================+========================+
             | Date                | SF-Date                |
             +---------------------+------------------------+
             | Expires             | SF-Expires             |
             +---------------------+------------------------+
             | If-Modified-Since   | SF-If-Modified-Since   |
             +---------------------+------------------------+
             | If-Unmodified-Since | SF-If-Unmodified-Since |
             +---------------------+------------------------+
             | Last-Modified       | SF-Last-Modified       |
             +---------------------+------------------------+

                           Table 3: Date Fields

   For example, an Expires field could be mapped as:

   SF-Expires: @1659578233

3.3.  ETags

   The field value of the ETag header field can be mapped into the SF-
   ETag Structured Field by representing the entity-tag as a String, and
   the weakness flag as a Boolean "w" parameter on it, where true
   indicates that the entity-tag is weak; if 0 or unset, the entity-tag
   is strong.

   For example, this:

   ETag: W/"abcdef"

   SF-ETag: "abcdef"; w

   If-None-Match's field value can be mapped into the SF-If-None-Match
   Structured Field, which is a List of the structure described above.
   When a field value contains "*", it is represented as a Token.

   Likewise, If-Match's field value can be mapped into the SF-If-Match
   Structured Field in the same manner.

   For example:

   SF-If-None-Match: "abcdef"; w, "ghijkl", *







Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


3.4.  Cookies

   The field values of the Cookie and Set-Cookie fields [COOKIES] can be
   mapped into the SF-Cookie Structured Field (a List) and SF-Set-Cookie
   Structured Field (a List), respectively.

   In each case, a cookie is represented as an Inner List containing two
   Items; the cookie name and value.  The cookie name is always a
   String; the cookie value is a String, unless it can be successfully
   parsed as the textual representation of another, bare Item structured
   type (e.g., Byte Sequence, Decimal, Integer, Token, or Boolean).

   Cookie attributes map to Parameters on the Inner List, with the
   parameter name being forced to lowercase.  Cookie attribute values
   are Strings unless a specific type is defined for them.  This
   specification defines types for existing cookie attributes in
   Table 4.

                   +================+=================+
                   | Parameter Name | Structured Type |
                   +================+=================+
                   | Domain         | String          |
                   +----------------+-----------------+
                   | HttpOnly       | Boolean         |
                   +----------------+-----------------+
                   | Expires        | Date            |
                   +----------------+-----------------+
                   | Max-Age        | Integer         |
                   +----------------+-----------------+
                   | Path           | String          |
                   +----------------+-----------------+
                   | Secure         | Boolean         |
                   +----------------+-----------------+
                   | SameSite       | Token           |
                   +----------------+-----------------+

                   Table 4: Set-Cookie Parameter Types

   The Expires attribute is mapped to a Date representation of parsed-
   cookie-date (see Section 5.1.1 of [COOKIES]).

   For example, these unstructured fields:

   Set-Cookie: lang=en-US; Expires=Wed, 09 Jun 2021 10:18:14 GMT;
                  samesite=Strict; secure
   Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42; lang=en-US

   can be mapped into:



Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


   SF-Set-Cookie: ("lang" "en-US"); expires=@1623233894;
                  samesite=Strict; secure
   SF-Cookie: ("SID" "31d4d96e407aad42"), ("lang" "en-US")

4.  IANA Considerations

   Please add the following note to the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
   (HTTP) Field Name Registry":

      A prefix of "*" in the Structured Type column indicates that it is
      a retrofit type (i.e., not natively Structured); see RFC nnnn.

   Then, add a new column, "Structured Type", with the values from
   Section 2 assigned to the nominated registrations, prefixing each
   with "*" to indicate that it is a retrofit type.

   Then, add the field names in Table 5, with the corresponding
   Structured Type as indicated, a status of "permanent" and referring
   to this document.
































Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


               +========================+=================+
               | Field Name             | Structured Type |
               +========================+=================+
               | SF-Content-Location    | Item            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-Cookie              | List            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-Date                | Item            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-ETag                | Item            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-Expires             | Item            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-If-Match            | List            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-If-Modified-Since   | Item            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-If-None-Match       | List            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-If-Unmodified-Since | Item            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-Last-Modified       | Item            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-Location            | Item            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-Referer             | Item            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+
               | SF-Set-Cookie          | List            |
               +------------------------+-----------------+

                           Table 5: New Fields

   Finally, add a new column to the "Cookie Attribute Registry"
   established by [COOKIES] with the title "Structured Type", using
   information from Table 4.

5.  Security Considerations

   Section 2 identifies existing HTTP fields that can be parsed and
   serialised with the algorithms defined in [STRUCTURED-FIELDS].
   Variances from existing parser behavior might be exploitable,
   particularly if they allow an attacker to target one implementation
   in a chain (e.g., an intermediary).  However, given the considerable
   variance in parsers already deployed, convergence towards a single
   parsing algorithm is likely to have a net security benefit in the
   longer term.





Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         Retrofit Structured Fields             March 2023


   Section 3 defines alternative representations of existing fields.
   Because downstream consumers might interpret the message differently
   based upon whether they recognise the alternative representation,
   implementations are prohibited from generating such fields unless
   they have negotiated support for them with their peer.  This
   specification does not define such a mechanism, but any such
   definition needs to consider the implications of doing so carefully.

6.  Normative References

   [COOKIES]  Bingler, S., West, M., and J. Wilander, "Cookies: HTTP
              State Management Mechanism", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-11, 7 November 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
              rfc6265bis-11>.

   [HTTP]     Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

   [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/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [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/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]
              Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
              HTTP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              httpbis-sfbis-01, 22 December 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
              sfbis-01>.

Author's Address

   Mark Nottingham
   Prahran
   Australia
   Email: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   https://www.mnot.net/







Nottingham               Expires 2 October 2023                [Page 13]