Internet DRAFT - draft-kamp-httpbis-structure
draft-kamp-httpbis-structure
Network Working Group PH. Kamp
Internet-Draft The Varnish Cache Project
Intended status: Informational October 30, 2016
Expires: May 3, 2017
HTTP header common structure
draft-kamp-httpbis-structure-01
Abstract
An abstract data model for HTTP headers, "Common Structure", and a
HTTP/1 serialization of it, generalized from current HTTP headers.
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 http://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 May 3, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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.
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
1. Introduction
The HTTP protocol does not impose any structure or datamodel on the
information in HTTP headers, the HTTP/1 serialization is the
datamodel: An ASCII string without control characters.
HTTP header definitions specify how the string must be formatted and
while families of similar headers exist, it still requires an
uncomfortable large number of bespoke parser and validation routines
to process HTTP traffic correctly.
In order to improve performance HTTP/2 and HPACK uses naive text-
compression, which incidentally decoupled the on-the-wire
serialization from the data model.
During the development of HPACK it became evident that significantly
bigger gains were available if semantic compression could be used,
most notably with timestamps. However, the lack of a common data
structure for HTTP headers would make semantic compression one long
list of special cases.
Parallel to this, various proposals for how to fulfill data-
transportation needs, and to a lesser degree to impose some kind of
order on HTTP headers, at least going forward were floated.
All of these proposals, JSON, CBOR etc. run into the same basic
problem: Their serialization is incompatible with [RFC7230]'s ABNF
definition of 'field-value'.
For binary formats, such as CBOR, a wholesale base64/85
reserialization would be needed, with negative results for both
debugability and bandwidth.
For textual formats, such as JSON, the format must first be neutered
to not violate field-value's ABNF, and then workarounds added to
reintroduce the features just lost, for instance UNICODE strings, and
suddenly it is no longer JSON anymore.
This proposal starts from the other end, and builds and generalizes a
data structure definition from existing HTTP headers, which means
that HTTP/1 serialization and 'field-value' compatibility is built
in.
If all future HTTP headers are defined to fit into this Common
Structure we have at least halted the proliferation of bespoke
parsers and started to pave the road for semantic compression
serializations of HTTP traffic.
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
1.1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
2. Definition of HTTP header Common Structure
The data model of Common Structure is an ordered sequence of named
dictionaries. Please see Appendix A for how this model was derived.
The definition of the data model is on purpose abstract, uncoupled
from any protocol serialization or programming environment
representation, meant as the foundation on which all such
manifestations of the model can be built.
Common Structure in ABNF:
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
import token from RFC7230
import DIGIT from RFC5234
common-structure = 1* ( identifier dictionary )
dictionary = * ( identifier value )
value = identifier /
number /
ascii_string /
unicode_string /
blob /
timestamp /
common-structure
identifier = token [ "/" token ]
number = ["-"] 1*15 DIGIT
# XXX: Not sure how to do this in ABNF:
# XXX: A single "." allowed between any two digits
# The range is limited is to ensure it can be
# correctly represented in IEEE754 64 bit
# binary floating point format.
ascii_string = * %x20-7e
# This is a "safe" string in the sense that it
# contains no control characters or multi-byte
# sequences. If that is not fancy enough, use
# unicode_string.
unicode_string = * unicode_codepoint
# XXX: Is there a place to import this from ?
# Unrestricted unicode, because there is no sane
# way to restrict or otherwise make unicode "safe".
blob = * %0x00-ff
# Intended for cryptographic data and as a general
# escape mechanism for unmet requirements.
timestamp = POSIX time_t with optional millisecond resolution
# XXX: Is there a place to import this from ?
3. HTTP/1 serialization of HTTP header Common Structure
In ABNF:
import OWS from {{RFC7230}}
import HEXDIG, DQUOTE from {{RFC5234}}
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
import UTF8-2, UTF8-3, UTF8-4 from {{RFC3629}}
h1_common-structure-header =
( field-name ":" OWS ">" h1_common_structure "<" )
# Self-identifying HTTP headers
( field-name ":" OWS h1_common_structure ) /
# legacy HTTP headers on white-list, see {{iana}}
h1_common_structure = h1_element * ("," h1_element)
h1_element = identifier * (";" identifier ["=" h1_value])
h1_value = identifier /
number /
h1_ascii_string /
h1_unicode_string /
h1_blob /
h1_timestamp /
h1_common-structure
h1_ascii_string = DQUOTE *(
( "\" DQUOTE ) /
( "\" "\" ) /
0x20-21 /
0x23-5B /
0x5D-7E
) DQUOTE
# This is a proper subset of h1_unicode_string
# NB only allowed backslash escapes are \" and \\
h1_unicode_string = DQUOTE *(
( "\" DQUOTE )
( "\" "\" ) /
( "\" "u" 4*HEXDIG ) /
0x20-21 /
0x23-5B /
0x5D-7E /
UTF8-2 /
UTF8-3 /
UTF8-4
) DQUOTE
# This is UTF8 with HTTP1 unfriendly codepoints
# (00-1f, 7f) neutered with \uXXXX escapes.
h1_blob = "'" base64 "'"
# XXX: where to import base64 from ?
h1_timestamp = number
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
# UNIX/POSIX time_t semantics.
# fractional seconds allowed.
h1_common_structure = ">" h1_common_structure "<"
XXX: Allow OWS in parsers, but not in generators ?
In programming environments which do not define a native
representation or serialization of Common Structure, the HTTP/1
serialization should be used.
4. When to use Common Structure parser
All future standardized and all private HTTP headers using Common
Structure should self identify as such. In the HTTP/1 serialization
by making the first character ">" and the last "<". (These two
characters are deliberately "the wrong way" to not clash with
exsisting usages.)
Legacy HTTP headers which fit into Common Structure, are marked as
such in the IANA Message Header Registry (see {iana}), and a snapshot
of the registry can be used to trigger parsing according to Common
Structure of these headers.
5. Desired normative effects
All new HTTP headers SHOULD use the Common Structure if at all
possible.
6. Open/Outstanding issues to resolve
6.1. Single/multiple headers
Should we allow splitting common structure data over multiple headers
?
Pro:
Avoids size restrictions, easier on-the-fly editing
Contra:
Cannot act on any such header until all headers have been received.
We must define where headers can be split (between identifier and
dictionary ?, in the middle of dictionaries ?)
Most on-the-fly editing is hackish at best.
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
7. Future work
7.1. Redefining existing headers for better performance
The HTTP/1 serializations self-identification mechanism makes it
possible to extend the definition of existing Appendix C headers into
Common Structure.
For instance one could imagine:
Date: >1475061449.201<
Which would be faster to parse and validate than the current
definition of the Date header and more precise too.
Some kind of signal/negotiation mechanism would be required to make
this work in practice.
7.2. Define a validation dictionary
A machine-readable specification of the legal contents of HTTP
headers would go a long way to improve efficiency and security in
HTTP implementations.
8. IANA considerations
The IANA Message Header Registry will be extended with an additional
field named "Common Structure" which can have the values "True",
"False" or "Unknown".
The RFC723x headers listed in Appendix B will get the value "True" in
the new field.
The RFC723x headers listed in Appendix C will get the value "False"
in the new field.
All other existing entries in the registry will be set to "Unknown"
until and if the owner of the entry requests otherwise.
9. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
Appendix A. Does HTTP headers have any common structure ?
Several proposals have been floated in recent years to use some
preexisting structured data serialization or other for HTTP headers,
to impose some sanity.
None of these proposals have gained traction and no obvious candidate
data serializations have been left unexamined.
This effort tries to tackle the question from the other side, by
asking if there is a common structure in existing HTTP headers we can
generalize for this purpose.
A.1. Survey of HTTP header structure
The RFC723x family of HTTP/1 standards control 49 entries in the IANA
Message Header Registry, and they share two common motifs.
The majority of RFC723x HTTP headers are lists. A few of them are
ordered, ('Content-Encoding'), some are unordered ('Connection') and
some are ordered by 'q=%f' weight parameters ('Accept')
In most cases, the list elements are some kind of identifier, usually
derived from ABNF 'token' as defined by [RFC7230].
A subgroup of headers, mostly related to MIME, uses what one could
call a 'qualified token'::
qualified_token = token_or_asterix [ "/" token_or_asterix ]
The second motif is parameterized list elements. The best known is
the "q=0.5" weight parameter, but other parameters exist as well.
Generalizing from these motifs, our candidate "Common Structure" data
model becomes an ordered list of named dictionaries.
In pidgin ABNF, ignoring white-space for the sake of clarity, the
HTTP/1.1 serialization of Common Structure is is something like:
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
token_or_asterix = token from {{RFC7230}}, but also allowing "*"
qualified_token = token_or_asterix [ "/" token_or_asterix ]
field-name, see {{RFC7230}}
Common_Structure_Header = field-name ":" 1#named_dictionary
named_dictionary = qualified_token [ *(";" param) ]
param = token [ "=" value ]
value = we'll get back to this in a moment.
Nineteen out of the RFC723x's 48 headers, almost 40%, can already be
parsed using this definition, and none the rest have requirements
which could not be met by this data model. See Appendix B and
Appendix C for the full survey details.
A.2. Survey of values in HTTP headers
Surveying the datatypes of HTTP headers, standardized as well as
private, the following picture emerges:
A.2.1. Numbers
Integer and floating point are both used. Range and precision is
mostly unspecified in controlling documents.
Scientific notation (9.192631770e9) does not seem to be used
anywhere.
The ranges used seem to be minus several thousand to plus a couple of
billions, the high end almost exclusively being POSIX time_t
timestamps.
A.2.2. Timestamps
RFC723x text format, but POSIX time_t represented as integer or
floating point is not uncommon. ISO8601 have also been spotted.
A.2.3. Strings
The vast majority are pure ASCII strings, with either no escapes, %xx
URL-like escapes or C-style back-slash escapes, possibly with the
addition of \uxxxx UNICODE escapes.
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
Where non-ASCII character sets are used, they are almost always
implicit, rather than explicit. UTF8 and ISO-8859-1[5] seem to be
most common.
A.2.4. Binary blobs
Often used for cryptographic data. Usually in base64 encoding,
sometimes ""-quoted more often not. base85 encoding is also seen,
usually quoted.
A.2.5. Identifiers
Seems to almost always fit in the RFC723x 'token' definition.
A.3. Is this actually a useful thing to generalize ?
The number one wishlist item seems to be UNICODE strings, with a big
side order of not having to write a new parser routine every time
somebody comes up with a new header.
Having a common parser would indeed be a good thing, and having an
underlying data model which makes it possible define a compressed
serialization, rather than rely on serialization to text followed by
text compression (ie: HPACK) seems like a good idea too.
However, when using a datamodel and a parser general enough to
transport useful data, it will have to be followed by a validation
step, which checks that the data also makes sense.
Today validation, such as it is, is often done by the bespoke
parsers.
This then is probably where the next big potential for improvement
lies:
Ideally a machine readable "data dictionary" which makes it possibly
to copy that text out of RFCs, run it through a code generator which
spits out validation code which operates on the output of the common
parser.
But history has been particularly unkind to that idea.
Most attempts studied as part of this effort, have sunk under
complexity caused by reaching for generality, but where scope has
been wisely limited, it seems to be possible.
So file that idea under "future work".
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
Appendix B. RFC723x headers with "common structure"
Accept [RFC7231, Section 5.3.2]
Accept-Charset [RFC7231, Section 5.3.3]
Accept-Encoding [RFC7231, Section 5.3.4][RFC7694, Section 3]
Accept-Language [RFC7231, Section 5.3.5]
Age [RFC7234, Section 5.1]
Allow [RFC7231, Section 7.4.1]
Connection [RFC7230, Section 6.1]
Content-Encoding [RFC7231, Section 3.1.2.2]
Content-Language [RFC7231, Section 3.1.3.2]
Content-Length [RFC7230, Section 3.3.2]
Content-Type [RFC7231, Section 3.1.1.5]
Expect [RFC7231, Section 5.1.1]
Max-Forwards [RFC7231, Section 5.1.2]
MIME-Version [RFC7231, Appendix A.1]
TE [RFC7230, Section 4.3]
Trailer [RFC7230, Section 4.4]
Transfer-Encoding [RFC7230, Section 3.3.1]
Upgrade [RFC7230, Section 6.7]
Vary [RFC7231, Section 7.1.4]
Appendix C. RFC723x headers with "uncommon structure"
1 of the RFC723x headers is only reserved, and therefore have no
structure at all:
Close [RFC7230, Section 8.1]
5 of the RFC723x headers are HTTP dates:
Date [RFC7231, Section 7.1.1.2]
Expires [RFC7234, Section 5.3]
If-Modified-Since [RFC7232, Section 3.3]
If-Unmodified-Since [RFC7232, Section 3.4]
Last-Modified [RFC7232, Section 2.2]
24 of the RFC723x headers use bespoke formats which only a single or
in rare cases two headers share:
Accept-Ranges [RFC7233, Section 2.3]
bytes-unit / other-range-unit
Authorization [RFC7235, Section 4.2]
Proxy-Authorization [RFC7235, Section 4.4]
credentials
Cache-Control [RFC7234, Section 5.2]
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
1#cache-directive
Content-Location [RFC7231, Section 3.1.4.2]
absolute-URI / partial-URI
Content-Range [RFC7233, Section 4.2]
byte-content-range / other-content-range
ETag [RFC7232, Section 2.3]
entity-tag
Forwarded [RFC7239]
1#forwarded-element
From [RFC7231, Section 5.5.1]
mailbox
If-Match [RFC7232, Section 3.1]
If-None-Match [RFC7232, Section 3.2]
"*" / 1#entity-tag
If-Range [RFC7233, Section 3.2]
entity-tag / HTTP-date
Host [RFC7230, Section 5.4]
uri-host [ ":" port ]
Location [RFC7231, Section 7.1.2]
URI-reference
Pragma [RFC7234, Section 5.4]
1#pragma-directive
Range [RFC7233, Section 3.1]
byte-ranges-specifier / other-ranges-specifier
Referer [RFC7231, Section 5.5.2]
absolute-URI / partial-URI
Retry-After [RFC7231, Section 7.1.3]
HTTP-date / delay-seconds
Server [RFC7231, Section 7.4.2]
User-Agent [RFC7231, Section 5.5.3]
product *( RWS ( product / comment ) )
Via [RFC7230, Section 5.7.1]
1#( received-protocol RWS received-by [ RWS comment ] )
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft I-D October 2016
Warning [RFC7234, Section 5.5]
1#warning-value
Proxy-Authenticate [RFC7235, Section 4.3]
WWW-Authenticate [RFC7235, Section 4.1]
1#challenge
Author's Address
Poul-Henning Kamp
The Varnish Cache Project
Email: phk@varnish-cache.org
Kamp Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 13]
