Internet DRAFT - draft-nottingham-bikeshed-length
draft-nottingham-bikeshed-length
HTTP M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft March 18, 2020
Intended status: Informational
Expires: September 19, 2020
Advisory Content-Length for HTTP
draft-nottingham-bikeshed-length-00
Abstract
The HTTP Content-Length header field is overloaded with (at least)
two duties: message delimitation in HTTP/1, and metadata about the
length of an incoming request body to the software handling it.
This causes confusion, and sometimes problems. This document
proposes a new header to untangle these semantics (at least
partially).
Note to Readers
_RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_
The issues list for this draft can be found at
https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/bikeshed-length [1].
The most recent (often, unpublished) draft is at
https://mnot.github.io/I-D/bikeshed-length/ [2].
Recent changes are listed at https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-
pages/bikeshed-length [3].
See also the draft's current status in the IETF datatracker, at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-bikeshed-length/
[4].
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
Nottingham Expires September 19, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Advisory Content-Length for HTTP March 2020
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 September 19, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 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
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. The Bikeshed-Length HTTP Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The HTTP Content-Length header field ([RFC7230]) is overloaded with
(at least) two duties: message delimitation in HTTP/1, and metadata
about the length of an incoming request body to the software handling
it.
Message delimitation is a core feature of the protocol; it allows
more than one message to be sent in a given direction on a
connection. It is also security-critical; if it is under attacker
control, it's possible to confuse a recipient about how requests and
responses are associated in HTTP/1.1 (as "smuggling" attacks).
Nottingham Expires September 19, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Advisory Content-Length for HTTP March 2020
As such, it has been treated progressively more strictly in HTTP
specifications. HTTP/1.1 introduced chunked transfer encoding, and
forbade sending Content-Length when it is in use. From [RFC2616]:
Messages MUST NOT include both a Content-Length header field and a
non-identity transfer-coding. If the message does include a non-
identity transfer-coding, the Content-Length MUST be ignored.
If a message is received with both a Transfer-Encoding header
field and a Content-Length header field, the latter MUST be
ignored.
[RFC7230] strengthened that to:
A sender MUST NOT send a Content-Length header field in any
message that contains a Transfer-Encoding header field.
If a message is received with both a Transfer-Encoding and a
Content-Length header field, the Transfer-Encoding overrides the
Content-Length. Such a message might indicate an attempt to
perform request smuggling (Section 9.5) or response splitting
(Section 9.4) and ought to be handled as an error. A sender MUST
remove the received Content-Length field prior to forwarding such
a message downstream.
HTTP/2 ([RFC7540]) does not use Content-Length for message
delimitation, but still requires it to match the number of bytes that
its framing mechanism sends:
A request or response that includes a payload body can include a
content-length header field. A request or response is also
malformed if the value of a content-length header field does not
equal the sum of the DATA frame payload lengths that form the
body.
It further requires such malformed responses to generate a "hard"
error, so that a downstream recipient that implements HTTP/1 can't be
attacked:
Intermediaries that process HTTP requests or responses (i.e., any
intermediary not acting as a tunnel) MUST NOT forward a malformed
request or response. Malformed requests or responses that are
detected MUST be treated as a stream error (Section 5.4.2) of type
PROTOCOL_ERROR.
For malformed requests, a server MAY send an HTTP response prior
to closing or resetting the stream. Clients MUST NOT accept a
malformed response. Note that these requirements are intended to
Nottingham Expires September 19, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Advisory Content-Length for HTTP March 2020
protect against several types of common attacks against HTTP; they
are deliberately strict because being permissive can expose
implementations to these vulnerabilities.
The currently proposed HTTP/3 specification [I-D.ietf-quic-http] has
language similar to that in HTTP/2.
Unfortunately, this makes _other_ uses of Content-Length more
difficult to implement.
In particular, many servers will reject a request without an explicit
Content-Length using 411 (Length Required), because they want to know
how many bytes are being sent before deciding to devote resources to
serving the request. However, depending on the protocol version(s)
between the user agent and the origin server, a Content-Length header
might not make it all the way, or the request might be rejected.
Likewise, some applications would like to use Content-Length to
indicate progress of a large download, but its successful traversal
cannot be relied upon.
While it's questionable whether all of the requirements above
regarding Content-Length are honoured by implementations uniformly,
there is enough diversity in implementation (particularly on the
server side and in intermediaries) to make deployment of these uses
daunting.
Therefore, this specification proposes a new HTTP header field to
carry _advisory_ content length information. It is intended only for
these uses, and _not_ message delimitation.
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. The Bikeshed-Length HTTP Header Field
NOTE: The final name of this header field will be selected using a
to-be-defined process. Warm up your paintbrushes...
The Bikeshed-Length HTTP header field is a HTTP Structured Field
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure] that conveys an advisory content
length for the message body:
Nottingham Expires September 19, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Advisory Content-Length for HTTP March 2020
Bikeshed-Length = sh-item
Its value MUST be an Integer (Section x.x of
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure]), indicating a decimal number of
octets for a potential payload body.
Note that it is specifically a header field; it is not allowed to
occur in trailer sections, and SHOULD be ignored if encountered
there.
2.1. Example
A resource might allow requests with bodies up to a given size. If
an incoming request omits both Content-Length and Bikeshed-Length,
they can respond with 411 (Length Required). If either request
header field is present, and the value given is not acceptable, they
can respond with 413 (Payload Too Large). If Bikeshed-Length is used
and deemed to be acceptable, the resource still ought to monitor the
number of incoming bytes to assure that they do not exceed the
anticipated value.
3. IANA Considerations
TBD
4. Security Considerations
The Value of Bikeshed-Length is advisory only; software that uses it
will need to monitor the actual number of octets received to assure
that it is not exceeded, and take appropriate action if it is.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure]
Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
HTTP", draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-17 (work in
progress), March 2020.
[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>.
Nottingham Expires September 19, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Advisory Content-Length for HTTP March 2020
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[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>.
5.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-quic-http]
Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-27 (work in progress),
February 2020.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.
[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>.
5.3. URIs
[1] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/bikeshed-length
[2] https://mnot.github.io/I-D/bikeshed-length/
[3] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-pages/bikeshed-length
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-bikeshed-
length/
Author's Address
Mark Nottingham
Email: mnot@mnot.net
URI: https://www.mnot.net/
Nottingham Expires September 19, 2020 [Page 6]
