Internet DRAFT - draft-zhu-http-fullduplex
draft-zhu-http-fullduplex
Network Working Group W. Zhu
INTERNET-DRAFT Google, Inc.
Intended Status: Informational M. Jennings
Expires: May 18, 2014 November 14, 2013
Implications of Full-Duplex HTTP
draft-zhu-http-fullduplex-08.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Zhu & Jennings Expires May 18, 2014 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT Implications of Full-Duplex HTTP November 14, 2013
Abstract
Full-duplex HTTP follows the basic HTTP request-response semantics
but also allows the server to send response body to the client at the
same time when the client is transmitting request body to the server.
Requirements for full-duplex HTTP are under-specified in the existing
HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1) specification, and
this memo intends to clarify the requirements of full-duplex HTTP on
top of the basic HTTP protocol semantics.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Streaming in HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Request and Response Streaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Full-Duplex Streaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 Persistent Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4 Time-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5 Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6 Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4 Application Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1 Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Fall Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3 Buffering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4 Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Zhu & Jennings Expires May 18, 2014 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT Implications of Full-Duplex HTTP November 14, 2013
1 Introduction
HTTP [RFC2616] is a stateless, RPC style protocol which requires the
communication between client and server follows a strict request-
response pattern.
HTTP may also be used to stream data from either client or server.
When bi-directional streaming is required, two TCP connections are
often employed to stream client and server data separately. Using two
separate connections not only introduces overhead, but also makes
HTTP insufficient to be used as a standalone protocol, i.e. an
application-level overlay protocol has to be defined to manage the
two simultaneous connections.
However, if the server is allowed to send the response to the client
at the same time that a request is being transmitted from the client
to the server, then effectively full-duplex streaming becomes
possible under the standard HTTP protocol semantics [RFC2616].
Full-duplex streaming requires end-to-end support from both client
and server. More specifically, the client has to explicitly request
for such a capability.
Given the unique properties of full-duplex HTTP, special requirements
exist for both client and server. These requirements need be clearly
identified so that implementations will be able to follow the
expected behaviors in adopting full-duplex HTTP.
Full-duplex HTTP does not concern the underlying transport or session
level protocols, e.g. those developed for SPDY or HTTP/2.0.
We also note that full-duplex HTTP offers a simple but complete wire
protocol alternative to the HTML5 WebSocket API. A related I-D will
be published in near future.
1.1 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2 Streaming in HTTP
2.1 Request and Response Streaming
Request streaming requires the server to deliver to the application
in real-time any streaming data that has been received by the server.
Zhu & Jennings Expires May 18, 2014 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT Implications of Full-Duplex HTTP November 14, 2013
Response streaming requires the server to send to the client in real-
time any streaming data that has been generated by the application.
Chunked transfer-encoding [RFC2616] is expected in either request or
response streaming. However, client or server should not design the
underlying streaming or messaging API based on the chunked transfer-
encoding as transfer-encoding is applied only hop-by-hop.
Most browsers don't yet support chunked requests, although the latest
W3C XHR2 spec added streaming APIs.
2.2 Full-Duplex Streaming
When full-duplex streaming is enabled, request and response are
transmitted between client and server simultaneously over the same
TCP connection.
Full-duplex streaming may be applied to any response that is designed
to concurrently stream request and response data, for example a voice
translator.
Full-duplex streaming should still follow the standard HTTP request-
response semantics and maintain the basic temporal dependency between
the request and response:
1 A server SHOULD NOT generate any response until it has received a
new request. That is, unsolicited server-initiated response is not
allowed.
2 A server SHOULD NOT complete the response prematurely when the
client has not completed the request. That is, a server can only
complete the response after it has received the entire request
body from the client.
3 Protocol Considerations
3.1 Initialization
Full-duplex streaming may be started as soon as the server receives
the first byte of the request body. This behavior is significantly
different from the technique commonly-known as Hanging GET, which
generates a separate GET request for every single piece of data that
is transmitted to the client.
3.2 Termination
A client terminates request streaming by completing the request, i.e.
Zhu & Jennings Expires May 18, 2014 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT Implications of Full-Duplex HTTP November 14, 2013
sending out the last-chunk [RFC2616] of request. The server may
choose to continue streaming the response after it receives the
complete request from the client, as decided by the application.
Eventually the server terminates response streaming by sending out
the last-chunk of response.
Before a server receives the complete request from the client, the
only way for the server to terminate response streaming is to close
the connection. It is considered an illegal state for an HTTP
connection to have a pending request when the response has already
been completed. A client should close the connection immediately if
it receives the last-chunk of response when it is still streaming the
request.
3.3 Persistent Connections
It's important that HTTP keep-alive and pipelining still work with
full-duplex HTTP. The client and server should respect the standard
semantics of HTTP persistent connections [RFC2616].
Request streaming will make the connection unavailable for pipelined
(GET) requests. Also, continued (POST) response streaming after the
request has been completed will prevent any pipelined requests from
being transmitted over the same TCP connection.
3.4 Time-Out
HTTP server or client may time-out connections while waiting for
request or response. Full-duplex HTTP should not override this
behavior. A connection may be closed due to time-out when either
request or response streaming becomes inactive for too long.
Full-duplex HTTP introduces no special requirements on time-out of
the underlying TCP connection. When time-out does happen both request
and response streaming will be terminated.
3.5 Proxies
HTTP proxies may not support concurrent responses, and one of the
purposes of this document is to increase the awareness of full-duplex
HTTP communication in proxies.
Proxies may also buffer streamed requests or responses, or have
problems to handle chunked transfer-encoding for requests.
3.6 Errors
According to RFC2616 [RFC2616], a client should close the connection
Zhu & Jennings Expires May 18, 2014 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT Implications of Full-Duplex HTTP November 14, 2013
if it receives an error response when it is still transmitting the
request. Full-duplex HTTP must respect this requirement.
When a server is incapable of streaming response or decides to time-
out, it should lose the connection. This is also true for the client
when it is streaming request data.
A client or server should stop streaming any new data after it
notices that the underlying TCP connection has been closed by the
other party. In-flight data will be discarded under such a half-close
behavior.
4 Application Considerations
4.1 Compatibility
Full-duplex streaming is completely controlled by the server
application, and should only be enabled for those clients that have
been explicitly identified by the server.
It is not sufficient to enable full-duplex HTTP solely based on the
User-Agent information.
For non-controlled client applications, the client may advise its
capability of full-duplex streaming via URL parameters or headers
(for example, "X-Accept-Streaming: full-duplex;timeout=30").
Otherwise, full-duplex streaming should be disabled, or the server
should return a 404 (Not Found) status if full-duplex streaming is
mandatory for the requested resource.
4.2 Fall Back
Proxies may disallow early responses, or buffer requests or
responses. In such a case, the application may have to switch to an
alternative protocol that either uses two TCP connections or relies
on various polling techniques.
One efficient way to trigger a fall back will be for the client to
wait for initial response data for a short time-out period. Generally
there is no reliable way for a server to distinguish between ill-
behaved clients and non-compatible proxies.
4.3 Buffering
Full-duplex HTTP expects minimized buffering on either client or
server. However, applications may choose to buffer a certain amount
of streaming data for optimization or application-specific purposes.
Zhu & Jennings Expires May 18, 2014 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT Implications of Full-Duplex HTTP November 14, 2013
4.4 Framing
Since chunked transfer-encoding isn't a reliable way to implement
message-level framing, such support needs be implemented at the
application layer. Alternative protocols or client-side APIs such as
WebSocket may be considered if a messaging layer is required although
in most cases application-level protocols are still necessary for
either fallback reasons or end-to-end delivery guarantees.
Zhu & Jennings Expires May 18, 2014 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT Implications of Full-Duplex HTTP November 14, 2013
5 Security Considerations
Full-duplex HTTP introduces no new security concerns beyond those
known with regular HTTP communication.
6 IANA Considerations
This document does not require any actions by the IANA.
7 Acknowledgments
Thanks to Henrik Nordstrom, Jamie Lokier, and Mark Nottingham for
their feedback when the subject of this document was originally
brought up on httpbis.
8 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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, June 1999.
Author's Addresses
Wenbo Zhu
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Phone: +1 650 214 5894
Email: wenboz@google.com
Mike Jennings
Email: mike.c.jennings@gmail.com
Zhu & Jennings Expires May 18, 2014 [Page 8]