--- 1/draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit-01.txt 2022-05-11 18:13:08.805009347 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit-02.txt 2022-05-11 18:13:08.837010154 -0700 @@ -1,23 +1,28 @@ Network Working Group M. Nottingham -Internet-Draft 23 April 2022 +Internet-Draft 11 May 2022 Intended status: Standards Track -Expires: 25 October 2022 +Expires: 12 November 2022 Retrofit Structured Fields for HTTP - draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit-01 + draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit-02 Abstract - This specification defines how a selection of existing HTTP fields - can be handled as Structured Fields. + 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 @@ -34,22 +39,21 @@ 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 25 October 2022. + This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 November 2022. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2022 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 @@ -62,45 +66,45 @@ 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. Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.5. Cookies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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. Header fields that are defined as - Structured Fields can realise a number of benefits, including: + 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 + 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 + representation. * Enhanced API support: a regular data model makes it easier to - expose field values as a native data structure in implementations + 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. @@ -108,25 +112,25 @@ 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. - 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. + 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 @@ -248,42 +252,42 @@ +----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Vary | List | +----------------------------------+-----------------+ | X-Content-Type-Options | Item | +----------------------------------+-----------------+ | X-Frame-Options | Item | +----------------------------------+-----------------+ | X-XSS-Protection | List | +----------------------------------+-----------------+ - Table 1 + Table 1: Compatible Fields Note the following caveats regarding compatibility: Parameter and Dictionary keys: HTTP parameter names are case- insensitive (per Section 5.6.6 of [HTTP]), but Structured Fields require them to be all-lowercase. Although the vast majority of parameters seen in typical traffic are all-lowercase, compatibility can be improved by force-lowercasing parameters when encountered. Likewise, many Dictionary-based fields (e.g., Cache- Control, Expect-CT, Pragma, Prefer, Preference-Applied, Surrogate- Control) have case-insensitive keys, and compatibility can be improved by force-lowercasing them. Parameter delimitation: The parameters rule in HTTP (see Section 5.6.6 of [HTTP]) allows whitespace before the ";" delimiter, but Structured Fields does not. Compatibility can be improved by allowing such whitespace. String quoting: Section 5.6.4 of [HTTP] allows backslash-escaping most characters in quoted strings, whereas Structured Field - Strings only escapes "" and DQUOTE. Compatibility can be improved + Strings only escape "\" and DQUOTE. Compatibility can be improved by unescaping other characters before processing as Strings. 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 parsed as Structured Field Tokens. @@ -309,160 +313,169 @@ 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 is supported; a Retry-After value containing a http-date will need to be either converted into delta-seconds or represented as a raw value. 3. Mapped Fields - Some HTTP fields can have their values represented in Structured - Fields by mapping them into its data types and then serialising the - result using an alternative field name. + 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. - For example, the Date HTTP header field carries a string representing - a date: + For example, the Date HTTP header field carries a date: Date: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT - Its value is more efficiently represented as an integer number of + Its value is more efficiently represented as an Integer number of delta seconds from the Unix epoch (00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970, - minus leap seconds). Thus, the example above would be mapped as: + minus leap seconds). Thus, the example above would be mapped to: SF-Date: 784072177 - As in Section 2, these fields are unable to represent values that are - not parseable, 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. + 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 represented as Structured Fields by - considering the original field's value as a string. + 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 + Table 2: URL Fields - For example, a Location field could be represented as: + For example, a Location field 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 represented as Structured Fields by parsing + 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 an integer number of seconds delta from the Unix Epoch + the result as an Integer number of seconds delta from the Unix Epoch (00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970, minus leap seconds). +=====================+===================+ | Field Name | Mapped Field Name | +=====================+===================+ | Date | SF-Date | +---------------------+-------------------+ | Expires | SF-Expires | +---------------------+-------------------+ | If-Modified-Since | SF-IMS | +---------------------+-------------------+ | If-Unmodified-Since | SF-IUS | +---------------------+-------------------+ | Last-Modified | SF-LM | +---------------------+-------------------+ - Table 3 + Table 3: Date Fields - For example, an Expires field could be represented as: + For example, an Expires field could be mapped as: SF-Expires: 1571965240 3.3. ETags - The field value of the ETag header field can be represented as a - String Structured Field by representing the entity-tag as a string, - and the weakness flag as a boolean "w" parameter on it, where true + 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: SF-ETag: "abcdef"; w=?1 - If-None-Match's field value can be represented as SF-INM, which is a - List of the structure described above. + If-None-Match's field value can be mapped into the SF-INM Structured + Field, which is a List of the structure described above. For example: SF-INM: "abcdef"; w=?1, "ghijkl" 3.4. Links - The field value of the Link header field [RFC8288] can be represented - in the SF-Link List Structured Field by representing the URI- - Reference as a string, and link-param as parameters. + The field value of the Link header field [RFC8288] can be mapped into + the SF-Link List Structured Field by considering the URI-Reference as + a String, and link-param as Parameters. For example: SF-Link: "/terms"; rel="copyright"; anchor="#foo" 3.5. Cookies - The field values of the Cookie and Set-Cookie fields [RFC6265] can be - represented in the SF-Cookie Structured Field (a List) and SF-Set- - Cookie Structured Field (a Dictionary), respectively. + 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 Dictionary), respectively. - In each case, cookie names are serialized as tokens, whereas their - values are serialised as Strings, unless they can be represented - accurately and unambiguously using the textual representation of - another structured types (e.g., an Integer or Decimal). + In each case, cookie names are Tokens. Their values are Strings, + unless they can be represented accurately and unambiguously using the + textual representation of another structured types (e.g., an Integer + or Decimal). - Set-Cookie parameters map to parameters on the appropriate SF-Set- + Set-Cookie parameters map to Parameters on the appropriate SF-Set- Cookie member, with the parameter name being forced to lowercase. Set-Cookie parameter values are Strings unless a specific type is - defined. This specification defines the parameter types in Table 4. + defined for them. This specification defines the parameter types in + Table 4. +================+=================+ | Parameter Name | Structured Type | +================+=================+ + | HttpOnly | Boolean | + +----------------+-----------------+ + | Expires | Integer | + +----------------+-----------------+ | Max-Age | Integer | +----------------+-----------------+ | Secure | Boolean | +----------------+-----------------+ - | HttpOnly | Boolean | - +----------------+-----------------+ | SameSite | Token | +----------------+-----------------+ - Table 4 + Table 4: Set-Cookie Parameter Types - Note that cookies in both fields are separated by commas, not - semicolons, and multiple cookies can appear in each field. + Expires is mapped to an Integer representation of parsed-cookie-date + (see Part x.x of [COOKIES]) expressed as a number of seconds delta + from the Unix Epoch (00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970, minus leap + seconds). + + Note that although this mapping is very similar to the syntax of + Cookie and Set-Cookie headers, cookies in both fields are separated + by commas, not semicolons, and multiple cookies can appear in each + field. For example: - SF-Set-Cookie: lang=en-US; expires="Wed, 09 Jun 2021 10:18:14 GMT"; - samesite=Strict - SF-Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42, lang=en-US + SF-Set-Cookie: lang="en-US"; expires="Wed, 09 Jun 2021 10:18:14 GMT"; + samesite=Strict; secure=?1 + SF-Cookie: SID="31d4d96e407aad42", lang="en-US" 4. IANA Considerations Please add the following note to the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry": The "Structured Type" column indicates the type of the field (per RFC8941), if any, and may be "Dictionary", "List" or "Item". A prefix of "*" indicates that it is a retrofit type (i.e., not natively Structured); see [this specification]. @@ -478,112 +491,114 @@ Then, add the field names in Table 5, with the corresponding Structured Type as indicated, a status of "permanent" and referring to this document. +=====================+=================+ | Field Name | Structured Type | +=====================+=================+ | SF-Content-Location | String | +---------------------+-----------------+ - | SF-Location | String | - +---------------------+-----------------+ - | SF-Referer | String | + | SF-Cookie | List | +---------------------+-----------------+ | SF-Date | Item | +---------------------+-----------------+ + | SF-ETag | Item | + +---------------------+-----------------+ | SF-Expires | Item | +---------------------+-----------------+ | SF-IMS | Item | +---------------------+-----------------+ + | SF-INM | List | + +---------------------+-----------------+ | SF-IUS | Item | +---------------------+-----------------+ - | SF-LM | Item | + | SF-Link | List | +---------------------+-----------------+ - | SF-ETag | Item | + | SF-LM | Item | +---------------------+-----------------+ - | SF-INM | List | + | SF-Location | String | +---------------------+-----------------+ - | SF-Link | List | + | SF-Referer | String | +---------------------+-----------------+ | SF-Set-Cookie | Dictionary | +---------------------+-----------------+ - | SF-Cookie | List | - +---------------------+-----------------+ - Table 5 + Table 5: New Fields - Finally, add the indicated structured type for each existing registry - entry below: + Finally, add the indicated Structured Type for each existing registry + entry listed in Table 6. +==========================================+=================+ | Field Name | Structured Type | +==========================================+=================+ | Accept-CH | List | +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Cache-Status | List | +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ | CDN-Cache-Control | Dictionary | +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ - | Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy | Item | - +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ - | Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy-Report-Only | Item | - +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy | Item | +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy-Report-Only | Item | +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ + | Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy | Item | + +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ + | Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy-Report-Only | Item | + +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Origin-Agent-Cluster | Item | +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Priority | Dictionary | +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Proxy-Status | List | +------------------------------------------+-----------------+ - Table 6 + Table 6: Existing Fields 5. Security Considerations Section 2 identifies existing HTTP fields that can be parsed and serialised with the algorithms defined in [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]. - Variances from other implementations might be exploitable, + 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. 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] Chen, L., Englehardt, S., West, M., and J. Wilander, + "Cookies: HTTP State Management Mechanism", Work in + Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis- + 10, 24 April 2022, . + [HTTP] Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- httpbis-semantics-19, 12 September 2021, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . - [RFC6265] Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011, - . - [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288, DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017, . [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] Nottingham, M. and P-H. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for