draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-03.txt   draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-04.txt 
Network Working Group D. Schinazi MASQUE D. Schinazi
Internet-Draft Google LLC Internet-Draft Google LLC
Intended status: Standards Track 5 January 2021 Intended status: Standards Track 12 July 2021
Expires: 9 July 2021 Expires: 13 January 2022
The CONNECT-UDP HTTP Method The CONNECT-UDP HTTP Method
draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-03 draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-04
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the CONNECT-UDP HTTP method. CONNECT-UDP is This document describes the CONNECT-UDP HTTP method. CONNECT-UDP is
similar to the HTTP CONNECT method, but it uses UDP instead of TCP. similar to the HTTP CONNECT method, but it uses UDP instead of TCP.
Discussion of this work is encouraged to happen on the MASQUE IETF
mailing list masque@ietf.org or on the GitHub repository which
contains the draft: https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-
masque-connect-udp.
Discussion Venues Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the MASQUE WG mailing list
(masque@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp. https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 July 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 January 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Supported HTTP Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Supported HTTP Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The CONNECT-UDP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The CONNECT-UDP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Datagram Encoding of Proxied UDP Packets . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Encoding of Proxied UDP Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Stream Chunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Proxy Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Stream Encoding of Proxied UDP Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Proxy Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Tunneling of ECN Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. HTTP Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. HTTP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. URI Scheme Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.1. HTTP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.2. URI Scheme Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.3. Stream Chunk Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the CONNECT-UDP HTTP method. CONNECT-UDP is This document describes the CONNECT-UDP HTTP method. CONNECT-UDP is
similar to the HTTP CONNECT method (see section 4.3.6 of [RFC7231]), similar to the HTTP CONNECT method (see section 4.3.6 of [RFC7231]),
but it uses UDP [UDP] instead of TCP [TCP]. but it uses UDP [UDP] instead of TCP [TCP].
Discussion of this work is encouraged to happen on the MASQUE IETF
mailing list masque@ietf.org or on the GitHub repository which
contains the draft: https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-
masque-connect-udp.
1.1. Conventions and Definitions 1.1. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
In this document, we use the term "proxy" to refer to the HTTP server In this document, we use the term "proxy" to refer to the HTTP server
that opens the UDP socket and responds to the CONNECT-UDP request. that opens the UDP socket and responds to the CONNECT-UDP request.
If there are HTTP intermediaries (as defined in Section 2.3 of If there are HTTP intermediaries (as defined in Section 2.3 of
[RFC7230]) between the client and the proxy, those are referred to as [RFC7230]) between the client and the proxy, those are referred to as
"intermediaries" in this document. "intermediaries" in this document.
2. Supported HTTP Versions 2. Supported HTTP Versions
The CONNECT-UDP method is defined for all versions of HTTP. When the The CONNECT-UDP method is defined for all versions of HTTP. UDP
HTTP version used runs over QUIC [QUIC], UDP payloads can be sent payloads are sent using HTTP Datagrams [HTTP-DGRAM]. Note that, when
over QUIC DATAGRAM frames [DGRAM]. Otherwise they are sent on the the HTTP version in use does not support multiplexing streams (such
stream where the CONNECT-UDP request was made. Note that, when the as HTTP/1.1), then any reference to "stream" in this document is
HTTP version in use does not support multiplexing streams (such as meant to represent the entire connection.
HTTP/1.1), then any reference to "stream" in this document is meant
to represent the entire connection.
3. The CONNECT-UDP Method 3. The CONNECT-UDP Method
The CONNECT-UDP method requests that the recipient establish a tunnel The CONNECT-UDP method requests that the recipient establish a tunnel
over a single HTTP stream to the destination origin server identified over a single HTTP stream to the destination origin server identified
by the request-target and, if successful, thereafter restrict its by the request-target and, if successful, thereafter restrict its
behavior to blind forwarding of packets, in both directions, until behavior to blind forwarding of packets, in both directions, until
the tunnel is closed. Tunnels are commonly used to create an end-to- the tunnel is closed. Tunnels are commonly used to create an end-to-
end virtual connection, which can then be secured using QUIC or end virtual connection, which can then be secured using QUIC [QUIC]
another protocol running over UDP. or another protocol running over UDP.
The request-target of a CONNECT-UDP request is a URI [RFC3986] which The request-target of a CONNECT-UDP request is a URI [RFC3986] which
uses the "masque" scheme and an immutable path of "/". For example: uses the "masque" scheme and an immutable path of "/". For example:
CONNECT-UDP masque://target.example.com:443/ HTTP/1.1 CONNECT-UDP masque://target.example.com:443/ HTTP/1.1
Host: target.example.com:443 Host: target.example.com:443
When using HTTP/2 [H2] or later, CONNECT-UDP requests use HTTP When using HTTP/2 [H2] or later, CONNECT-UDP requests use HTTP
pseudo-headers with the following requirements: pseudo-headers with the following requirements:
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 12
successful response indicates that the tunnel has not yet been successful response indicates that the tunnel has not yet been
formed. formed.
A proxy MUST NOT send any Transfer-Encoding or Content-Length header A proxy MUST NOT send any Transfer-Encoding or Content-Length header
fields in a 2xx (Successful) response to CONNECT-UDP. A client MUST fields in a 2xx (Successful) response to CONNECT-UDP. A client MUST
treat a response to CONNECT-UDP containing any Content-Length or treat a response to CONNECT-UDP containing any Content-Length or
Transfer-Encoding header fields as malformed. Transfer-Encoding header fields as malformed.
A payload within a CONNECT-UDP request message has no defined A payload within a CONNECT-UDP request message has no defined
semantics; a CONNECT-UDP request with a non-empty payload is semantics; a CONNECT-UDP request with a non-empty payload is
malformed. Note that the CONNECT-UDP stream is used to convey UDP malformed.
packets, but they are not semantically part of the request or
response themselves.
Responses to the CONNECT-UDP method are not cacheable. Responses to the CONNECT-UDP method are not cacheable.
4. Datagram Encoding of Proxied UDP Packets 4. Encoding of Proxied UDP Packets
When the HTTP connection supports HTTP/3 datagrams [H3DGRAM], UDP UDP packets are encoded using HTTP Datagrams [HTTP-DGRAM]. The
packets can be encoded using QUIC DATAGRAM frames. This support is payload of a UDP packet (referred to as "data octets" in [UDP]) is
ascertained by checking the received value of the H3_DATAGRAM sent unmodified in the "HTTP Datagram Payload" field of an HTTP
SETTINGS Parameter. Datagram. In order to use HTTP Datagrams, the CONNECT-UDP client
will first decide whether or not to use HTTP Datagram Contexts and
then register its context ID (or lack thereof) using the
corresponding registration capsule, see [HTTP-DGRAM].
If the client has both sent and received the H3_DATAGRAM SETTINGS Since HTTP Datagrams require prior negotiation (for example, in
Parameter with value 1 on this connection, it SHOULD attempt to use HTTP/3 it is necessary to both send and receive the H3_DATAGRAM
HTTP/3 datagrams. This is accomplished by requesting a datagram flow SETTINGS Parameter), clients MUST NOT send any HTTP Datagrams until
identifier from the flow identifier allocation service [H3DGRAM]. they have established support on a given connection. If negotiation
That service generates an even flow identifier, and the client sends of HTTP Datagrams fails (for example if an HTTP/3 SETTINGS frame was
it to the proxy by using the unnamed element in a "Datagram-Flow-Id" received without the H3_DATAGRAM SETTINGS Parameter), the client MUST
header; see [H3DGRAM]. A CONNECT-UDP request with an odd flow consider its CONNECT-UDP request as failed.
identifier is malformed.
The proxy that is creating the UDP socket to the destination responds The proxy that is creating the UDP socket to the destination responds
to the CONNECT-UDP request with a 2xx (Successful) response, and to the CONNECT-UDP request with a 2xx (Successful) response, and
indicates it supports datagram encoding by sending a "Datagram-Flow- indicates it supports HTTP Datagrams by sending the corresponding
Id" header with the same unnamed element from the "Datagram-Flow-Id" registration capsule.
header it received. Once the client has received the "Datagram-Flow-
Id" header on the successful response, it knows that it can use the
HTTP/3 datagram encoding to send proxied UDP packets for this
particular request. It then encodes the payload of UDP datagrams
into the payload of HTTP/3 datagrams. If the CONNECT-UDP response
does not carry the "Datagram-Flow-Id" header, then the datagram
encoding is not available for this request. A CONNECT-UDP response
that carries the "Datagram-Flow-Id" header but with a different
unnamed flow identifier than the one sent on the request is
malformed.
When the proxy processes a new CONNECT-UDP request, it MUST ensure
that the unnamed datagram flow identifier is not equal to flow
identifiers from other requests: if it is, the proxy MUST reject the
request with a 4xx (Client Error) status code. Extensions MAY weaken
or remove this requirement.
Clients MAY optimistically start sending proxied UDP packets before Clients MAY optimistically start sending proxied UDP packets before
receiving the response to its CONNECT-UDP request, noting however receiving the response to its CONNECT-UDP request, noting however
that those may not be processed by the proxy if it responds to the that those may not be processed by the proxy if it responds to the
CONNECT-UDP request with a failure or without echoing the "Datagram- CONNECT-UDP request with a failure, or if the datagrams arrive before
Flow-Id" header, or if the datagrams arrive before the CONNECT-UDP the CONNECT-UDP request.
request.
Note that a proxy can send the H3_DATAGRAM SETTINGS Parameter with a
value of 1 while disabling datagrams on a particular request by not
echoing the "Datagram-Flow-Id" header. If the proxy does this, it
MUST NOT treat receipt of datagrams as an error, because the client
could have sent them optimistically before receiving the response.
In this scenario, the proxy MUST discard those datagrams.
Extensions to CONNECT-UDP MAY leverage named elements or parameters
in the "Datagram-Flow-Id" header (named elements are defined in
[H3DGRAM] and parameters are defined in Section 3.1.2 of
[STRUCT-HDR]). Proxies MUST NOT echo named elements or parameters on
the "Datagram-Flow-Id" header if they do not understand their
semantics.
5. Stream Chunks
The bidirectional stream that the CONNECT-UDP request was sent on is
a sequence of CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunks, which are defined as a
sequence of type-length-value tuples using the following format
(using the notation from the "Notational Conventions" section of
[QUIC]):
CONNECT-UDP Stream {
CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk (..) ...,
}
Figure 1: CONNECT-UDP Stream Format
CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk {
CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Type (i),
CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Length (i),
CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Value (..),
}
Figure 2: CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Format
CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Type: A variable-length integer indicating
the Type of the CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk. Endpoints that receive
a chunk with an unknown CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Type MUST
silently skip over that chunk.
CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Length: The length of the CONNECT-UDP
Stream Chunk Value field following this field. Note that this
field can have a value of zero.
CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Value: The payload of this chunk. Its
semantics are determined by the value of the CONNECT-UDP Stream
Chunk Type field.
6. Stream Encoding of Proxied UDP Packets
CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunks can be used to convey UDP payloads, by Extensions to CONNECT-UDP MAY leverage the "Context Extensions" field
using a CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Type of UDP_PACKET (value 0x00). of registration capsules in order to negotiate different semantics or
The payload of UDP packets is encoded in its unmodified entirety in encoding for UDP payloads.
the CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk Value field. This is necessary when the
version of HTTP in use does not support QUIC DATAGRAM frames, but MAY
also be used when datagrams are supported. Note that empty UDP
payloads are allowed.
7. Proxy Handling 5. Proxy Handling
Unlike TCP, UDP is connection-less. The proxy that opens the UDP Unlike TCP, UDP is connection-less. The proxy that opens the UDP
socket has no way of knowing whether the destination is reachable. socket has no way of knowing whether the destination is reachable.
Therefore it needs to respond to the CONNECT-UDP request without Therefore it needs to respond to the CONNECT-UDP request without
waiting for a TCP SYN-ACK. waiting for a TCP SYN-ACK.
Proxies can use connected UDP sockets if their operating system Proxies can use connected UDP sockets if their operating system
supports them, as that allows the proxy to rely on the kernel to only supports them, as that allows the proxy to rely on the kernel to only
send it UDP packets that match the correct 5-tuple. If the proxy send it UDP packets that match the correct 5-tuple. If the proxy
uses a non-connected socket, it MUST validate the IP source address uses a non-connected socket, it MUST validate the IP source address
and UDP source port on received packets to ensure they match the and UDP source port on received packets to ensure they match the
client's CONNECT-UDP request. Packets that do not match MUST be client's CONNECT-UDP request. Packets that do not match MUST be
discarded by the proxy. discarded by the proxy.
The lifetime of the socket is tied to the CONNECT-UDP stream. The The lifetime of the socket is tied to the CONNECT-UDP stream. The
proxy MUST keep the socket open while the CONNECT-UDP stream is open. proxy MUST keep the socket open while the CONNECT-UDP stream is open.
Proxies MAY choose to close sockets due to a period of inactivity, Proxies MAY choose to close sockets due to a period of inactivity,
but they MUST close the CONNECT-UDP stream before closing the socket. but they MUST close the CONNECT-UDP stream before closing the socket.
8. HTTP Intermediaries 6. Performance Considerations
HTTP/3 DATAGRAM flow identifiers are specific to a given HTTP/3
connection. However, in some cases, an HTTP request may travel
across multiple HTTP connections if there are HTTP intermediaries
involved; see Section 2.3 of [RFC7230].
Intermediaries that support both CONNECT-UDP and HTTP/3 datagrams
MUST negotiate flow identifiers separately on the client-facing and
server-facing connections. This is accomplished by having the
intermediary parse the unnamed element of the "Datagram-Flow-Id"
header on all CONNECT-UDP requests it receives, and sending the same
unnamed element in the "Datagram-Flow-Id" header on the response.
The intermediary then ascertains whether it can use datagrams on the
server-facing connection. If they are supported (as indicated by the
H3_DATAGRAM SETTINGS parameter), the intermediary uses its own flow
identifier allocation service to allocate a flow identifier for the
server-facing connection, and waits for the server's reply to see if
the server sent the "Datagram-Flow-Id" header on the response. The
intermediary then translates datagrams between the two connections by
using the flow identifier specific to that connection. An
intermediary MAY also choose to use datagrams on only one of the two
connections, and translate between datagrams and streams.
Intermediaries MUST NOT echo nor forward named elements or parameters
on the "Datagram-Flow-Id" header if they do not understand their
semantics. Extensions to CONNECT-UDP that leverage named elements or
parameters in the "Datagram-Flow-Id" header MUST specify how they are
handled by intermediaries.
9. Performance Considerations
Proxies SHOULD strive to avoid increasing burstiness of UDP traffic: Proxies SHOULD strive to avoid increasing burstiness of UDP traffic:
they SHOULD NOT queue packets in order to increase batching. they SHOULD NOT queue packets in order to increase batching.
When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses
congestion control (e.g., [QUIC]), the proxied traffic will incur at congestion control (e.g., [QUIC]), the proxied traffic will incur at
least two nested congestion controllers. This can reduce performance least two nested congestion controllers. This can reduce performance
but the underlying HTTP connection MUST NOT disable congestion but the underlying HTTP connection MUST NOT disable congestion
control unless it has an out-of-band way of knowing with absolute control unless it has an out-of-band way of knowing with absolute
certainty that the inner traffic is congestion-controlled. certainty that the inner traffic is congestion-controlled.
If a client or proxy with a connection containing a CONNECT-UDP
stream disables congestion control, it MUST NOT signal ECN support on
that connection. That is, it MUST mark all IP headers with the Not-
ECT codepoint. It MAY continue to report ECN feedback via ACK_ECN
frames, as the peer may not have disabled congestion control.
When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses loss When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses loss
recovery (e.g., [QUIC]), and the underlying HTTP connection runs over recovery (e.g., [QUIC]), and the underlying HTTP connection runs over
TCP, the proxied traffic will incur at least two nested loss recovery TCP, the proxied traffic will incur at least two nested loss recovery
mechanisms. This can reduce performance as both can sometimes mechanisms. This can reduce performance as both can sometimes
independently retransmit the same data. To avoid this, HTTP/3 independently retransmit the same data. To avoid this, HTTP/3
datagrams SHOULD be used. datagrams SHOULD be used.
10. Security Considerations 6.1. Tunneling of ECN Marks
CONNECT-UDP does not create an IP-in-IP tunnel, so the guidance in
[RFC6040] about transferring ECN marks between inner and outer IP
headers does not apply. There is no inner IP header in CONNECT-UDP
tunnels.
Note that CONNECT-UDP clients do not have the ability in this
specification to control the ECN codepoints on UDP packets the proxy
sends to the server, nor can proxies communicate the markings of each
UDP packet from server to proxy.
A CONNECT-UDP proxy MUST ignore ECN bits in the IP header of UDP
packets received from the server, and MUST set the ECN bits to Not-
ECT on UDP packets it sends to the server. These do not relate to
the ECN markings of packets sent between client and proxy in any way.
7. Security Considerations
There are significant risks in allowing arbitrary clients to There are significant risks in allowing arbitrary clients to
establish a tunnel to arbitrary servers, as that could allow bad establish a tunnel to arbitrary servers, as that could allow bad
actors to send traffic and have it attributed to the proxy. Proxies actors to send traffic and have it attributed to the proxy. Proxies
that support CONNECT-UDP SHOULD restrict its use to authenticated that support CONNECT-UDP SHOULD restrict its use to authenticated
users. users.
Because the CONNECT method creates a TCP connection to the target, Because the CONNECT method creates a TCP connection to the target,
the target has to indicate its willingness to accept TCP connections the target has to indicate its willingness to accept TCP connections
by responding with a TCP SYN-ACK before the proxy can send it by responding with a TCP SYN-ACK before the proxy can send it
application data. UDP doesn't have this property, so a CONNECT-UDP application data. UDP doesn't have this property, so a CONNECT-UDP
proxy could send more data to an unwilling target than a CONNECT proxy could send more data to an unwilling target than a CONNECT
proxy. However, in practice denial of service attacks target open proxy. However, in practice denial of service attacks target open
TCP ports so the TCP SYN-ACK does not offer much protection in real TCP ports so the TCP SYN-ACK does not offer much protection in real
scenarios. Proxies MUST NOT introspect the contents of UDP payloads scenarios. Proxies MUST NOT introspect the contents of UDP payloads
as that would lead to ossification of UDP-based protocols by proxies. as that would lead to ossification of UDP-based protocols by proxies.
11. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
11.1. HTTP Method
8.1. HTTP Method
This document will request IANA to register "CONNECT-UDP" in the HTTP This document will request IANA to register "CONNECT-UDP" in the HTTP
Method Registry (IETF review) maintained at Method Registry (IETF review) maintained at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods>.
+-------------+------+------------+---------------+ +-------------+------+------------+---------------+
| Method Name | Safe | Idempotent | Reference | | Method Name | Safe | Idempotent | Reference |
+-------------+------+------------+---------------+ +-------------+------+------------+---------------+
| CONNECT-UDP | no | no | This document | | CONNECT-UDP | no | no | This document |
+-------------+------+------------+---------------+ +-------------+------+------------+---------------+
11.2. URI Scheme Registration 8.2. URI Scheme Registration
This document will request IANA to register the URI scheme "masque". This document will request IANA to register the URI scheme "masque".
The syntax definition below uses Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) The syntax definition below uses Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
[RFC5234]. The definitions of "host" and "port" are adopted from [RFC5234]. The definitions of "host" and "port" are adopted from
[RFC3986]. The syntax of a MASQUE URI is: [RFC3986]. The syntax of a MASQUE URI is:
masque-URI = "masque:" "//" host ":" port "/" masque-URI = "masque:" "//" host ":" port "/"
The "host" and "port" component MUST NOT be empty, and the "port" The "host" and "port" component MUST NOT be empty, and the "port"
component MUST NOT be 0. component MUST NOT be 0.
11.3. Stream Chunk Type Registration 9. References
This document will request IANA to create a "CONNECT-UDP Stream Chunk
Type" registry. This registry governs a 62-bit space, and follows
the registration policy for QUIC registries as defined in [QUIC]. In
addition to the fields required by the QUIC policy, registrations in
this registry MUST include the following fields:
Type: A short mnemonic for the type.
Description: A brief description of the type semantics, which MAY be
a summary if a specification reference is provided.
The initial contents of this registry are:
+-------+------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| Value | Type | Description | Reference |
+-------+------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| 0x00 | UDP_PACKET | Payload of UDP packet | This document |
+-------+------------+-----------------------+---------------+
Each value of the format "37 * N + 23" for integer values of N (that
is, 23, 60, 97, ...) are reserved; these values MUST NOT be assigned
by IANA and MUST NOT appear in the listing of assigned values.
12. Normative References
[DGRAM] Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable 9.1. Normative References
Datagram Extension to QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-quic-datagram-01, 24 August 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-
datagram-01.txt>.
[H2] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext [H2] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7540>.
[H3DGRAM] Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "Using QUIC Datagrams with [HTTP-DGRAM]
HTTP/3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-schinazi- Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "Using Datagrams with HTTP",
masque-h3-datagram-02, 14 December 2020, Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-h3-
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schinazi- datagram-03, 12 July 2021,
masque-h3-datagram-02.txt>. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-
h3-datagram-03>.
[QUIC] Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed [QUIC] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
and Secure Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
draft-ietf-quic-transport-33, 13 December 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
transport-33.txt>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5234>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7231] "*** BROKEN REFERENCE ***".
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[STRUCT-HDR]
Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
HTTP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
httpbis-header-structure-19, 3 June 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-httpbis-
header-structure-19.txt>.
[TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc793>.
[UDP] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [UDP] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc768>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6040>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
This document is a product of the MASQUE Working Group, and the This document is a product of the MASQUE Working Group, and the
author thanks all MASQUE enthusiasts for their contibutions. This author thanks all MASQUE enthusiasts for their contibutions. This
proposal was inspired directly or indirectly by prior work from many proposal was inspired directly or indirectly by prior work from many
people. In particular, the author would like to thank Eric Rescorla people. In particular, the author would like to thank Eric Rescorla
for suggesting to use an HTTP method to proxy UDP. Thanks to Lucas for suggesting to use an HTTP method to proxy UDP. Thanks to Lucas
Pardue for their inputs on this document. Pardue for their inputs on this document.
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
229 lines changed or deleted 109 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/