HTTP Working Group K. Oku Internet-Draft Fastly Intended status: Experimental June 20, 2017 Expires: December 22, 2017 An HTTP Status Code for Indicating Hints draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03 Abstract This memo introduces an informational HTTP status code that can be used to convey hints that help a client make preparations for processing the final response. Note to Readers Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ [1]. Working Group information can be found at https://httpwg.github.io/ [2]; source code and issues list for this draft can be found at https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/early-hints [3]. 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 December 22, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Oku Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Early Hints June 2017 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. 103 Early Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-02 . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-01 . . . . . . . . . 5 6.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-00 . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Introduction It is common for HTTP responses to contain links to external resources that need to be fetched prior to their use; for example, rendering HTML by a Web browser. Having such links available to the client as early as possible helps to minimize perceived latency. The "preload" ([Preload]) link relation can be used to convey such links in the Link header field of an HTTP response. However, it is not always possible for an origin server to generate the header block of a final response immediately after receiving a request. For example, the origin server might delegate a request to an upstream HTTP server running at a distant location, or the status code might depend on the result of a database query. The dilemma here is that even though it is preferable for an origin server to send some header fields as soon as it receives a request, it cannot do so until the status code and the full header fields of the final HTTP response are determined. Oku Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Early Hints June 2017 HTTP/2 ([RFC7540]) server push can be used as a solution to this issue, but has its own limitations. The responses that can be pushed using HTTP/2 are limited to those belonging to the same origin. Also, it is impossible to send only the links using server push. Finally, sending HTTP responses for every resource is an inefficient way of using bandwidth, especially when a caching server exists as an intermediary. This memo defines a status code for sending an informational response ([RFC7231], Section 6.2) that contains header fields that are likely to be included in the final response. A server can send the informational response containing some of the header fields to help the client start making preparations for processing the final response, and then run time-consuming operations to generate the final response. The informational response can also be used by an origin server to trigger HTTP/2 server push at a caching intermediary. 1.1. Notational Conventions 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 [RFC2119]. 2. 103 Early Hints The 103 (Early Hints) informational status code indicates to the client that the server is likely to send a final response with the header fields included in the informational response. A server MUST NOT include Content-Length, Transfer-Encoding, or any hop-by-hop header fields ([RFC7230], Section 6.1) in a 103 (Early Hints) response. A client can speculatively evaluate the header fields included in a 103 (Early Hints) response while waiting for the final response. For example, a client might recognize a Link header field value containing the relation type "preload" and start fetching the target resource. However, these header fields only provide hints to the client; they do not replace the header fields on the final response. Aside from performance optimizations, such evaluation of the 103 (Early Hints) response's header fields MUST NOT affect how the final response is processed. A client MUST NOT interpret the 103 (Early Hints) response header fields as if they applied to the informational response itself (e.g., as metadata about the 103 (Early Hints) response). Oku Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Early Hints June 2017 An intermediary MAY drop the informational response. It MAY send HTTP/2 ([RFC7540]) server pushes using the information found in the 103 (Early Hints) response. The following example illustrates a typical message exchange that involves a 103 (Early Hints) response. Client request: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Server response: HTTP/1.1 103 Early Hints Link: ; rel=preload; as=style Link: ; rel=preload; as=script HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:02:11 GMT Content-Length: 1234 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Link: ; rel=preload; as=style Link: ; rel=preload; as=script [... rest of the response body is ommitted from the example ...] 3. Security Considerations Some clients might have issues handling 103 (Early Hints), since informational responses are rarely used in reply to requests not including an Expect header ([RFC7231], Section 5.1.1). In particular, an HTTP/1.1 client that mishandles an informational response as a final response is likely to consider all responses to the succeeding requests sent over the same connection to be part of the final response. Such behavior may constitute a cross-origin information disclosure vulnerability in case the client multiplexes requests to different origins onto a single persistent connection. Therefore, a server might refrain from sending Early Hints over HTTP/1.1 unless when the client is known to handle informational responses correctly. HTTP/2 clients are less likely to suffer from incorrect framing since handling of the response header fields does not affect how the end of the response body is determined. Oku Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Early Hints June 2017 4. IANA Considerations The HTTP Status Codes Registry will be updated with the following entry: o Code: 103 o Description: Early Hints o Specification: [this document] 5. Acknowledgements Thanks to Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa for coming up with the idea of sending the Link header fields using an informational response. 6. Changes 6.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-02 o Editorial changes. o Added an example. 6.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-01 o Editorial changes. 6.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-00 o Forbid processing the headers of a 103 response as part of the informational response. 7. References 7.1. 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, . [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, . Oku Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Early Hints June 2017 [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, . [RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, . 7.2. Informative References [Preload] Grigorik, I., "Preload", n.d., . 7.3. URIs [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ [2] https://httpwg.github.io/ [3] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/early-hints Author's Address Kazuho Oku Fastly Email: kazuhooku@gmail.com Oku Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 6]