Network Working Group M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft May 24, 2022
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 25, 2022
Retrofit Structured Fields for HTTP
draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit-03
Abstract
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
.
Discussion of this document takes place on the HTTP Working Group
mailing list (), which is archived at
. Working Group
information can be found at .
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
.
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
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 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 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. Compatible Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Mapped Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. URLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. ETags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Cookies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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. Fields that are defined as Structured
Fields can realise a number of benefits, including:
o Improved interoperability and security: precisely defined parsing
and serialisation algorithms are typically not available for
fields defined with just ABNF and/or prose.
o Reuse of common implementations: many parsers for other fields are
specific to a single field or a small family of fields.
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
o Canonical form: because a deterministic serialisation algorithm is
defined for each type, Structure Fields have a canonical
representation.
o Enhanced API support: a regular data model makes it easier to
expose field values as a native data structure in implementations.
o 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.
This specification defines how a selection of existing HTTP fields
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.
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
The HTTP fields listed in Table 1 can usually have their values
handled as Structured Fields according to the listed parsing and
serialisation algorithms in [STRUCTURED-FIELDS], subject to the
listed caveats.
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
The listed types are chosen for compatibility with the defined syntax
of the field as well as with actual internet traffic. However, not
all instances of these fields will successfully parse. This might be
because the field value is clearly invalid, or it might be because it
is valid but not parseable as a Structured Field.
An application using this specification will need to consider how to
handle such field values. Depending on its requirements, it might be
advisable to reject such values, treat them as opaque strings, or
attempt to recover a structured value from them in an ad hoc fashion.
+----------------------------------+-----------------+
| Field Name | Structured Type |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+
| Accept | List |
| Accept-Encoding | List |
| Accept-Language | List |
| Accept-Patch | List |
| Accept-Post | List |
| Accept-Ranges | List |
| Access-Control-Allow-Credentials | Item |
| Access-Control-Allow-Headers | List |
| Access-Control-Allow-Methods | List |
| Access-Control-Allow-Origin | Item |
| Access-Control-Expose-Headers | List |
| Access-Control-Max-Age | Item |
| Access-Control-Request-Headers | List |
| Access-Control-Request-Method | Item |
| Age | Item |
| Allow | List |
| ALPN | List |
| Alt-Svc | Dictionary |
| Alt-Used | Item |
| Cache-Control | Dictionary |
| CDN-Loop | List |
| Clear-Site-Data | List |
| Connection | List |
| Content-Encoding | List |
| Content-Language | List |
| Content-Length | List |
| Content-Type | Item |
| Cross-Origin-Resource-Policy | Item |
| Expect | Dictionary |
| Expect-CT | Dictionary |
| Forwarded | Dictionary |
| Host | Item |
| Keep-Alive | Dictionary |
| Max-Forwards | Item |
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
| Origin | Item |
| Pragma | Dictionary |
| Prefer | Dictionary |
| Preference-Applied | Dictionary |
| Retry-After | Item |
| Sec-WebSocket-Extensions | List |
| Sec-WebSocket-Protocol | List |
| Sec-WebSocket-Version | Item |
| Server-Timing | List |
| Surrogate-Control | Dictionary |
| TE | List |
| Timing-Allow-Origin | List |
| Trailer | List |
| Transfer-Encoding | List |
| Vary | List |
| X-Content-Type-Options | Item |
| X-Frame-Options | Item |
| X-XSS-Protection | List |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+
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
parsing. 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 when parsing.
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 when parsing.
String quoting: Section 5.6.4 of [HTTP] allows backslash-escaping
most characters in quoted strings, whereas Structured Field
Strings only escape "\" and DQUOTE. Compatibility can be improved
by unescaping other characters before parsing.
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,
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
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.
Integer limitations: Structured Fields Integers can have at most 15
digits; larger values will not be able to be represented in them.
IPv6 Literals: Fields whose values contain IPv6 literal addresses
(such as CDN-Loop, Host, and Origin) are not able to be
represented as Structured Fields Tokens, because the brackets used
to delimit them are not allowed in Tokens.
Empty Field Values: Empty and whitespace-only field values are
considered errors in Structured Fields. For compatible fields, an
empty field indicates that the field should be silently ignored.
Alt-Svc: Some ALPN tokens (e.g., "h3-Q43") do not conform to key's
syntax, and therefore cannot be represented as a Token. Since the
final version of HTTP/3 uses the "h3" token, this shouldn't be a
long-term issue, although future tokens may again violate this
assumption.
Content-Length: Note that Content-Length is defined as a List
because it is 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 can be
represented; a Retry-After value containing a http-date will need
to be converted into delta-seconds to be conveyed as a Structured
Field Value.
3. Mapped Fields
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 date:
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT
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 to:
SF-Date: 784072177
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
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 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: URL Fields
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 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
(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: Date Fields
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
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 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 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 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 [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 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-
Cookie member, with the parameter name being forced to lowercase.
Set-Cookie parameter values are Strings unless a specific type is
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
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 |
| SameSite | Token |
+----------------+-----------------+
Table 4: Set-Cookie Parameter Types
Expires is mapped to an Integer representation of parsed-cookie-date
(see Section 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; 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].
Note that field names beginning with characters other than ALPHA
or "*" will not be able to be represented as a Structured Fields
Token, and therefore may be incompatible with being mapped into
fields that refer to it; see [this specification].
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
Then, add a new column, "Structured Type", with the values from
Section 2 assigned to the nominated registrations, prefixing each
with "*" to indicate that it is a retrofit type.
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-Cookie | List |
| SF-Date | Item |
| SF-ETag | Item |
| SF-Expires | Item |
| SF-IMS | Item |
| SF-INM | List |
| SF-IUS | Item |
| SF-Link | List |
| SF-LM | Item |
| SF-Location | String |
| SF-Referer | String |
| SF-Set-Cookie | Dictionary |
+---------------------+-----------------+
Table 5: New Fields
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-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: Existing Fields
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
5. Security Considerations
Section 2 identifies existing HTTP fields that can be parsed and
serialised with the algorithms defined in [STRUCTURED-FIELDS].
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", draft-ietf-
httpbis-rfc6265bis-10 (work in progress), April 2022.
[HTTP] Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Semantics", draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 (work in
progress), 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,
.
[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
HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,
.
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Retrofit Structured Fields May 2022
Author's Address
Mark Nottingham
Prahran
Australia
Email: mnot@mnot.net
URI: https://www.mnot.net/
Nottingham Expires November 25, 2022 [Page 12]