[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                           R. Trace
Internet-Draft                                                A. Foresti
Expires: September 2, 2012                                    S. Singhal
                                                              O. Mazahir
                                                              H. Nielsen
                                                           G. Montenegro
                                                                Mar 2012

                          HTTP Speed+Mobility


   The design of HTTP--how every application and service on the web
   communicates today--can positively impact user experience,
   operational and environmental costs, and even the battery life of the
   devices you carry around.

   Improving HTTP starts with speed.  Apps--not just browsers--should
   get faster too.  More and more, apps are how people access web
   services, in addition to their browser.  Improving HTTP should also
   make mobile better, particularly to ensure great battery life and low
   network cost on constrained devices.  People and their apps should
   stay in control of network access.  Finally, to achieve rapid
   adoption, HTTP 2.0 needs to retain as much compatibility as possible
   with the existing Web infrastructure.  Done right, HTTP 2.0 can help
   people connect their devices and applications to the Internet fast,
   reliably, and securely over a number of diverse networks, with great
   battery life and low cost.

   This document describes "HTTP Speed+Mobility," a proposal for HTTP
   2.0 that emphasizes performance improvements and security while at
   the same time accounting for the important needs of mobile devices
   and applications.  The proposal starts from both the Google SPDY
   protocol and the work the IETF has done around WebSockets.  The
   proposal is not a final product but rather is intended to form a
   baseline for working group discussion.

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-

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

   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 September 2, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       1.1.1.  Layered Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       1.1.2.  Existing standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       1.1.3.  Network Cost and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       1.1.4.  Flexibility in deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       1.1.5.  Client is in control of content  . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   2.  Technical Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

1.  Introduction

   Over the course of its almost two decades of existence, the HTTP
   protocol has enabled the web to experience phenomenal growth and
   change the world in more ways than its creators might have imagined.
   HTTP's designers got many design principles right, including
   simplicity and robustness.  These charateristics allow billions of
   devices to support and use HTTP in a multitude of communication

   Improving HTTP starts with speed.  Web sites have become complex.  A
   single site could comprise of hundreds of different elements (from
   images to videos to ads to news feeds and so on) that need to get
   retrieved by the client before the page can be fully displayed.
   Users expect all of this to happen securely and instantly across all
   their devices and applications.  In many scenarios, HTTP fails to
   meet these expectations.  Speed improvements need to apply not only
   for browsers but also for apps.  More and more, apps are how people
   access web services, in addition to their browser.

   The core of the speed problem is that HTTP only allows for a
   unidirectional request / response model, and it relies on multiple
   TCP connections for concurrency (pipelining is formally supported by
   the protocol but is seldom implemented in practice).  This leads to a
   variety of issues, such as additional round trips for connection
   setup, slow-start delays, and potentially connection rationing: the
   client may not be able to dedicate too many connections to any single
   server, and the server needs to protect itself from denial-of-service
   attacks.  As a result, users are often disappointed in the perceived
   performance of websites.

   Improving HTTP should also make mobile better.  For example, people
   want their mobile devices to have better battery life.  HTTP 2.0 can
   help decrease the power consumption of network access.  Mobile
   devices also give people a choice of networks with different costs
   and bandwidth limits.  Embedded sensors and clients face similar
   issues.  Mobile considerations require that HTTP be network efficient
   while simultaneously being sensitive to the limited power,
   computation, and connectivity capabilities of the client device.

1.1.  Overview

   This proposal describes a multiplexing solution to enable efficient
   delivery of content across a broad variety of scenarios, including
   mobile apps and devices.  It is intended to serve as a baseline for
   discussion within the HTTPbis working group.

   This HTTP proposal adheres to the following principles:

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

      Maintain the existing HTTP semantics.  In particular, the meaning
      of messages traversing a hybrid (1.1/2.0) request chain must be
      preserved.  Any deviation from this principle would represent an
      extension to HTTP and should be treated as such.

      Be as broadly applicable and flexible as the current protocol.  As
      part of that, it must enable servers and clients to select
      security and compression depending on their own communication

      Work with the current Web infrastructure including switches,
      routers, proxies, load balancers, security systems, DNS servers
      and NATs.

      Account for the needs of modern mobile clients, including power
      efficiency and connectivity through costed networks.

   The proposal's intended outcome is a protocol that can be quickly and
   widely adopted in the industry, and start delivering real value to
   end users without imposing undue burden on hardware and software
   vendors, as well as administrators of legacy equipment.  Implementors
   should also find it easy to understand due to the familiarity of some
   of its key concepts, which are aligned with innovations that were
   adopted in recent HTML5 specifications like WebSockets.

   To achieve these goals, this proposal recommends to optimize HTTP
   without changing its semantics by implementing a session layer
   between TCP and HTTP that will support multiplexing of multiple HTTP
   requests/responses.  The session layer would have the following

      It would maintain the integrity of the layered architecture.

      It would use an upgrade mechanism similar to that of WebSockets.
      This would enable compatibility with existing proxies and
      connection models, without creating a mandatory dependency on TLS.

      [Same as SPDY] The protocol would define two types of frames: data
      and control.

      [Same as SPDY] The session layer would enable negotiation of
      multiple simultaneous streams for HTTP requests with minimal

      [Same as SPDY] The session layer would allow for prioritizing
      delivery of content to ensure highest value traffic is delivered

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

      The session layer would enable future extensions to HTTP 2.0 for
      new scenarios like server push (those extensions would be
      documented separately).

   These properties are described in more detail below.

1.1.1.  Layered Architecture

   HTTP relies on an in-order, reliable transport to ensure delivery of
   application data.  TCP has almost exclusively provided the reliable,
   ordered delivery of HTTP messages from one computer to another since
   its inception.  TCP accounts for adverse network conditions such as
   congestion, or other unpredictable network behavior.  Any HTTP 2.0
   proposal should leverage the reliable transport and not attempt to
   replicate functions generally accepted as addressed by other layers.

   Conversely, any proposals for enhancing functionality typically
   provided by other layers of the networking stack (e.g. congestion
   control provided by the transport layer) should be brought to the
   attention of, and discussed in, proper IETF forums (e.g.  TCPM WG).

   During the charter proposal discussion, the security and applications
   area directors suggested an additional paragraph on security work and
   authentication.  If new work is undertaken in this regard, it should
   be done by existing IETF security groups in this area.

1.1.2.  Existing standards

   HTTP at its core is a simple request-response protocol.  The working
   group has clearly stated that it is a goal to preserve the semantics
   of HTTP.  Thus, we believe that the request-response nature of the
   HTTP protocol must be preserved.  The core HTTP 2.0 protocol should
   focus on optimizing these HTTP semantics, while improving the
   transport via a new session layer.  Additional capabilities that
   introduce new communication models like unrequested responses must be
   treated as an extension to the core protocol, and explored separately
   from the core protocol.

   Additionally, HTTP 2.0 should prefer models that are compatible with
   the existing Internet and, where possible, reuse existing protocol
   mechanisms.  One primary example is in protocol negotiation where the
   WG should avoid a proliferation of methods, and instead consider
   using the HTTP 1.1 Upgrade header as it is used in the WebSocket
   protocol.  This will help HTTP 2.0 to be readily deployed on the
   existing internet, and maintain compatibility with existing web sites
   and client environments (such as some educational networks).

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

1.1.3.  Network Cost and Power

   Any new protocol for transporting HTTP data on the Internet must also
   take into account the types of systems and devices that use HTTP and
   how they are connected to the Internet.  The growth of the Internet
   of the next decade (and longer) will be fueled by mobile apps and
   mobile devices, as well as by the cheap, limited-capability devices
   envisioned by the "Internet of Things."  For all these devices, speed
   is only one design tenet: considerations about battery life,
   bandwidth limitations, processor and memory constraints, and various
   policy mandates will also challenge designers and users.  For
   instance, the user of a device connected over mobile broadband may
   need to minimize the amount of data sent in order to conserve
   bandwidth, minimize power usage and monetary cost of communication.
   Furthermore, transmitting the same amount of data may have radically
   different power implications depending on how the transfer is
   structured: for example, when operating over a mobile broadband
   interface it is more efficient to use a single larger transfer than
   to space out the transmission in multiple smaller transfers.
   Multiple transfers may cause multiple radio transitions between low
   and high powered states, causing additional battery drain.

   In short, the choice among speed, cost, and power is not a simple
   one.  At times, speed may be the most important consideration.  Other
   times, bandwidth cost or battery life may be the deciding factor.
   HTTP 2.0 must allow developers to optimize for the specific
   constraints of their problem space (which might change over time)
   rather than imposing a "one size fits all" solution to a generic
   problem.  For example, a server push extension could be a good
   optimization for many scenarios where content updates to web pages
   revisited over time are infrequent, and where the client has plenty
   of bandwidth as well as the needed processing power to either handle
   the updates instantly, or cache them for later processing.  On the
   other hand, it is not likely to be appropriate in situations where
   content is being transmitted over a costed link.  Neither it will be
   when the client is running several applications that use network
   bandwidth concurrently, and bursty, server-initiated content
   transmissions would interfere with their smooth operation.  Rather
   than forcing developers to choose between using all the features of
   HTTP 2.0 or sticking with HTTP 1.1, it would be better to provide
   mechanisms for developers to fine tune the capabilities of HTTP 2.0
   to a specific set of requirements.

   In summary, the goals of higher speed, lower cost, lower power may
   often be aligned.  For instance, having less data sent on the wire
   will allow pages to load faster, allow the radio to power down sooner
   and consume less bandwidth.  But given the variety of the scenarios
   where HTTP 2.0 will be used, this will not always be the case.  For

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

   example, a device whose battery is about to run out, or whose cache
   is near capacity can provide a better user experience by disabling
   all (or most) server push updates while retaining the other
   optimizations available in HTTP 2.0.  Accordingly, the working group
   should consider power and cost as well as speed in designing
   extensions to HTTP 2.0.

1.1.4.  Flexibility in deployment

   HTTP is used in a vast array of scenarios and a variety of network
   architectures.  There is no "one size fits all" deployment of HTTP.
   For example, at times it may not be optimal to use compression in
   certain environments.  For constrained sensors from the "Internet of
   things" scenario, CPU resources may be at a premium.  Having a high
   performance but flexible HTTP 2.0 solution will enable
   interoperability for a wider variety of scenarios.  There also may be
   aspects of security that are not appropriate for all implementations.
   Encryption must be optional to allow HTTP 2.0 to meet certain
   scenarios and regulations.  HTTP 2.0 is a universal replacement for
   HTTP 1.X, and there are some instances in which imposing TLS is not
   required (or allowed).  For example, a "random thought of the day"
   web service has very little need for it, nor does a sensor spewing
   out a temperature reading every few seconds.

1.1.5.  Client is in control of content

   Because of the variety of clients on the Internet and the number of
   connection scenarios, clients must be able to define what content is
   downloaded.  The app or browser is in the best position to assess
   what the user is currently doing and what data is already locally
   available.  For example, most of the browsers in use today have
   powerful caches that should be leveraged to store web elements that
   change infrequently.  Clients need the ability to inform the server
   about cached elements that do not need to be downloaded.  In
   addition, a particular client may have security and compatibility
   needs with regard to the data being sent.  HTTP 2.0 proposals should
   not force the client to download content that has not been requested
   and may already be cached.  Furthermore, the client must have the
   option to decline unwanted or uneeded content.  Ideally this feedback
   from the client to the server would allow for incremental approval of
   content to enable an efficient "push" extension to deliver the right

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

2.  Technical Details

   To be added within the next few days in version 01.

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

3.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to the following individuals who have also contributed with
   discussions and text: Brian Raymor, Ravi Rao, Dave Thaler, Ivan
   Pashov, Jitu Padhye, Jean Paoli, Michael Champion, NK Srinivas,
   Sharad Agarwal and Rob Mauceri.

   This document incorporates materials from

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

4.  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.

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             HTTP Speed+Mobility                  Mar 2012

Authors' Addresses

   Rob Trace

   Email: Rob.Trace@microsoft.com

   Adalberto Foresti

   Email: aforesti@microsoft.com

   Sandeep Singhal

   Email: Sandeep.Singhal@microsoft.com

   Osama Mazahir

   Email: OsamaM@microsoft.com

   Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

   Email: HenrikN@microsoft.com

   Gabriel Montenegro

   Email: Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com

Trace, et al.           Expires September 2, 2012              [Page 12]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/