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

Versions: 00

httpbis Working Group                                        A. Frindell
Internet-Draft                                                  Facebook
Intended status: Informational                             June 28, 2019
Expires: December 30, 2019

                        HTTP Partial POST Replay


   This memo introduces a method of exchanging HTTP [RFC7230] messages
   between a web server and a cooperating intermediary - such as a
   reverse proxy load balancer - that enables faster restarts for the
   web server with minimal disruption for users.

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.

Frindell                Expires December 30, 2019               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                  HTTP-PPR                       June 2019

1.  Introduction

   Web servers need to drain traffic periodically for configuration
   changes, software updates and maintenance.  As continuous deployment
   becomes more common, the frequency of such events increases.  When a
   server shuts down, it chooses whether to let all existing requests
   run to completion, or abort some or all in-progress requests.
   Aborted requests lead to poor user experiences including error
   messages or additional latency while the request is resent.  Partial
   POST Replay makes it possible to eliminate this class of errors by
   handing off in-process requests to another server within a

1.1.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "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.  Partial POST Replay

   This section describes the Partial POST Replay mechanism for handing
   off a request with a partially transferred entity body to another
   server instance.

2.1.  Response Message

   When the server begins restarting, it responds to any unprocessed
   requests with incomplete entity bodies with a new 3xx status code
   (TBD).  The HTTP/1.1 status message is Partial POST Replay.  Once
   this status is sent the server MUST NOT process this request other
   than is specified in this document.

   The server MUST have prior knowledge that the intermediary supports
   Partial POST Replay before sending the 3xx response.  If a server
   sends this response to an intermediary that does not understand it,
   the response will likely be forwarded back to the client.

2.1.1.  Response Headers

   Each request header is echoed in the response message with the prefix
   "Echo-".  For example, the "User-Agent: Foo" request header would be
   included in the response as "Echo-User-Agent: Foo".  HTTP/2 [RFC7540]
   and HTTP/3 {{?HTTP3} request pseudo-headers (beginning with ':') are
   echoed in the response message with the prefix "Pseudo-Echo-", and
   with the ':' removed.  For example, ":path: /" is echoed as "pseudo-

Frindell                Expires December 30, 2019               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                  HTTP-PPR                       June 2019

   echo-path: /".  The server MUST NOT insert any Echo- or Pseudo-Echo
   headers in the response if the corresponding header was not present
   in the request.

   Because there might be request body bytes in flight to the server
   when the 3xx response is generated, the length of the response body
   is unknown.  The response SHOULD NOT include a "Content-Length"
   header (but will include a "Echo-Content-Length" header, if the
   request contained "Content-Length").  If the request protocol is
   HTTP/1.1, the server SHOULD use chunked transfer encoding for the

   HTTP/1.1 server SHOULD include a "Connection: close" header in the
   response to prevent the intermediary from reusing the connection for
   a new request.  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 servers SHOULD emit a GOAWAY frame
   on each open connection when shutdown is initiated.

2.2.  Intermediary Processing

   Intermediaries MUST track the number of body bytes forwarded to the
   server for any request that could be replayed by the server.  When an
   intermediary receives a 3xx status code from the server, it stops
   forwarding any new HTTP data from the client to this server.  The
   intermediary does not forward the 3xx response to the client, but
   instead reconstructs the original HTTP request message from headers
   in the response beginning with the "Echo-" or "Pseudo-Echo" prefixes.
   Alternatively, if the intermediary retained a copy of the request it
   MAY use that and discard the response headers.

   The intermediary can choose to buffer the response before selecting a
   new server, or can immediately select a new server and begin
   forwarding the request there.  When the entire replayed request body
   has been sent to the new server, the intermediary can begin
   forwarding new HTTP data from the client to the new server.

   If the intermediary receives more body bytes from the server than it
   forwarded, or if the response is terminated before receiving all
   forwarded bytes, the intermediary MUST fail the request with a 5xx

2.3.  Original Request Termination

   When the intermediary has received in the response body all of the
   request bytes forwarded to the original server, it completes the
   request message to the original server, according to the semantics of
   the transport protocol:

   o  For HTTP/1.0, the intermediary half-closes the connection

Frindell                Expires December 30, 2019               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                  HTTP-PPR                       June 2019

   o  For HTTP/1.1, the intermediary sends the final chunk terminator,
      or half-closes the connection if the request did not use chunked
      transfer encoding.

   o  For HTTP/2, the intermediary sends a DATA frame with the
      END_STREAM flag set on the request stream

   o  For HTTP/3, the intermediary sends a FIN on the request stream

   When the server processes the end of the request, it completes the
   response message according to the semantics of the transport

   Note that some HTTP server implementations treat the termination of
   the request with fewer bytes than specified in the Content-Length
   header as an error.  Because all required information has been
   transferred to the intermediary before this error occurs, the server
   can abort the response and ignore the error without impacting the
   final status of the request.

   It is possible that the entire entity body was sent by the
   intermediary before it received the Partial POST Replay status
   message.  In this case the intermediary will receive the entire
   entity body in the response.

2.4.  Preventing Loops

   To prevent the intermediary from becoming stuck in an infinite
   redirect loop, it SHOULD add a 'Partial-Post-Replay: 1' header
   whenever forwarding to a new server.  An intermediary that receives a
   redirect response with more "Echo-Partial-Post-Replay" headers than
   it supports SHOULD fail original request with a 5xx response.

3.  Existing Solutions

   There are several existing solutions to handling requests while
   draining traffic from a web server, but each has drawbacks that
   Partial POST Replay does not.

3.1.  Drain Timeout

   When servers stop accepting new connections, they often set a timeout
   during which existing requests can continue processing.  At the end
   of the timeout, the server will abort any unfinished requests.
   During this phase, the server is not operating at full capacity, and
   requests that exceed the timeout are still terminated with error.

Frindell                Expires December 30, 2019               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                  HTTP-PPR                       June 2019

3.2.  GOAWAY

   HTTP/2 introduced the GOAWAY frame which a server can use to indicate
   which requests will not be processed, and which can be safely retried
   by the client.  There are two problems with this mechanism.

   First, the server cannot use this mechanism to refuse requests with
   stream IDs lower than the highest stream ID it has already processed.
   For example, if the server has received a partial request on stream
   ID=3, but has already begun processing a request on stream ID=5, it
   cannot send a GOAWAY with a Last-Stream-ID lower than 5.  HTTP/2 does
   not have a status code that indicates an individual request is

   Second, an intermediary cannot seamlessly retry a POST request unless
   it has buffered the entire request body.  Buffering all request
   bodies presents an enormous scalability challenge for intermediaries.

3.3.  State Handover

   Another possible technique is to pass state from a draining web
   server to a new instance.  Such deployments start a new instance to
   handle new work in parallel with the instance that is shutting down.
   This requires that the system have enough resources to run two
   instances of the server simultaneously, for a potentially very long

4.  Security Considerations

   An intermediary must trust the server to echo back the headers and
   body of the original request.  A malicious server could replay a
   different request to the intermediary, who would then send it to
   another server.  The response to this forged request would be
   interpreted as a response to the original request.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

6.  References

6.1.  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,

Frindell                Expires December 30, 2019               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                  HTTP-PPR                       June 2019

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [HTTP3]    Bishop, M., Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
              (HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-latest (work in progress).

   [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,

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,


   This draft evolved from a feature developed at Facebook.  Thanks to
   Mohammad Husain, Woo Xie and David Langevin who worked on the initial
   implementation and deployment of this feature.

Author's Address

   Alan Frindell

   Email: afrind@fb.com

Frindell                Expires December 30, 2019               [Page 6]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/