[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

HTTP Working Group                                                K. Oku
Internet-Draft                                                    Fastly
Intended status: Experimental                              July 11, 2017
Expires: January 12, 2018


                An HTTP Status Code for Indicating Hints
                   draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-04

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/ .

   Working Group information can be found at https://httpwg.github.io/ ;
   source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/early-hints .

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 January 12, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Oku                     Expires January 12, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 Early Hints                     July 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.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.1.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03 . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.2.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-02 . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.3.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-01 . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.4.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-00 . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   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 January 12, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 Early Hints                     July 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.

   Typically, a server will include the header fields sent in a 103
   (Early Hints) response in the final response as well.  However, there
   might be cases when this is not desirable, such as when the server
   learns that they are not correct before the final response is sent.

   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 January 12, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 Early Hints                     July 2017


   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: </style.css>; rel=preload; as=style
     Link: </script.js>; 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: </style.css>; rel=preload; as=style
     Link: </script.js>; rel=preload; as=script

     <!doctype html>
     [... rest of the response body is ommitted from the example ...]

   As is the case with any informational response, a server might emit
   more than one 103 (Early Hints) response prior to sending a final
   response.  This can happen for example when a caching intermediary
   generates a 103 (Early Hints) response based on the header fields of
   a stale-cached response, then forwards a 103 (Early Hints) response
   and a final response that were sent from the origin server in
   response to a revalidation request.

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 field ([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 might constitute a cross-origin
   information disclosure vulnerability in case the client multiplexes
   requests to different origins onto a single persistent connection.






Oku                     Expires January 12, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 Early Hints                     July 2017


   Therefore, a server might refrain from sending Early Hints over
   HTTP/1.1 unless 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.

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.  References

5.1.  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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.

5.2.  Informative References

   [Preload]  Grigorik, I., "Preload", n.d., <https://w3c.github.io/
              preload/>.




Oku                     Expires January 12, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 Early Hints                     July 2017


Appendix A.  Changes

A.1.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03

   o  Removed statements that were either redundant or contradictory to
      RFC7230-7234.

   o  Clarified what the server's expected behavior is.

   o  Explain that a server might want to send more than one 103
      response.

   o  Editorial Changes.

A.2.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-02

   o  Editorial changes.

   o  Added an example.

A.3.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-01

   o  Editorial changes.

A.4.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-00

   o  Forbid processing the headers of a 103 response as part of the
      informational response.

Appendix B.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa for coming up with the idea of sending
   the Link header fields using an informational response.

Author's Address

   Kazuho Oku
   Fastly

   Email: kazuhooku@gmail.com











Oku                     Expires January 12, 2018                [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/