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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

HTTP                                                              K. Oku
Internet-Draft                                                    Fastly
Intended status: Standards Track                               L. Pardue
Expires: January 9, 2020                                      Cloudflare
                                                           July 08, 2019


                     The Priority HTTP Header Field
                    draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-00

Abstract

   This document describes the Priority HTTP header field.  This header
   field can be used by endpoints to specify the absolute precedence of
   an HTTP response in an HTTP-version-independent way.

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 9, 2020.

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
   (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.




Oku & Pardue             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       The Priority HTTP Header Field            July 2019


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  The Priority HTTP Header Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  urgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  progressive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Merging Client- and Server-Driven Parameters  . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Coexistence with HTTP/2 Priorities  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  The SETTINGS_HEADER_BASED_PRIORITY SETTINGS Parameter . .   6
   5.  Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Why use an End-to-End Header Field? . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Why are there Only Three Levels of Urgency? . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   It is common for an HTTP ([RFC7230]) resource representation to have
   relationships to one or more other resources.  Clients will often
   discover these relationships while processing a retrieved
   representation, leading to further retrieval requests.  Meanwhile,
   the nature of the relationship determines whether the client is
   blocked from continuing to process locally available resources.  For
   example, visual rendering of an HTML document could be blocked by the
   retrieval of a CSS file that the document refers to.  In contrast,
   inline images do not block rendering and get drawn progressively as
   the chunks of the images arrive.

   To provide meaningful representation of a document at the earliest
   moment, it is important for an HTTP server to prioritize the HTTP
   responses, or the chunks of those HTTP responses, that it sends.

   HTTP/2 ([RFC7540]) provides such a prioritization scheme.  A client
   sends a series of PRIORITY frames to communicate to the server a
   "priority tree"; this represents the client's preferred ordering and
   weighted distribution of the bandwidth among the HTTP responses.
   However, the design has shortcomings:

   o  Its complexity has led to varying levels of support by HTTP/2
      clients and servers.





Oku & Pardue             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       The Priority HTTP Header Field            July 2019


   o  It is hard to coordinate with server-driven prioritization.  For
      example, a server, with knowledge of the document structure, might
      want to prioritize the delivery of images that are critical to
      user experience above other images, but below the CSS files.  But
      with the HTTP/2 prioritization scheme, it is impossible for the
      server to determine how such images should be prioritized against
      other responses that use the client-driven prioritization tree,
      because every client builds the HTTP/2 prioritization tree in a
      different way.

   o  It does not define a method that can be used by a server to
      express the priority of a response.  Without such a method,
      intermediaries cannot coordinate client-driven and server-driven
      priorities.

   o  The design cannot be ported cleanly to HTTP/3
      ([I-D.ietf-quic-http]).  One of the primary goals of HTTP/3 is to
      minimize head-of-line blocking.  Transmitting the evolving
      representation of a "prioritization tree" from the client to the
      server requires head-of-line blocking.

   Based on these observations, this document defines the Priority HTTP
   header field that can be used by both the client and the server to
   specify the precedence of HTTP responses in a standardized,
   extensible, protocol-version- independent, end-to-end format.  This
   header-based prioritization scheme can act as a substitute for the
   HTTP/2 frame-based prioritization scheme (see Section 4).

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].

   The terms sh-token and sh-boolean are imported from
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure].

   Example HTTP requests and responses use the HTTP/2-style formatting
   from [RFC7540].

2.  The Priority HTTP Header Field

   The Priority HTTP header field can appear in requests and responses.
   A client uses it to specify the priority of the response.  A server
   uses it to inform the client that the priority was overwritten.  An
   intermediary can use the Priority information from client requests
   and server responses to correct or amend the precedence to suit it
   (see Section 3).



Oku & Pardue             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       The Priority HTTP Header Field            July 2019


   The value of the Priority header field is a Structured Headers
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure] Dictionary.  Each dictionary
   member represents a parameter of the Priority header field.  This
   document defines the "urgency" and "progressive" parameters.  Values
   of these parameters MUST always be present.  When any of the defined
   parameters are omitted, or if the Priority header field is not used,
   their default values SHOULD be applied.

   Unknown parameters MUST be ignored.

2.1.  urgency

   The "urgency" parameter takes one of the following sh-tokens as the
   value that indicates how an HTTP response affects the usage of other
   responses:

   o  "blocking" indicates that the response prevents other responses
      from being used.

   o  "document" indicates that the response contains the document that
      is being processed.

   o  "non-blocking" indicates that the response does not prevent the
      client from using the document even though the response is being
      used or referred to by the document.

   The default value is "document".

   A server SHOULD transmit HTTP responses in the order of their
   urgency: "blocking" first, followed by "document", followed by "non-
   blocking".

   The following example shows a request for a CSS file with the urgency
   set to "blocking":

   :method = GET
   :scheme = https
   :authority = example.net
   :path = /style.css
   priority = urgency=blocking

2.2.  progressive

   The "progressive" parameter takes an sh-boolean as the value that
   indicates if a response can be processed progressively, i.e. provide
   some meaningful output as chunks of the response arrive.

   The default value of the "progressive" parameter is "0".



Oku & Pardue             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       The Priority HTTP Header Field            July 2019


   A server SHOULD distribute the bandwidth of a connection between
   progressive responses that share the same urgency.

   A server SHOULD transmit non-progressive responses one by one,
   preferably in the order the requests were generated.  Doing so
   maximizes the chance of the client making progress in using the
   composition of the HTTP responses at the earliest moment.

   The following example shows a request for a JPEG file with the
   urgency parameter set to "non-blocking" and the progressive parameter
   set to "1".

   :method = GET
   :scheme = https
   :authority = example.net
   :path = /image.jpg
   priority = urgency=non-blocking, progressive=?1

3.  Merging Client- and Server-Driven Parameters

   It is not always the case that the client has the best view of how
   the HTTP responses should be prioritized.  For example, whether a
   JPEG image should be served progressively by the server depends on
   the structure of that image file - a property only known to the
   server.

   Therefore, a server is permitted to send a "Priority" response header
   field.  When used, the parameters found in this response header field
   override those specified by the client.

   For example, when the client sends an HTTP request with

   :method = GET
   :scheme = https
   :authority = example.net
   :path = /image.jpg
   priority = urgency=non-blocking, progressive=?1

   and the origin responds with

   :status = 200
   content-type = image/jpeg
   priority = progressive=?0

   the intermediary's view of the progressiveness of the response
   becomes negative, because the server-provided value overrides that
   provided by the client.  The urgency is deemed as "non-blocking",
   because the server did not specify the parameter.



Oku & Pardue             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       The Priority HTTP Header Field            July 2019


4.  Coexistence with HTTP/2 Priorities

   Standard HTTP/2 ([RFC7540]) endpoints use frame-based prioritization,
   whereby a client sends priority information in dedicated fields
   present in HEADERS and PRIORITY frames.  A client might instead
   choose to use header-based prioritization as specified in this
   document.

4.1.  The SETTINGS_HEADER_BASED_PRIORITY SETTINGS Parameter

   To improve communication of the client's intended prioritization
   scheme, this document specifies a new HTTP/2 SETTINGS parameter with
   the name "SETTINGS_HEADER_BASED_PRIORITY".  The value of the
   parameter MUST be 0 or 1; the initial value is 0.  Frame-based
   prioritization is respected when the value is 0, or when the server
   does not recognize the setting.

   An HTTP/2 client that uses header-based priority SHOULD send a
   "SETTINGS_HEADER_BASED_PRIORITY" parameter with a value of 1 when
   connecting to a server.

   An intermediary SHOULD send a "SETTINGS_HEADER_BASED_PRIORITY"
   parameter with a value of 1 for a connection it establishes when, and
   only when, all the requests to be sent over that connection originate
   from a client that utilizes this header-based prioritization scheme.
   Otherwise this settings parameter SHOULD be set to 0.

   A client or intermediary MUST NOT send a
   "SETTINGS_HEADER_BASED_PRIORITY" parameter with the value of 0 after
   previously sending a value of 1.

   A server MUST NOT send a "SETTINGS_HEADER_BASED_PRIORITY" parameter.
   Upon receipt, a client that supports header-based prioritization MUST
   close the connection with a protocol error.  Non-supporting clients
   will ignore this extension element (see [RFC7540], Section 5.5).

5.  Considerations

5.1.  Why use an End-to-End Header Field?

   Contrary to the prioritization scheme of HTTP/2 that uses a hop-by-
   hop frame, the Priority header field is defined as end-to-end.

   The rationale is that the Priority header field transmits how each
   response affects the client's processing of those responses, rather
   than how relatively urgent each response is to others.  The way a
   client processes a response is a property associated to that client
   generating that request.  Not that of an intermediary.  Therefore, it



Oku & Pardue             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       The Priority HTTP Header Field            July 2019


   is an end-to-end property.  How these end-to-end properties carried
   by the Priority header field affect the prioritization between the
   responses that share a connection is a hop-by-hop issue.

   Having the Priority header field defined as end-to-end is important
   for caching intermediaries.  Such intermediaries can cache the value
   of the Priority header field along with the response, and utilize the
   value of the cached header field when serving the cached response,
   only because the header field is defined as end-to-end rather than
   hop-by-hop.

   It should also be noted that the use of a header field carrying a
   textual value makes the prioritization scheme extensible; see the
   discussion below.

5.2.  Why are there Only Three Levels of Urgency?

   One of the aims of this specification is to define a mechanism for
   merging client- and server-provided hints for prioritizing the
   responses.  For that to work, each urgency level needs to have a
   well-defined meaning.  As an example, a server can assign the highest
   precedence among the non-blocking responses to an HTTP response
   carrying an icon, because the meaning of "non-blocking" is shared
   among the endpoints.

   This specification restricts itself to defining just three levels of
   urgency, in order to provide sufficient granularity for prioritizing
   responses for ordinary web browsing, at minimal complexity.

   However, that does not mean that the prioritization scheme would
   forever be stuck to the three levels.  The design provides
   extensibility.  If deemed necessary, it would be possible to divide
   any of the three urgency levels into sub-levels by defining a new
   parameter.  As an example, a server could assign an "importance"
   parameter to the priority of each image that it provides, so that an
   intermediary could prioritize certain images above others.  Or, a
   graphical user-agent could send a "visible" parameter to indicate if
   the resource being requested is within the viewport.

   A server can combine the hints provided in the Priority header field
   with other information in order to improve the prioritization of
   responses.  For example, a server that receives requests for a font
   [RFC8081] and images with the same urgency might give higher
   precedence to the font, so that a visual client can render textual
   information at an early moment.






Oku & Pardue             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       The Priority HTTP Header Field            July 2019


6.  Security Considerations

   TBD

7.  IANA Considerations

   This specification registers the following entry in the Permanent
   Message Header Field Names registry established by [RFC3864]:

   Header field name:  Priority

   Applicable protocol:  http

   Status:  standard

   Author/change controller:  IETF

   Specification document(s):  This document

   Related information:  n/a

   This specification registers the following entry in the HTTP/2
   Settings registry established by [RFC7540]:

   Name:  SETTINGS_HEADER_BASED_PRIORITY:

   Code:  0xTBD

   Initial value:  0

   Specification:  This document

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure]
              Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Headers for HTTP",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-10 (work in progress),
              April 2019.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2119>.






Oku & Pardue             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       The Priority HTTP Header Field            July 2019


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

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

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-quic-http]
              Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
              (HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-20 (work in progress),
              April 2019.

   [RFC3864]  Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
              Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc3864>.

   [RFC8081]  Lilley, C., "The "font" Top-Level Media Type", RFC 8081,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8081, February 2017, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc8081>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Robin Marx, Patrick Meenan and Ian Swett for their
   feedback.

Authors' Addresses

   Kazuho Oku
   Fastly

   Email: kazuhooku@gmail.com


   Lucas Pardue
   Cloudflare

   Email: lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com








Oku & Pardue             Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 9]


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