[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                           R. Polli
Internet-Draft                         Team Digitale, Italian Government
Intended status: Standards Track                             A. Martinez
Expires: April 23, 2020                                          Red Hat
                                                        October 21, 2019


                    RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP
                    draft-polli-ratelimit-headers-01

Abstract

   This document defines the RateLimit-Limit, RateLimit-Remaining,
   RateLimit-Reset header fields for HTTP, thus allowing servers to
   publish current request quotas and clients to shape their request
   policy and avoid being throttled out.

Note to Readers

   _RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_

   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/ [1].

   The source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
   https://github.com/ioggstream/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers [2].

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 April 23, 2020.







Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Rate-limiting and quotas  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Current landscape of rate-limiting headers  . . . . . . .   4
       1.2.1.  Interoperability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  This proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.5.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  Expressing rate-limit policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Time window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Request quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Quota policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Header Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  RateLimit-Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  RateLimit-Remaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  RateLimit-Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Providing RateLimit headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Receiving RateLimit headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Unparameterized responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.1.1.  Throttling informations in responses  . . . . . . . .  11
       6.1.2.  Use in conjunction with custom headers  . . . . . . .  11
       6.1.3.  Use for limiting concurrency  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.1.4.  Use in throttled responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Parameterized responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.2.1.  Throttling window specified via parameter . . . . . .  14
       6.2.2.  Dynamic limits with parameterized windows . . . . . .  14
       6.2.3.  Missing Remaining informations  . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.2.4.  Use with multiple windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  Throttling does not prevent clients from issuing requests  17
     7.2.  Information disclosure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17



Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


     7.3.  Remaining quota-units are not granted requests  . . . . .  17
     7.4.  Reliability of RateLimit-Reset  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.5.  Resource exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.6.  Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.1.  RateLimit-Limit Header Field Registration . . . . . . . .  18
     8.2.  RateLimit-Remaining Header Field Registration . . . . . .  19
     8.3.  RateLimit-Reset Header Field Registration . . . . . . . .  19
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     9.3.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix C.  RateLimit headers currently used on the web  . . . .  21
   Appendix D.  FAQ  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   The widespreading of HTTP as a distributed computation protocol
   requires an explicit way of communicating service status and usage
   quotas.

   This was partially addressed with the "Retry-After" header field
   defined in [RFC7231] to be returned in "429 Too Many Requests" or
   "503 Service Unavailable" responses.

   Still, there is not a standard way to communicate service quotas so
   that the client can throttle its requests and prevent 4xx or 5xx
   responses.

1.1.  Rate-limiting and quotas

   Servers use quota mechanisms to avoid systems overload, to ensure an
   equitable distribution of computational resources or to enforce other
   policies - eg. monetization.

   A basic quota mechanism limits the number of acceptable requests in a
   given time window, eg. 10 requests per second.

   When quota is exceeded, servers usually do not serve the request
   replying instead with a "4xx" HTTP status code (eg. 429 or 403) or
   adopt more aggressive policies like dropping connections.

   Quotas may be enforced on different basis (eg. per user, per IP, per
   geographic area, ..) and at different levels.  For example, an user
   may be allowed to issue:



Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   o  10 requests per second;

   o  limited to 60 request per minute;

   o  limited to 1000 request per hour.

   Moreover system metrics, statistics and heuristics can be used to
   implement more complex policies, where the number of acceptable
   request and the time window are computed dynamically.

1.2.  Current landscape of rate-limiting headers

   To help clients throttling their requests, servers may expose the
   counters used to evaluate quota policies via HTTP header fields.

   Those response headers may be added by HTTP intermediaries such as
   API gateways and reverse proxies.

   On the web we can find many different rate-limit headers, usually
   containing the number of allowed requests in a given time window, and
   when the window is reset.

   The common choice is to return three headers containing:

   o  the maximum number of allowed requests in the time window;

   o  the number of remaining requests in the current window;

   o  the time remaining in the current window expressed in seconds or
      as a timestamp;

1.2.1.  Interoperability issues

   A major interoperability issue in throttling is the lack of standard
   headers, because:

   o  each implementation associates different semantics to the same
      header field names;

   o  header field names proliferates.

   Client applications interfacing with different servers may thus need
   to process different headers, or the very same application interface
   that sits behind different reverse proxies may reply with different
   throttling headers.






Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


1.3.  This proposal

   This proposal defines syntax and semantics for the following header
   fields:

   o  "RateLimit-Limit": containing the requests quota in the time
      window;

   o  "RateLimit-Remaining": containing the remaining requests quota in
      the current window;

   o  "RateLimit-Reset": containing the time remaining in the current
      window, specified in seconds.

   The behavior of "RateLimit-Reset" is compatible with the "delta-
   seconds" notation of "Retry-After".

   The header fields definition allows to describe complex policies,
   including the ones using multiple and variable time windows and
   dynamic quotas, or implementing concurrency limits.

1.4.  Goals

   The goals of this proposal are:

   1.  Standardizing the names and semantic of rate-limit headers;

   2.  Improve resiliency of HTTP infrastructures simplifying the
       enforcement and the adoption of rate-limit headers;

   3.  Simplify API documentation avoiding expliciting rate-limit header
       fields semantic in documentation.

   The goals do not include:

   Authorization:  The rate-limit headers described here are not meant
      to support authorization or other kinds of access controls.

   Throttling scope:  This specification does not cover the throttling
      scope, that may be the given resource-target, its parent path or
      the whole Origin [RFC6454] section 7.

   Response status code:  The rate-limit headers may be returned in both
      Successful and non Successful responses.  This specification does
      not cover whether non Successful responses count on quota usage.






Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   Throttling policy:  This specification does not mandate a specific
      throttling policy.  The values published in the headers, including
      the window size, can be statically or dynamically evaluated.

   Service Level Agreement:  Conveyed quota hints do not imply any
      service guarantee.  Server is free to throttle respectful clients
      under certain circumstances.

1.5.  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] and [RFC8174]) when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   This document uses the Augmented BNF defined in [RFC5234] and updated
   by [RFC7405] along with the "#rule" extension defined in Section 7 of
   [RFC7230].

   The term Origin is to be interpreted as described in [RFC6454]
   section 7.

   The "delta-seconds" rule is defined in [RFC7234] section 1.2.1.

2.  Expressing rate-limit policies

2.1.  Time window

   Rate limit policies limit the number of acceptable requests in a
   given time window.

   A time window is expressed in seconds, using the following syntax:

   time-window = delta-seconds

   Subsecond precision is not supported.

2.2.  Request quota

   The request-quota is a value associated to the maximum number of
   requests that the server is willing to accept from one or more
   clients on a given basis (originating IP, authenticated user,
   geographical, ..) during a "time-window" as defined in Section 2.1.

   The "request-quota" is expressed in "quota-units" and has the
   following syntax:




Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


      request-quota = quota-units
      quota-units = 1*DIGIT

   The "request-quota" SHOULD match the maximum number of acceptable
   requests.

   The "request-quota" MAY differ from the total number of acceptable
   requests when weight mechanisms, bursts, or other server policies are
   implemented.

   If the "request-quota" does not match the maximum number of
   acceptable requests the relation with that SHOULD be communicated
   out-of-band.

   Example: A server could

   o  count once requests like "/books/{id}"

   o  count twice search requests like "/books?author=Camilleri"

   so that we have the following counters

GET /books/123                  ; request-quota=4, remaining: 3, status=200
GET /books?author=Camilleri     ; request-quota=4, remaining: 1, status=200
GET /books?author=Eco           ; request-quota=4, remaining: 0, status=429

2.3.  Quota policy

   This specification allows describing a quota policy with the
   following syntax:

      quota-policy = request-quota; "w" "=" time-window
                     *( OWS ";" OWS quota-comment)
      quota-comment = token "=" (token / quoted-string)

   An example policy of 100 quota-units per minute.

      100;w=60

   Two examples of providing further details via custom parameters in
   "quota-comments".

      100;w=60;comment="fixed window"
      12;w=1;burst=1000;policy="leaky bucket"







Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


3.  Header Specifications

   The following "RateLimit" response header fields are defined

3.1.  RateLimit-Limit

   The "RateLimit-Limit" response header field indicates the "request-
   quota" associated to the client in the current "time-window".

   If the client exceeds that limit, it MAY not be served.

   The header value is

      RateLimit-Limit = expiring-limit [, 1#quota-policy ]
      expiring-limit = request-quota

   The "expiring-limit" value MUST be set to the "request-quota" that is
   closer to reach its limit.

   The "quota-policy" is defined in Section 2.3, and its values are
   informative.

      RateLimit-Limit: 100

   A "time-window" associated to "expiring-limit" can be communicated
   via an optional "quota-policy" value, like shown in the following
   example

      RateLimit-Limit: 100, 100;w=10

   If the "expiring-limit" is not associated to a "time-window", the
   "time-window" MUST either be:

   o  inferred by the value of "RateLimit-Reset" at the moment of the
      reset, or

   o  communicated out-of-band (eg. in the documentation).

   Policies using multiple quota limits MAY be returned using multiple
   "quota-policy" items, like shown in the following two examples:

      RateLimit-Limit: 10, 10;w=1, 50;w=60, 1000;w=3600, 5000;w=86400
      RateLimit-Limit: 10, 10;w=1;burst=1000, 1000;w=3600








Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


3.2.  RateLimit-Remaining

   The "RateLimit-Remaining" response header field indicates the
   remaining "quota-units" defined in Section 2.2 associated to the
   client.

   The header value is

      RateLimit-Remaining = quota-units

   Clients MUST NOT assume that a positive "RateLimit-Remaining" value
   is a guarantee of being served.

   A low "RateLimit-Remaining" value is like a yellow traffic-light: the
   red light may arrive suddenly.

   One example of "RateLimit-Remaining" use is below.

      RateLimit-Remaining: 50

3.3.  RateLimit-Reset

   The "RateLimit-Reset" response header field indicates either

   o  the number of seconds until the quota resets.

   The header value is

      RateLimit-Reset = delta-seconds

   The delta-seconds format is used because:

   o  it does not rely on clock synchronization and is resilient to
      clock adjustment and clock skew between client and server (see
      [RFC7231] Section 4.1.1.1);

   o  it mitigates the risk related to thundering herd when too many
      clients are serviced with the same timestamp.

   An example of "RateLimit-Reset" use is below.

      RateLimit-Reset: 50

   The client MUST NOT assume that all its "request-quota" will be
   restored after the moment referenced by "RateLimit-Reset".  The
   server MAY arbitrarily alter the "RateLimit-Reset" value between
   subsequent requests eg. in case of resource saturation or to
   implement sliding window policies.



Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


4.  Providing RateLimit headers

   A server MAY use one or more "RateLimit" response header fields
   defined in this document to communicate its quota policies.

   The returned values refers to the metrics used to evaluate if the
   current request respects the quota policy and MAY not apply to
   subsequent requests.

   Example: a successful response with the following header fields

      RateLimit-Limit: 10
      RateLimit-Remaining: 1
      RateLimit-Reset: 7

   does not guarantee that the next request will be successful.  Server
   metrics may be subject to other conditions like the one shown in the
   example from Section 2.2.

   A server MAY return "RateLimit" response header fields independently
   of the response status code.  This includes throttled responses.

   If a response contains both the "Retry-After" and the "RateLimit-
   Reset" header fields, the value of "RateLimit-Reset" MUST be
   consistent with the one of "Retry-After".

   When using a policy involving more than one "time-window", the server
   MUST reply with the "RateLimit" headers related to the window with
   the lower "RateLimit-Remaining" values.

   Under certain conditions, a server MAY artificially lower "RateLimit"
   field values between subsequent requests, eg. to respond to Denial of
   Service attacks or in case of resource saturation.

5.  Receiving RateLimit headers

   A client MUST process the received "RateLimit" headers.

   A client MUST validate the values received in the "RateLimit" headers
   before using them and check if there are significant discrepancies
   with the expected ones.  This includes a "RateLimit-Reset" moment too
   far in the future or a "request-quota" too high.

   Malformed "RateLimit" headers MAY be ignored.

   A client SHOULD NOT exceed the "quota-units" expressed in "RateLimit-
   Remaining" before the "time-window" expressed in "RateLimit-Reset".




Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   A client MAY still probe the server if the "RateLimit-Reset" is
   considered too high.

   The value of "RateLimit-Reset" is generated at response time: a
   client aware of a significant network latency MAY behave accordingly
   and use other informations (eg. the "Date" response header, or
   otherwise gathered metrics) to better estimate the "RateLimit-Reset"
   moment intended by the server.

   The "quota-policy" values and comments provided in "RateLimit-Limit"
   are informative and MAY be ignored.

   If a response contains both the "RateLimit-Reset" and "Retry-After"
   header fields, the "Retry-After" header field MUST take precedence
   and the "RateLimit-Reset" header field MAY be ignored.

6.  Examples

6.1.  Unparameterized responses

6.1.1.  Throttling informations in responses

   The client exhausted its request-quota for the next 50 seconds.  The
   "time-window" is communicated out-of-band or inferred by the header
   values.

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit-Limit: 100
   Ratelimit-Remaining: 0
   Ratelimit-Reset: 50

   {"hello": "world"}

6.1.2.  Use in conjunction with custom headers

   The server uses two custom headers, namely "acme-RateLimit-DayLimit"
   and "acme-RateLimit-HourLimit" to expose the following policy:

   o  5000 daily quota-units;




Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   o  1000 hourly quota-units.

   The client consumed 4900 quota-units in the first 14 hours.

   Despite the next hourly limit of 1000 quota-units, the closest limit
   to reach is the daily one.

   The server then exposes the "RateLimit-*" headers to inform the
   client that:

   o  it has only 100 quota-units left;

   o  the window will reset in 10 hours.

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   acme-RateLimit-DayLimit: 5000
   acme-RateLimit-HourLimit: 1000
   RateLimit-Limit: 5000
   RateLimit-Remaining: 100
   RateLimit-Reset: 36000

   {"hello": "world"}

6.1.3.  Use for limiting concurrency

   Throttling headers may be used to limit concurrency, advertising
   limits that are lower than the usual ones in case of saturation, thus
   increasing availability.

   The server adopted a basic policy of 100 quota-units per minute, and
   in case of resource exhaustion adapts the returned values reducing
   both "RateLimit-Limit" and "RateLimit-Remaining".

   After 2 seconds the client consumed 40 quota-units

   Request:

   GET /items/123





Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit-Limit: 100
   RateLimit-Remaining: 60
   RateLimit-Reset: 58

   {"elapsed": 2, "issued": 40}

   At the subsequent request - due to resource exhaustion - the server
   advertises only "RateLimit-Remaining: 20".

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit-Limit: 100
   RateLimit-Remaining: 20
   RateLimit-Reset: 56

   {"elapsed": 4, "issued": 41}

6.1.4.  Use in throttled responses

   A client exhausted its quota and the server throttles the request
   sending the "Retry-After" response header field.

   The values of "Retry-After" and "RateLimit-Reset" are consistent as
   they reference the same moment.

   The "429 Too Many Requests" HTTP status code is just used as an
   example.

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:






Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
   Content-Type: application/json
   Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 09:27:00 GMT
   Retry-After: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 09:27:05 GMT
   RateLimit-Reset: 5
   RateLimit-Limit: 100
   Ratelimit-Remaining: 0

   {
   "title": "Too Many Requests",
   "status": 429,
   "detail": "You have exceeded your quota"
   }

6.2.  Parameterized responses

6.2.1.  Throttling window specified via parameter

   The client has 99 "quota-units" left for the next 50 seconds.  The
   "time-window" is communicated by the "w" parameter, so we know the
   throughput is 100 "quota-units" per minute.

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit-Limit: 100, 100;w=60
   Ratelimit-Remaining: 99
   Ratelimit-Reset: 50

   {"hello": "world"}

6.2.2.  Dynamic limits with parameterized windows

   The policy conveyed by "RateLimit-Limit" states that the server
   accepts 100 quota-units per minute.

   Due to resource exhaustion, the server artificially lowers the actual
   limits returned in the throttling headers.

   The current policy then advertises only 9 quota-units for the next 50
   seconds.




Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   Note that the server could have lowered even the other values in
   "RateLimit-Limit": this specification does not mandate any relation
   between the field values contained in subsequent responses.

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit-Limit: 10, 100;w=60
   Ratelimit-Remaining: 9
   Ratelimit-Reset: 50

   {"hello": "world"}

6.2.3.  Missing Remaining informations

   The server does not expose "RateLimit-Remaining" values, but resets
   the limit counter every second.

   It communicates to the client the limit of 10 quota-units per second
   always returning the couple "RateLimit-Limit" and "RateLimit-Reset".

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit-Limit: 10
   Ratelimit-Reset: 1

   {"first": "request"}

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:




Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit-Limit: 10
   Ratelimit-Reset: 1

   {"second": "request"}

6.2.4.  Use with multiple windows

   This is a standardized way of describing the policy detailed in
   Section 6.1.2:

   o  5000 daily quota-units;

   o  1000 hourly quota-units.

   The client consumed 4900 quota-units in the first 14 hours.

   Despite the next hourly limit of 1000 quota-units, the closest limit
   to reach is the daily one.

   The server then exposes the "RateLimit" headers to inform the client
   that:

   o  it has only 100 quota-units left;

   o  the window will reset in 10 hours;

   o  the "expiring-limit" is 5000.

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit-Limit: 5000, 1000;w=3600, 5000;w=86400
   RateLimit-Remaining: 100
   RateLimit-Reset: 36000

   {"hello": "world"}







Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


7.  Security Considerations

7.1.  Throttling does not prevent clients from issuing requests

   This specification does not prevent clients to make over-quota
   requests.

   Servers should always implement mechanisms to prevent resource
   exhaustion.

7.2.  Information disclosure

   Servers should not disclose operational capacity informations that
   can be used to saturate its resources.

   While this specification does not mandate whether non 2xx responses
   consume quota, if 401 and 403 responses count on quota a malicious
   client could probe the endpoint to get traffic informations of
   another user.

7.3.  Remaining quota-units are not granted requests

   "RateLimit-*" headers convey hints from the server to the clients in
   order to avoid being throttled out.

   Clients MUST NOT consider the "quota-units" returned in "RateLimit-
   Remaining" as a service level agreement.

   In case of resource saturation, the server MAY artificially lower the
   returned values or not serve the request anyway.

7.4.  Reliability of RateLimit-Reset

   Consider that "request-quota" may not be restored after the moment
   referenced by "RateLimit-Reset", and the "RateLimit-Reset" value
   should not be considered fixed nor constant.

   Subsequent requests may return an higher "RateLimit-Reset" value to
   limit concurrency or implement dynamic or adaptive throttling
   policies.

7.5.  Resource exhaustion

   When returning "RateLimit-Reset" you must be aware that many
   throttled clients may come back at the very moment specified.

   This is true for "Retry-After" too.




Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   For example, if the quota resets every day at "18:00:00" and your
   server returns the "RateLimit-Reset" accordingly

      Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:00:00 GMT
      RateLimit-Reset: 36000

   there's a high probability that all clients will show up at
   "18:00:00".

   This could be mitigated adding some jitter to the field-value.

7.6.  Denial of Service

   "RateLimit" header fields may assume unexpected values by chance or
   purpose.  For example, an excessively high "RateLimit-Remaining"
   value may be:

   o  used by a malicious intermediary to trigger a Denial of Service
      attack or consume client resources boosting its requests;

   o  passed by a misconfigured server;

   or an high "RateLimit-Reset" value could inhibit clients to contact
   the server.

   Clients MUST validate the received values to mitigate those risks.

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  RateLimit-Limit Header Field Registration

   This section registers the "RateLimit-Limit" header field in the
   "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry ([RFC3864]).

   Header field name: "RateLimit-Limit"

   Applicable protocol: http

   Status: standard

   Author/Change controller: IETF

   Specification document(s): Section 3.1 of this document








Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


8.2.  RateLimit-Remaining Header Field Registration

   This section registers the "RateLimit-Remaining" header field in the
   "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry ([RFC3864]).

   Header field name: "RateLimit-Remaining"

   Applicable protocol: http

   Status: standard

   Author/Change controller: IETF

   Specification document(s): Section 3.2 of this document

8.3.  RateLimit-Reset Header Field Registration

   This section registers the "RateLimit-Reset" header field in the
   "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry ([RFC3864]).

   Header field name: "RateLimit-Reset"

   Applicable protocol: http

   Status: standard

   Author/Change controller: IETF

   Specification document(s): Section 3.3 of this document

9.  References

9.1.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.



Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   [RFC6454]  Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6454>.

   [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>.

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

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
              RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.

   [RFC7405]  Kyzivat, P., "Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF",
              RFC 7405, DOI 10.17487/RFC7405, December 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7405>.

   [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>.

   [UNIX]     The Open Group, ., "The Single UNIX Specification, Version
              2 - 6 Vol Set for UNIX 98", February 1997.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3339]  Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
              Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.

   [RFC6585]  Nottingham, M. and R. Fielding, "Additional HTTP Status
              Codes", RFC 6585, DOI 10.17487/RFC6585, April 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6585>.

9.3.  URIs

   [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/

   [2] https://github.com/ioggstream/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers

   [3] https://community.ntppool.org/t/another-ntp-client-failure-
       story/1014/



Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


   [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-
       wg/2019JulSep/0202.html

Appendix A.  Change Log

   RFC EDITOR PLEASE DELETE THIS SECTION.

Appendix B.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Willi Schoenborn, Alejandro Martinez Ruiz, Alessandro
   Ranellucci, Erik Wilde and Mark Nottingham for being the initial
   contributors of these specifications.

Appendix C.  RateLimit headers currently used on the web

   RFC EDITOR PLEASE DELETE THIS SECTION.

   Commonly used header field names are:

   o  "X-RateLimit-Limit", "X-RateLimit-Remaining", "X-RateLimit-Reset";

   o  "X-Rate-Limit-Limit", "X-Rate-Limit-Remaining", "X-Rate-Limit-
      Reset".

   There are variants too, where the window is specified in the header
   field name, eg:

   o  "x-ratelimit-limit-minute", "x-ratelimit-limit-hour", "x-
      ratelimit-limit-day"

   o  "x-ratelimit-remaining-minute", "x-ratelimit-remaining-hour", "x-
      ratelimit-remaining-day"

   Here are some interoperability issues:

   o  "X-RateLimit-Remaining" references different values, depending on
      the implementation:

      *  seconds remaining to the window expiration

      *  milliseconds remaining to the window expiration

      *  seconds since UTC, in UNIX Timestamp

      *  a datetime, either "IMF-fixdate" [RFC7231] or [RFC3339]

   o  different headers, with the same semantic, are used by different
      implementers:



Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


      *  X-RateLimit-Limit and X-Rate-Limit-Limit

      *  X-RateLimit-Remaining and X-Rate-Limit-Remaining

      *  X-RateLimit-Reset and X-Rate-Limit-Reset

   The semantic of RateLimit-Remaining depends on the windowing
   algorithm.  A sliding window policy for example may result in having
   a ratelimit-remaining value related to the ratio between the current
   and the maximum throughput.  Eg.

RateLimit-Limit: 12, 12;w=1
RateLimit-Remaining: 6          ; using 50% of throughput, that is 6 units/s
RateLimit-Reset: 1

   If this is the case, the optimal solution is to achieve

RateLimit-Limit: 12, 12;w=1
RateLimit-Remaining: 1          ; using 100% of throughput, that is 12 units/s
RateLimit-Reset: 1

   At this point you should stop increasing your request rate.

Appendix D.  FAQ

   1.  Why defining standard headers for throttling?

       To simplify enforcement of throttling policies.

   2.  Can I use RateLimit-* in throttled responses (eg with status code
       429)?

       Yes, you can.

   3.  Are those specs tied to RFC 6585?

       No.  [RFC6585] defines the "429" status code and we use it just
       as an example of a throttled request, that could instead use even
       403 or whatever status code.

   4.  Why don't pass the trottling scope as a parameter?

       I'm open to suggestions.  File an issue if you think it's worth
       ;).

   5.  Why using delta-seconds instead of a UNIX Timestamp?  Why not
       using subsecond precision?




Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


       Using delta-seconds aligns with "Retry-After", which is returned
       in similar contexts, eg on 429 responses.

       delta-seconds as defined in [RFC7234] section 1.2.1 clarifies
       some parsing rules too.

       Timestamps require a clock synchronization protocol (see
       [RFC7231] section 4.1.1.1).  This may be problematic (eg. clock
       adjustment, clock skew, failure of hardcoded clock
       synchronization servers, IoT devices, ..).  Moreover timestamps
       may not be monotonically increasing due to clock adjustment.  See
       Another NTP client failure story [3]

       We did not use subsecond precision because:

       *  that is more subject to system clock correction like the one
          implemented via the adjtimex() Linux system call;

       *  response-time latency may not make it worth.  A brief
          discussion on the subject is on the httpwg ml [4]

       *  almost all rate-limit headers implementations do not use it.

   6.  Why not support multiple quota remaining?

       While this might be of some value, my experience suggests that
       overly-complex quota implementations results in lower
       effectiveness of this policy.  This spec allows the client to
       easily focusing on RateLimit-Remaining and RateLimit-Reset.

   7.  Shouldn't I limit concurrency instead of request rate?

       You can do both.  The goal of this spec is to provide guidance
       for clients in shaping their requests without being throttled
       out.

       Limiting concurrency results in unserviced client requests, which
       is something we want to avoid.

       A standard way to limit concurrency is to return 503 + Retry-
       After in case of resource saturation (eg. thrashing, connection
       queues too long, Service Level Objectives not meet, ..).

       Dynamically lowering the values returned by the rate-limit
       headers, and returning retry-after along with them can improve
       availability.





Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      RateLimit Header Fields for HTTP        October 2019


       Saturation conditions can be either dynamic or static: all this
       is out of the scope for the current document.

   8.  Do a positive value of "RateLimit-Remaining" imply any service
       guarantee for my future requests to be served?

       No.  The returned values were used to decide whether to serve or
       not _the current request_ and do not imply any guarantee that
       future requests will be successful.

       Instead they help to understand when future requests will
       probably be throttled.  A low value for "RateLimit-Remaining"
       should be interpreted as a yellow traffic-light for either the
       number of requests issued in the "time-window" or the request
       throughput.

   9.  Is the quota-policy definition Section 2.3 too complex?

       You can always return the simplest form of the 3 headers

   RateLimit-Limit: 100
   RateLimit-Remaining: 50
   RateLimit-Reset: 60

   The key runtime value is the first element of the list: "expiring-
   limit", the others "quota-policy" are informative.  So for the
   following header:

RateLimit-Limit: 100, 100;w=60;burst=1000;comment="sliding window", 5000;w=3600;burst=0;comment="fixed window"

   the key value is the one referencing the lowest limit: "100"

Authors' Addresses

   Roberto Polli
   Team Digitale, Italian Government

   Email: robipolli@gmail.com


   Alejandro Martinez Ruiz
   Red Hat

   Email: amr@redhat.com







Polli & Martinez         Expires April 23, 2020                [Page 24]


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