Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers

draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers







HTTPAPI                                                         R. Polli
Internet-Draft                         Team Digitale, Italian Government
Intended status: Standards Track                             A. Martinez
Expires: 26 December 2023                                        Red Hat
                                                            24 June 2023


                    RateLimit header fields for HTTP
                draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-07

Abstract

   This document defines the RateLimit-Policy and RateLimit HTTP header
   fields for servers to advertise their service policy limits and the
   current limits, thereby allowing clients to avoid being throttled.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-
   headers/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the HTTPAPI Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:httpapi@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/httpapi/.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpapi/.  Working Group
   information can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpapi/
   about/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/ratelimit-headers.

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."



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 December 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Quota Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Service Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Time Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  RateLimit header field Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  RateLimit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Limit Keyword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Remaining Keyword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Reset Keyword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  RateLimit-Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Performance Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Intermediaries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Throttling does not prevent clients from issuing
           requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Information disclosure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.3.  Remaining quota units are not granted requests  . . . . .  13
     6.4.  Reliability of the reset keyword  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.5.  Resource exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.5.1.  Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  RateLimit Keywords and Parameters Registration  . . . . .  16
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix A.  Rate-limiting and quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     A.1.  Interoperability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix B.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     B.1.  Unparameterized responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       B.1.1.  Throttling information in responses . . . . . . . . .  20
       B.1.2.  Use in conjunction with custom fields . . . . . . . .  21
       B.1.3.  Use for limiting concurrency  . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       B.1.4.  Use in throttled responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     B.2.  Parameterized responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       B.2.1.  Throttling window specified via parameter . . . . . .  23
       B.2.2.  Dynamic limits with parameterized windows . . . . . .  23
       B.2.3.  Dynamic limits for pushing back and slowing down  . .  24
     B.3.  Dynamic limits for pushing back with Retry-After and slow
           down  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       B.3.1.  Missing Remaining information . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       B.3.2.  Use with multiple windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   FAQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   RateLimit header fields currently used on the web . . . . . . . .  31
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     Since draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-03 . . . . . . . . .  32
     Since draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-02 . . . . . . . . .  32
     Since draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-01 . . . . . . . . .  32
     Since draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-00 . . . . . . . . .  33
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33

1.  Introduction

   Rate limiting HTTP clients has become a widespread practice,
   especially for HTTP APIs.  Typically, servers who do so limit the
   number of acceptable requests in a given time window (e.g. 10
   requests per second).  See Appendix A for further information on the
   current usage of rate limiting in HTTP.

   Currently, there is no standard way for servers to communicate quotas
   so that clients can throttle its requests to prevent errors.  This
   document defines a set of standard HTTP header fields to enable rate
   limiting:

   *  RateLimit: to convey the server's current limit of quota units
      available to the client in the policy time window, the remaining
      quota units in the current window, and the time remaining in the
      current window, specified in seconds, and

   *  RateLimit-Policy: the service policy limits.




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   These fields allow the establishment of complex rate limiting
   policies, including using multiple and variable time windows and
   dynamic quotas, and implementing concurrency limits.

   The behavior of the RateLimit header field is compatible with the
   delay-seconds notation of Retry-After.

1.1.  Goals

   The goals of this document are:

   Interoperability:  Standardization of the names and semantics of
      rate-limit headers to ease their enforcement and adoption;

   Resiliency:  Improve resiliency of HTTP infrastructure by providing
      clients with information useful to throttle their requests and
      prevent 4xx or 5xx responses;

   Documentation:  Simplify API documentation by eliminating the need to
      include detailed quota limits and related fields in API
      documentation.

   The following features are out of the scope of this document:

   Authorization:  RateLimit header fields 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 (see Section 7 of [WEB-ORIGIN]).  This can be
      addressed using extensibility mechanisms such as the parameter
      registry Section 8.1.

   Response status code:  RateLimit header fields may be returned in
      both successful (see Section 15.3 of [HTTP]) and non-successful
      responses.  This specification does not cover whether non
      Successful responses count on quota usage, nor it mandates any
      correlation between the RateLimit values and the returned status
      code.

   Throttling policy:  This specification does not mandate a specific
      throttling policy.  The values published in the fields, 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.




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


1.2.  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] [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 5.6.1 of [HTTP].

   The term Origin is to be interpreted as described in Section 7 of
   [WEB-ORIGIN].

   This document uses the terms List, Item and Integer from Section 3 of
   [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] to specify syntax and parsing, along with the
   concept of "bare item".

   The header fields defined in this document are collectively referred
   to as "RateLimit header fields".

2.  Concepts

2.1.  Quota Policy

   A quota policy is maintained by a server to limit the activity
   (counted in quota units) of a given client over a period of time
   (known as the time window (Section 2.3)) to a specified amount (known
   as the service limit (Section 2.2)).

   Quota policies can be advertised by servers (see Section 3.5), but
   they are not required to be, and more than one quota policy can
   affect a given request from a client to a server.

   A quota policy is expressed in Structured Fields [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]
   as an Integer that indicates the service limit with associated
   parameters.

   The following Parameters are defined in this specification:

   w:  The REQUIRED "w" parameter value conveys a time window
      (Section 2.3).

   For example, a quota policy of 100 quota units per minute is
   expressed as:

      100;w=60



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   Other parameters are allowed and can be regarded as comments.
   Parameters for use by more than one implementation or service ought
   to be registered within the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
   RateLimit Parameters Registry", as described in Section 8.1.

   Implementation- or service-specific parameters SHOULD be prefixed
   parameters with a vendor identifier, e.g. acme-policy, acme-burst.

2.2.  Service Limit

   The service limit is a non-negative Integer indicating the maximum
   amount of activity that the server is willing to accept from what it
   identifies as the client (e.g., based upon originating IP or user
   authentication) during a time window (Section 2.3).

   The activity being limited is usually the HTTP requests made by the
   client; for example "you can make 100 requests per minute".  However,
   a server might only rate limit some requests (based upon URI, method,
   user identity, etc.), and it might weigh requests differently.
   Therefore, quota policies are defined in terms of "quota units".
   Servers SHOULD document how they count quota units.

   For example, a server could count requests like /books/{id} once, but
   count search requests like /books?author=WuMing twice.  This might
   result in the following counters:

   GET /books/123           ; service-limit=4, remaining: 3, status=200
   GET /books?author=WuMing ; service-limit=4, remaining: 1, status=200
   GET /books?author=Eco    ; service-limit=4, remaining: 0, status=429

   Often, the service limit advertised will match the server's actual
   limit.  However, it MAY differ when weight mechanisms, bursts, or
   other server policies are implemented.  In that case the difference
   SHOULD be communicated using an extension or documented separately.

2.3.  Time Window

   Quota policies limit the number of acceptable requests within a given
   time interval, known as a time window.

   The time window is a non-negative Integer value expressing that
   interval in seconds, similar to the "delay-seconds" rule defined in
   Section 10.2.3 of [HTTP].  Subsecond precision is not supported.

   By default, a quota policy does not constrain the distribution of
   quota units within the time window.  If necessary, these details can
   be conveyed as extension parameters.




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   For example, two quota policies containing further details via
   extension parameters:

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

3.  RateLimit header field Definitions

   The following RateLimit response header fields are defined.

3.1.  RateLimit

   A server uses the "RateLimit" response header field to communicate
   its quota policies.

   The field is a Dictionary.  The allowed keys are defined in the
   "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) RateLimit Keywords and Parameters
   Registry", as described in Section 8.1.

   The following Keys are defined in this specification:

   limit:  The REQUIRED "limit" key value conveys the expiring limit
      (Section 3.2).  remaining:

      The OPTIONAL "remaining" key value conveys the remaining quota
      units (Section 3.3).  reset:

      The REQUIRED "reset" key value conveys the time window reset time
      (Section 3.4).

   This specification does not define Parameters for this field.  If
   they appear, they MUST be ignored.

   This field cannot appear in a trailer section.

3.2.  Limit Keyword

   The "limit" keyword indicates the service limit (Section 2.2)
   associated with the client in the current time window (Section 2.3).
   If the client exceeds that limit, it MAY not be served.

   It is an Item and its value is a non-negative Integer referred to as
   the "expiring limit".  This specification does not define Parameters
   for it.  If they appear, they MUST be ignored.

   The expiring limit MUST be set to the service limit that is closest
   to reaching its limit, and the associated time window MUST either be:




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   *  inferred by the value of the reset keyword (Section 3.4) at the
      moment of the reset, or

   *  communicated out-of-band (e.g. in the documentation).

   Example:

      limit=100

   The RateLimit-Policy header field (see Section 3.5), might contain
   information on the associated time window.

3.3.  Remaining Keyword

   The "remaining" keyword indicates the remaining quota units
   associated with the expiring-limit.

   It is an Item and its value is a non-negative Integer expressed in
   quota units (Section 2.2).  This specification does not define
   Parameters for it.  If they appear, they MUST be ignored.

   Clients MUST NOT assume that a positive remaining value is a
   guarantee that further requests will be served.

   When the value of the remaining keyword is low, it indicates that the
   server may soon throttle the client (see Section 4).

   For example:

      remaining=50

3.4.  Reset Keyword

   The "reset" keyword indicates the number of seconds until the
   available quota units associated with the expiring-limit resets.

   It is a non-negative Integer compatible with the delay-seconds rule,
   because:

   *  it does not rely on clock synchronization and is resilient to
      clock adjustment and clock skew between client and server (see
      Section 5.6.7 of [HTTP]);

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

   This specification does not define Parameters for it.  If they
   appear, they MUST be ignored.



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   For example:

      reset=50

   The client MUST NOT assume that all its service limit will be reset
   at the moment indicated by the reset keyword.  The server MAY
   arbitrarily alter the reset keyword value between subsequent
   requests; for example, in case of resource saturation or to implement
   sliding window policies.

3.5.  RateLimit-Policy

   The "RateLimit-Policy" response header field indicates a service
   policy currently associated with the client.  Its value is
   informative.

   The field is a non-empty List of Items.  Each item is a quota policy
   (Section 2.1).  Two quota policies MUST NOT be associated with the
   same quota units value.

   This field can convey the time window associated with the expiring-
   limit, as shown in this example:

      RateLimit-Policy: 100;w=10
      RateLimit: limit=100, remaining=50, reset=5

   These examples show multiple policies being returned:

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

   An example of invalid header field value with two policies associated
   with the same quota units:

      RateLimit-Policy: 10;w=1, 10;w=60

   This field cannot appear in a trailer section.

4.  Server Behavior

   A server uses the RateLimit header fields to communicate its quota
   policies.  A response that includes the RateLimit-Limit header field
   MUST also include the RateLimit-Reset.  It MAY also include a
   RateLimit-Remaining header field.







Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   A server MAY return RateLimit header fields independently of the
   response status code.  This includes on throttled responses.  This
   document does not mandate any correlation between the RateLimit
   header field values and the returned status code.

   Servers should be careful when returning RateLimit header fields in
   redirection responses (i.e., responses with 3xx status codes) because
   a low remaining keyword value could prevent the client from issuing
   requests.  For example, given the RateLimit header fields below, a
   client could decide to wait 10 seconds before following the
   "Location" header field (see Section 10.2.2 of [HTTP]), because the
   remaining keyword value is 0.

   HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
   Location: /foo/123
   RateLimit: limit=10, remaining=0, reset=10

   If a response contains both the Retry-After and the RateLimit header
   fields, the reset keyword value SHOULD reference the same point in
   time as the Retry-After field value.

   When using a policy involving more than one time window, the server
   MUST reply with the RateLimit header fields related to the time
   window with the lower remaining keyword values.

   A service using RateLimit header fields MUST NOT convey values
   exposing an unwanted volume of requests and SHOULD implement
   mechanisms to cap the ratio between the remaining and the reset
   keyword values (see Section 6.5); this is especially important when a
   quota policy uses a large time window.

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

4.1.  Performance Considerations

   Servers are not required to return RateLimit header fields in every
   response, and clients need to take this into account.  For example,
   an implementer concerned with performance might provide RateLimit
   header fields only when a given quota is going to expire.

   Implementers concerned with response fields' size, might take into
   account their ratio with respect to the content length, or use
   header-compression HTTP features such as [HPACK].






Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


5.  Client Behavior

   The RateLimit header fields can be used by clients to determine
   whether the associated request respected the server's quota policy,
   and as an indication of whether subsequent requests will.  However,
   the server might apply other criteria when servicing future requests,
   and so the quota policy may not completely reflect whether they will
   succeed.

   For example, a successful response with the following fields:

      RateLimit: limit=10, remaining=1, reset=7

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

   A client is responsible for ensuring that RateLimit header field
   values returned cause reasonable client behavior with respect to
   throughput and latency (see Section 6.5 and Section 6.5.1).

   A client receiving RateLimit header fields MUST NOT assume that
   future responses will contain the same RateLimit header fields, or
   any RateLimit header fields at all.

   Malformed RateLimit header fields MUST be ignored.

   A client SHOULD NOT exceed the quota units conveyed by the remaining
   keyword before the time window expressed in the reset keyword.

   A client MAY still probe the server if the reset keyword is
   considered too high.

   The value of the reset keyword is generated at response time: a
   client aware of a significant network latency MAY behave accordingly
   and use other information (e.g. the "Date" response header field, or
   otherwise gathered metrics) to better estimate the reset keyword
   moment intended by the server.

   The details provided in the RateLimit-Policy header field are
   informative and MAY be ignored.

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

   This specification does not mandate a specific throttling behavior
   and implementers can adopt their preferred policies, including:



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   *  slowing down or preemptively back-off their request rate when
      approaching quota limits;

   *  consuming all the quota according to the exposed limits and then
      wait.

5.1.  Intermediaries

   This section documents the considerations advised in Section 16.3.2
   of [HTTP].

   An intermediary that is not part of the originating service
   infrastructure and is not aware of the quota policy semantic used by
   the Origin Server SHOULD NOT alter the RateLimit header fields'
   values in such a way as to communicate a more permissive quota
   policy; this includes removing the RateLimit header fields.

   An intermediary MAY alter the RateLimit header fields in such a way
   as to communicate a more restrictive quota policy when:

   *  it is aware of the quota unit semantic used by the Origin Server;

   *  it implements this specification and enforces a quota policy which
      is more restrictive than the one conveyed in the fields.

   An intermediary SHOULD forward a request even when presuming that it
   might not be serviced; the service returning the RateLimit header
   fields is the sole responsible of enforcing the communicated quota
   policy, and it is always free to service incoming requests.

   This specification does not mandate any behavior on intermediaries
   respect to retries, nor requires that intermediaries have any role in
   respecting quota policies.  For example, it is legitimate for a proxy
   to retransmit a request without notifying the client, and thus
   consuming quota units.

   Privacy considerations (Section 7) provide further guidance on
   intermediaries.

5.2.  Caching

   [HTTP-CACHING] defines how responses can be stored and reused for
   subsequent requests, including those with RateLimit header fields.
   Because the information in RateLimit header fields on a cached
   response may not be current, they SHOULD be ignored on responses that
   come from cache (i.e., those with a positive current_age; see
   Section 4.2.3 of [HTTP-CACHING]).




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


6.  Security Considerations

6.1.  Throttling does not prevent clients from issuing requests

   This specification does not prevent clients from making requests.
   Servers should always implement mechanisms to prevent resource
   exhaustion.

6.2.  Information disclosure

   Servers should not disclose to untrusted parties operational capacity
   information that can be used to saturate its infrastructural
   resources.

   While this specification does not mandate whether non-successful
   responses consume quota, if error responses (such as 401
   (Unauthorized) and 403 (Forbidden)) count against quota, a malicious
   client could probe the endpoint to get traffic information of another
   user.

   As intermediaries might retransmit requests and consume quota units
   without prior knowledge of the user agent, RateLimit header fields
   might reveal the existence of an intermediary to the user agent.

6.3.  Remaining quota units are not granted requests

   RateLimit header fields convey hints from the server to the clients
   in order to help them avoid being throttled out.

   Clients MUST NOT consider the quota units (Section 2.2) returned in
   remaining keyword as a service level agreement.

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

6.4.  Reliability of the reset keyword

   Consider that service limit might not be restored after the moment
   referenced by the reset keyword (Section 3.4), and the reset keyword
   value may not be fixed nor constant.

   Subsequent requests might return a higher reset keyword value to
   limit concurrency or implement dynamic or adaptive throttling
   policies.






Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


6.5.  Resource exhaustion

   When returning reset keyword you must be aware that many throttled
   clients may come back at the very moment specified.

   This is true for Retry-After too.

   For example, if the quota resets every day at 18:00:00 and your
   server returns the reset keyword accordingly

      Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:00:00 GMT
      RateLimit: limit=1, remaining=1, reset=36000

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

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

   Resource exhaustion issues can be associated with quota policies
   using a large time window, because a user agent by chance or on
   purpose might consume most of its quota units in a significantly
   shorter interval.

   This behavior can be even triggered by the provided RateLimit header
   fields.  The following example describes a service with an unconsumed
   quota policy of 10000 quota units per 1000 seconds.

   RateLimit: limit=10000, remaining=10000, reset=10
   RateLimit-Policy: 10000;w=1000

   A client implementing a simple ratio between remaining keyword and
   reset keyword could infer an average throughput of 1000 quota units
   per second, while the limit keyword conveys a quota-policy with an
   average of 10 quota units per second.  If the service cannot handle
   such load, it should return either a lower remaining keyword value or
   an higher reset keyword value.  Moreover, complementing large time
   window quota policies with a short time window one mitigates those
   risks.

6.5.1.  Denial of Service

   RateLimit header fields may contain unexpected values by chance or on
   purpose.  For example, an excessively high remaining keyword value
   may be:

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

   *  passed by a misconfigured server;



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   or a high reset keyword value could inhibit clients to contact the
   server (e.g. similarly to receiving "Retry-after: 1000000").

   To mitigate this risk, clients can set thresholds that they consider
   reasonable in terms of quota units, time window, concurrent requests
   or throughput, and define a consistent behavior when the RateLimit
   exceed those thresholds.  For example this means capping the maximum
   number of request per second, or implementing retries when the reset
   keyword exceeds ten minutes.

   The considerations above are not limited to RateLimit header fields,
   but apply to all fields affecting how clients behave in subsequent
   requests (e.g.  Retry-After).

7.  Privacy Considerations

   Clients that act upon a request to rate limit are potentially re-
   identifiable (see Section 5.2.1 of [PRIVACY]) because they react to
   information that might only be given to them.  Note that this might
   apply to other fields too (e.g.  Retry-After).

   Since rate limiting is usually implemented in contexts where clients
   are either identified or profiled (e.g. assigning different quota
   units to different users), this is rarely a concern.

   Privacy enhancing infrastructures using RateLimit header fields can
   define specific techniques to mitigate the risks of re-
   identification.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to update one registry and create one new registry.

   Please add the following entries to the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
   (HTTP) Field Name Registry" registry ([HTTP]):

        +==================+===========+=========================+
        | Field Name       | Status    | Specification           |
        +==================+===========+=========================+
        | RateLimit        | permanent | Section 3.1 of RFC nnnn |
        +------------------+-----------+-------------------------+
        | RateLimit-Policy | permanent | Section 3.5 of RFC nnnn |
        +------------------+-----------+-------------------------+

                                 Table 1






Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


8.1.  RateLimit Keywords and Parameters Registration

   IANA is requested to create a new registry to be called "Hypertext
   Transfer Protocol (HTTP) RateLimit Keywords and Parameters Registry",
   to be located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-ratelimit-
   parameters (https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-ratelimit-
   parameters).  Registration is done on the advice of a Designated
   Expert, appointed by the IESG or their delegate.  All entries are
   Specification Required ([IANA], Section 4.6).

   Registration requests consist of the following information:

   *  Token name: The keyword or parameter name, conforming to
      [STRUCTURED-FIELDS].

   *  Token type: Whether the token is a Dictionary Keyword or a
      Parameter Name.

   *  Field name: The RateLimit header field for which the parameter is
      registered.  If a parameter is intended to be used with multiple
      fields, it has to be registered for each one.

   *  Description: A brief description of the parameter.

   *  Specification document: A reference to the document that specifies
      the parameter, preferably including a URI that can be used to
      retrieve a copy of the document.

   *  Comments (optional): Any additional information that can be
      useful.

   The initial contents of this registry should be:



















Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   +==========+=========+==========+===========+=============+==========+
   |Field Name|Token    |Token type|Description|Specification|Comments  |
   |          |name     |          |           |             |(optional)|
   +==========+=========+==========+===========+=============+==========+
   |RateLimit |limit    |Dictionary|Expiring   |Section 3.2  |          |
   |          |         |Key       |limit      |of RFC nnnn  |          |
   +----------+---------+----------+-----------+-------------+----------+
   |RateLimit |remaining|Dictionary|Remaining  |Section 3.3  |          |
   |          |         |Key       |quota units|of RFC nnnn  |          |
   +----------+---------+----------+-----------+-------------+----------+
   |RateLimit |reset    |Dictionary|Quota reset|Section 3.4  |          |
   |          |         |Key       |interval   |of RFC nnnn  |          |
   +----------+---------+----------+-----------+-------------+----------+
   |RateLimit-|w        |Parameter |Time window|Section 2.1  |          |
   |Policy    |         |name      |           |of RFC nnnn  |          |
   +----------+---------+----------+-----------+-------------+----------+

                                  Table 2

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [HTTP]     Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

   [IANA]     Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.

   [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/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [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/rfc/rfc5234>.

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





Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   [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/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]
              Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
              HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941>.

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

9.2.  Informative References

   [HPACK]    Peon, R. and H. Ruellan, "HPACK: Header Compression for
              HTTP/2", RFC 7541, DOI 10.17487/RFC7541, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7541>.

   [HTTP-CACHING]
              Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Caching", STD 98, RFC 9111,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9111, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111>.

   [PRIVACY]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973>.

   [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/rfc/rfc3339>.

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

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

Appendix A.  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 - e.g. monetization.



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


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

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

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

   *  10 requests per second;

   *  limited to 60 requests per minute;

   *  limited to 1000 requests per hour.

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

   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:

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

   *  the number of remaining requests in the current window;

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

A.1.  Interoperability issues

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

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




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   *  header field names proliferates.

   User agents 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.

Appendix B.  Examples

B.1.  Unparameterized responses

B.1.1.  Throttling information in responses

   The client exhausted its service-limit for the next 50 seconds.  The
   time-window is communicated out-of-band or inferred by the field
   values.

   Request:

   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=100, remaining=0, reset=50

   {"hello": "world"}

   Since the field values are not necessarily correlated with the
   response status code, a subsequent request is not required to fail.
   The example below shows that the server decided to serve the request
   even if remaining keyword value is 0.  Another server, or the same
   server under other load conditions, could have decided to throttle
   the request instead.

   Request:

   GET /items/456 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:








Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=100, remaining=0, reset=48

   {"still": "successful"}

B.1.2.  Use in conjunction with custom fields

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

   *  5000 daily quota units;

   *  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 header fields to inform the
   client that:

   *  it has only 100 quota units left;

   *  the window will reset in 10 hours.

   Request:

   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   acme-RateLimit-DayLimit: 5000
   acme-RateLimit-HourLimit: 1000
   RateLimit: limit=5000, remaining=100, reset=36000

   {"hello": "world"}

B.1.3.  Use for limiting concurrency

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




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   The server adopted a basic policy of 100 quota units per minute, and
   in case of resource exhaustion adapts the returned values reducing
   both limit and remaining keyword values.

   After 2 seconds the client consumed 40 quota units

   Request:

   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=100, remaining=60, reset=58

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

   At the subsequent request - due to resource exhaustion - the server
   advertises only remaining=20.

   Request:

   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=100, remaining=20, reset=56

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

B.1.4.  Use in throttled responses

   A client exhausted its quota and the server throttles it sending
   Retry-After.

   In this example, the values of Retry-After and RateLimit header field
   reference the same moment, but this is not a requirement.

   The 429 (Too Many Request) HTTP status code is just used as an
   example.

   Request:




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   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: limit=100, remaining=0, reset=5

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

B.2.  Parameterized responses

B.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 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=100, remaining=99, reset=50
   RateLimit-Policy: 100;w=60
   {"hello": "world"}

B.2.2.  Dynamic limits with parameterized windows

   The policy conveyed by the RateLimit header field states that the
   server accepts 100 quota units per minute.

   To avoid resource exhaustion, the server artificially lowers the
   actual limits returned in the throttling headers.

   The remaining keyword then advertises only 9 quota units for the next
   50 seconds to slow down the client.



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


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

   Request:

   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=10, remaining=9, reset=50
   RateLimit-Policy: 100;w=60

   {
     "status": 200,
     "detail": "Just slow down without waiting."
   }

B.2.3.  Dynamic limits for pushing back and slowing down

   Continuing the previous example, let's say the client waits 10
   seconds and performs a new request which, due to resource exhaustion,
   the server rejects and pushes back, advertising remaining=0 for the
   next 20 seconds.

   The server advertises a smaller window with a lower limit to slow
   down the client for the rest of its original window after the 20
   seconds elapse.

   Request:

   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=0, remaining=0, reset=20
   RateLimit-Policy: 15;w=20

   {
     "status": 429,
     "detail": "Wait 20 seconds, then slow down!"
   }



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


B.3.  Dynamic limits for pushing back with Retry-After and slow down

   Alternatively, given the same context where the previous example
   starts, we can convey the same information to the client via Retry-
   After, with the advantage that the server can now specify the
   policy's nominal limit and window that will apply after the reset,
   e.g. assuming the resource exhaustion is likely to be gone by then,
   so the advertised policy does not need to be adjusted, yet we managed
   to stop requests for a while and slow down the rest of the current
   window.

   Request:

   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
   Content-Type: application/json
   Retry-After: 20
   RateLimit: limit=15, remaining=15, reset=40
   RateLimit-Policy: 100;w=60

   {
     "status": 429,
     "detail": "Wait 20 seconds, then slow down!"
   }

   Note that in this last response the client is expected to honor
   Retry-After and perform no requests for the specified amount of time,
   whereas the previous example would not force the client to stop
   requests before the reset time is elapsed, as it would still be free
   to query again the server even if it is likely to have the request
   rejected.

B.3.1.  Missing Remaining information

   The server does not expose remaining keyword values (for example,
   because the underlying counters are not available).  Instead, it
   resets the limit counter every second.

   It communicates to the client the limit of 10 quota units per second
   always returning the limit and reset keywords.

   Request:





Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=10, reset=1

   {"first": "request"}

   Request:

   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=10, reset=1

   {"second": "request"}

B.3.2.  Use with multiple windows

   This is a standardized way of describing the policy detailed in
   Appendix B.1.2:

   *  5000 daily quota units;

   *  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 header fields to inform the
   client that:

   *  it has only 100 quota units left;

   *  the window will reset in 10 hours;

   *  the expiring-limit is 5000.

   Request:



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Host: api.example

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   RateLimit: limit=5000, remaining=100, reset=36000
   RateLimit-Policy: 1000;w=3600, 5000;w=86400

   {"hello": "world"}

FAQ

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   1.  Why defining standard fields for throttling?

       To simplify enforcement of throttling policies.

   2.  Can I use RateLimit header fields 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.  The goal of this specification is
       to standardize the name and semantic of three RateLimit header
       fields widely used on the internet.  Stricter relations with
       status codes or error response payloads would impose behaviors to
       all the existing implementations making the adoption more
       complex.

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

       The word "scope" can have different meanings: for example it can
       be an URL, or an authorization scope.  Since authorization is out
       of the scope of this document (see Section 1.1), and that we rely
       only on [HTTP], in Section 1.1 we defined "scope" in terms of
       URL.








Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


       Since clients are not required to process quota policies (see
       Section 5), we could add a new "RateLimit-Scope" field to this
       spec.  See this discussion on a similar thread
       (https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/pull/317#issuecomment-
       585868767)

       Specific ecosystems can still bake their own prefixed parameters,
       such as acme-auth-scope or acme-url-scope and ensure that clients
       process them.  This behavior cannot be relied upon when
       communicating between different ecosystems.

       We are open to suggestions: comment on this issue
       (https://github.com/ioggstream/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers/
       issues/70)

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

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

       Timestamps require a clock synchronization protocol (see
       Section 5.6.7 of [HTTP]).  This may be problematic (e.g. 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
       (https://community.ntppool.org/t/another-ntp-client-failure-
       story/1014/)

       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
          (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-
          wg/2019JulSep/0202.html)

       *  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 the remaining and reset keywords.



Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


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

       You can use this specification to limit concurrency at the HTTP
       level (see {#use-for-limiting-concurrency}) and help clients to
       shape their requests avoiding being throttled out.

       A problematic way to limit concurrency is connection dropping,
       especially when connections are multiplexed (e.g.  HTTP/2)
       because this results in unserviced client requests, which is
       something we want to avoid.

       A semantic way to limit concurrency is to return 503 + Retry-
       After in case of resource saturation (e.g. thrashing, connection
       queues too long, Service Level Objectives not meet, ..).
       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 remaining keyword imply any service
       guarantee for my future requests to be served?

       No.  FAQ integrated in Section 3.3.

   9.  Is the quota-policy definition Section 2.1 too complex?

       You can always return the simplest form of the 3 fields

   RateLimit: limit=100, remaining=50, 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
   field:

   RateLimit: limit=100, remaining=50, reset=44
   RateLimit-Policy: 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

   1.  Can we use shorter names?  Why don't put everything in one field?

   The most common syntax we found on the web is X-RateLimit-* and when
   starting this I-D we opted for it (https://github.com/ioggstream/
   draft-polli-ratelimit-headers/issues/34#issuecomment-519366481)

   The basic form of those fields is easily parseable, even by
   implementers processing responses using technologies like dynamic
   interpreter with limited syntax.





Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   Using a single field complicates parsing and takes a significantly
   different approach from the existing ones: this can limit adoption.

   1.  Why don't mention connections?

       Beware of the term "connection":   - it is just _one_ possible
       saturation cause.  Once you go that path  you will expose other
       infrastructural details (bandwidth, CPU, .. see Section 6.2) 
       and complicate client compliance;  - it is an infrastructural
       detail defined in terms of server and network  rather than the
       consumed service.  This specification protects the services
       first, and then the infrastructures through client cooperation
       (see Section 6.1).   RateLimit header fields enable sending _on
       the same connection_ different limit values  on each response,
       depending on the policy scope (e.g. per-user, per-custom-key, ..)
       

   2.  Can intermediaries alter RateLimit header fields?

       Generally, they should not because it might result in unserviced
       requests.  There are reasonable use cases for intermediaries
       mangling RateLimit header fields though, e.g. when they enforce
       stricter quota-policies, or when they are an active component of
       the service.  In those case we will consider them as part of the
       originating infrastructure.

   3.  Why the w parameter is just informative?  Could it be used by a
       client to determine the request rate?

       A non-informative w parameter might be fine in an environment
       where clients and servers are tightly coupled.  Conveying
       policies with this detail on a large scale would be very complex
       and implementations would be likely not interoperable.  We thus
       decided to leave w as an informational parameter and only rely on
       the limit, remaining and reset keywords for defining the
       throttling behavior.

   4.  Can I use RateLimit fields in trailers?  Servers usually
       establish whether the request is in-quota before creating a
       response, so the RateLimit field values should be already
       available in that moment.  Supporting trailers has the only
       advantage that allows to provide more up-to-date information to
       the client in case of slow responses.  However, this complicates
       client implementations with respect to combining fields from
       headers and accounting for intermediaries that drop trailers.
       Since there are no current implementations that use trailers, we
       decided to leave this as a future-work.




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


RateLimit header fields currently used on the web

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Commonly used header field names are:

   *  X-RateLimit-Limit, X-RateLimit-Remaining, X-RateLimit-Reset;

   *  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:

   *  x-ratelimit-limit-minute, x-ratelimit-limit-hour, x-ratelimit-
      limit-day

   *  x-ratelimit-remaining-minute, x-ratelimit-remaining-hour, x-
      ratelimit-remaining-day

   Here are some interoperability issues:

   *  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 [UNIX]

      -  a datetime, either IMF-fixdate [HTTP] or [RFC3339]

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

      -  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 depends on the windowing algorithm.  A
   sliding window policy for example may result in having a remaining
   keyword value related to the ratio between the current and the
   maximum throughput. e.g.






Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   RateLimit: limit=12,    \
              remaining=6, \ ; using 50% of throughput, that is 6 units/s
              reset=1
   RateLimit-Policy: 12;w=1

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

   RateLimit: limit=12,   \
              remaining=1 \  ; using 100% of throughput, that is 12 units/s
              reset=1
   RateLimit-Policy: 12;w=1

   At this point you should stop increasing your request rate.

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Willi Schoenborn, Alejandro Martinez Ruiz, Alessandro
   Ranellucci, Amos Jeffries, Martin Thomson, Erik Wilde and Mark
   Nottingham for being the initial contributors of these
   specifications.  Kudos to the first community implementers: Aapo
   Talvensaari, Nathan Friedly and Sanyam Dogra.

   In addition to the people above, this document owes a lot to the
   extensive discussion in the HTTPAPI workgroup, including Rich Salz,
   Darrel Miller and Julian Reschke.

Changes

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Since draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-03

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   *  Split policy informatio in RateLimit-Policy #81

Since draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-02

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   *  Address throttling scope #83

Since draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-01

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   *  Update IANA considerations #60




Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      RateLimit header fields for HTTP           June 2023


   *  Use Structured fields #58

   *  Reorganize document #67

Since draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-00

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   *  Use I-D.httpbis-semantics, which includes referencing delay-
      seconds instead of delta-seconds. #5

Authors' Addresses

   Roberto Polli
   Team Digitale, Italian Government
   Italy
   Email: robipolli@gmail.com


   Alejandro Martinez Ruiz
   Red Hat
   Email: alex@flawedcode.org





























Polli & Martinez        Expires 26 December 2023               [Page 33]