Internet DRAFT - draft-ihlar-masque-datagram-numbers
draft-ihlar-masque-datagram-numbers
Masque Working Group M. Ihlar
Internet-Draft Ericsson AB
Intended status: Standards Track M. Westerlund
Expires: 14 September 2023 Ericsson
13 March 2023
A Sequence Number Extension for HTTP Datagrams
draft-ihlar-masque-datagram-numbers-01
Abstract
This document defines a sequence number extension to HTTP datagrams
used to carry proxied UDP payload or IP datagrams. This extension is
useful when HTTP datagrams are transported on top of a multipath
protocol that does not ensure in-order delivery as it allows a masque
endpoint to implement reordering logic specific to its needs.
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-ihlar-masque-datagram-
numbers/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the WG Working Group
mailing list (mailto:masque@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ihlar/draft-ihlar-masque-datagram-numbers.
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."
Ihlar & Westerlund Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TODO - Abbreviation March 2023
This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 September 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Sequence Number Datagram Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Datagram Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Capsule types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. HTTP headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
This document defines a sequence number extension to HTTP datagrams
[RFC9297]. Sequence numbers at the HTTP datagram layer allows a
receiving endpoint to implement arbitrary reordering logic, which can
be useful when proxied datagrams are sent over multiple paths
simultaneously, such as when using the multipath QUIC extension
[MPQUIC]. The extension applies to HTTP datagrams when they are used
with the extended CONNECT method and the protocols are either
connect-ip [CONNECT-IP] or connect-udp [RFC9298].
Ihlar & Westerlund Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TODO - Abbreviation March 2023
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.
3. Sequence Number Datagram Extension
The Sequence Number datagram extension prepends sequence numbers to
HTTP datagrams. Datagram sequence numbers are unsigned integers
initiated to 0 and are incremented by 1 for every transmitted HTTP
datagram, except for when the integer overflows and is reset to 0.
The extension can be used with the HTTP CONNECT method when the
:protocol pseudo header is equal to "connect-udp" or "connect-ip".
Use of the sequence number extension is determined per request, and
the scope of a datagram sequence is limited to a single request
stream. Datagrams with different quarter stream IDs have distinct
sequence number spaces.
3.1. Registration
Endpoints indicate support for Sequence Number Datagram type by
including the boolean-valued Item Structured Field "DG-Sequence: ?1"
in the HTTP Request and Response headers (See Section 3.3.6 of
[RFC8941] for information about the boolean format.).
A datagram sequence is registered by sending a
REGISTER_SEQUENCE_CONTEXT capsule. An endpoint MAY send multiple
REGISTER_SEQUENCE_CONTEXT capsules in order to support multiple
payload formats.
REGISTER_SEQUENCE_CONTEXT Capsule {
Type (i) = REGISTER_SEQUENCE_CONTEXT,
Length (i),
Context ID (i),
Payload Context ID (i),
[Representation (8)]
}
The capsule has the following fields:
Context ID: Identifies a sequence number context. The value MUST be
unique within the scope of a request stream.
Ihlar & Westerlund Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TODO - Abbreviation March 2023
Payload Context ID: Identifies the type of payload that follows a
sequence number. The value MUST be equal to a previously registered
Context ID.
Representation: The size in bits of the unsigned interger used to
encode the sequence number, the value MUST be one of the following:
8, 16, 32 or 64. This field MUST be present in the first
REGISTER_SEQUENCE_CONTEXT capsule sent on a request stream and it MAY
be omitted in subsequent capsules.
3.2. Datagram Format
A Sequence Number Datagram has the following format:
Sequence Number Datagram {
Context ID (i),
Sequence Number (8..64),
Payload (..)
}
Context ID: This value indicates that the datagram contains a
sequence number and the format of the data that follows the sequence
number.
Sequence Number: Unsigned integer of size specified in registration,
indicates the transmission order of the datagagram.
Payload: Datagram payload.
4. Security Considerations
Although the usage of the sequence number is not defined by this
specification, there is an underlying assumption that the sequence
numbers are assigned in transmission order of HTTP datagram sent in
the context of this HTTP request. Any attacker that can break that
assumption will thus impact any node that uses the sequence number.
By altering the sequence number in HTTP datagrams, an attacker can
impact how much data a receiver is buffering for the following
purposes:
* Resource exhaustion attack by maximizing the amount of data
buffered in each HTTP request context
* Introducing reordering, jitter and additional delay in the path
properties for these datagram
Ihlar & Westerlund Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TODO - Abbreviation March 2023
* Cause the sequence number using node to drop some HTTP Datagrams
by causing them to be so far reordered that some policy in the
receiving node drops the datagram.
A malicious endpoint is more likely to mount a resource exhaustion
attack, while HTTP intermediares could be used by an third party
attacker to impact the HTTP datagram flow between a source and a
destination.
A user that buffers datagrams based on sequence numbers should ensure
that they have protection against resource exhaustion attacks by
limiting the size of their buffers.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Capsule types
This document adds following entries to the "HTTP Capsule Types"
registry:
+===========================+=======+=================+
| Capsule Type | Value | Specification |
+===========================+=======+=================+
| REGISTER_SEQUENCE_CONTEXT | TBD | (This document) |
+---------------------------+-------+-----------------+
Table 1
5.2. HTTP headers
This document adds following entry to the "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry":
+=============+==========+===========+=================+==========+
| Field Name | Template | Status | Reference | Comments |
+=============+==========+===========+=================+==========+
| DG-Sequence | | permanent | (This document) | |
+-------------+----------+-----------+-----------------+----------+
Table 2
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[CONNECT-IP]
Pauly, T., Schinazi, D., Chernyakhovsky, A., Kühlewind,
M., and M. Westerlund, "Proxying IP in HTTP", Work in
Ihlar & Westerlund Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TODO - Abbreviation March 2023
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-08,
1 March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-08>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8941] Nottingham, M. and P-H. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941>.
[RFC9297] Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "HTTP Datagrams and the
Capsule Protocol", RFC 9297, DOI 10.17487/RFC9297, August
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9297>.
[RFC9298] Schinazi, D., "Proxying UDP in HTTP", RFC 9298,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9298, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9298>.
6.2. Informative References
[MPQUIC] Liu, Y., Ma, Y., De Coninck, Q., Bonaventure, O., Huitema,
C., and M. Kühlewind, "Multipath Extension for QUIC", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-multipath-03,
24 October 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-quic-multipath-03>.
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Authors' Addresses
Marcus Ihlar
Ericsson AB
Email: marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com
Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson
Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Ihlar & Westerlund Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 6]
