idnits 2.17.1 draft-bishop-httpbis-grease-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 89: '...o semantic meaning, and SHOULD be send...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 91: '... They MAY also be sent on connection...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 92: '...rred. Endpoints MUST NOT consider the...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 95: '...ength of the frames SHOULD be selected...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 101: '... no defined meaning. Endpoints SHOULD...' (3 more instances...) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 24, 2018) is 2163 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7540 (ref. 'HTTP2') (Obsoleted by RFC 9113) == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-tls-grease-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-thomson-use-it-or-lose-it-01 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 HTTPbis M. Bishop 3 Internet-Draft Akamai 4 Intended status: Standards Track May 24, 2018 5 Expires: November 25, 2018 7 GREASE for HTTP/2 8 draft-bishop-httpbis-grease-00 10 Abstract 12 Reserves several values in the HTTP/2 registries to exercise the 13 requirement that clients and servers ignore unknown values. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 2018. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. Using GREASE in HTTP/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2.1. GREASE for Frame Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2.2. GREASE for SETTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4.1. Frame Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4.2. Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 1. Introduction 65 [UseIt] observes that extension and negotiation mechanisms which 66 aren't exercised regularly can be found not to work when they are 67 later employed by an extension to the protocol. [GREASE] is one 68 mitigation which originated in TLS, registering multiple values in 69 various TLS registries which can be sent prospectively by clients. 71 The common requirement of the different spaces described by these 72 documents is the requirement that recipients ignore unrecognized 73 values. By reserving a scattered set of codepoints to have no 74 defined meaning, clients and servers can inject values from these 75 ranges into connections on a regular basis and exercise this 76 requirement. 78 HTTP/2 [HTTP2] frame types and settings employ a similar mechanism of 79 ignoring unknown values. This makes HTTP/2 a good candidate to 80 employ grease on connections. The need for such a technique was 81 demonstrated recently by an HTTP/2 implementation which closed the 82 connection upon receipt of an unknown setting. 84 2. Using GREASE in HTTP/2 86 2.1. GREASE for Frame Types 88 Frame types of the format "0xb + (0x1f * N)" are reserved for use as 89 grease. These frames have no semantic meaning, and SHOULD be send 90 instead of using padding on DATA or HEADERS frames where possible. 91 They MAY also be sent on connections where there is no application 92 data currently being transferred. Endpoints MUST NOT consider these 93 frames to have any meaning upon receipt. 95 Both the payload and length of the frames SHOULD be selected 96 randomly, subject to implementation-defined limits on the length. 98 2.2. GREASE for SETTINGS 100 Settings values of the format "0x?a?a" are reserved for use as 101 grease. Such settings have no defined meaning. Endpoints SHOULD 102 include at least one such setting in their initial SETTINGS frame, 103 and MAY send new SETTINGS frames during the connection containing 104 additional grease values. Endpoints MUST NOT consider such settings 105 to have any meaning upon receipt. 107 Because the setting has no defined meaning, the value of the setting 108 SHOULD be selected randomly. 110 3. Security Considerations 112 The ability to design, implement, and deploy new protocol mechanisms 113 can be critical to security. 115 4. IANA Considerations 117 4.1. Frame Types 119 This document registers a range of entries in the "HTTP/2 Frame Type" 120 registry defined in [HTTP2]. For each code of the format "0xb + 121 (0x1f * N)" for values of N in the range (0..7) (that is, "0xb", 122 "0x2a", etc., through "0xe4"), the following values should be 123 registered: 125 Frame Type: Reserved - GREASE 127 Specification: This document 129 4.2. Settings 131 This document registers a range of entries in the "HTTP/2 Settings" 132 registry defined in [HTTP2]. For each code of the format "0x?a?a" 133 where each "?" is any octet (that is, "0x0a0a", "0x0a1a", etc. 134 through "0xfafa"), the following values should be registered: 136 Name: Reserved - GREASE 138 Initial Value: (undefined) 140 Specification: This document 142 5. References 144 5.1. Normative References 146 [HTTP2] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext 147 Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, 148 DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, 149 . 151 5.2. Informative References 153 [GREASE] Benjamin, D., "Applying GREASE to TLS Extensibility", 154 draft-ietf-tls-grease-00 (work in progress), January 2017. 156 [UseIt] Thomson, M., "Long-term Viability of Protocol Extension 157 Mechanisms", draft-thomson-use-it-or-lose-it-01 (work in 158 progress), March 2018. 160 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 162 This draft arose from a discussion in the QUIC WG with Lucas Pardue, 163 Ryan Hamilton, and Martin Thomson. 165 Author's Address 167 Mike Bishop 168 Akamai 170 Email: mbishop@evequefou.be