Subject: [TLS] Fwd: [secdir] [new-work] WG Review: Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:35:13 -0400

The http-bis wg recharter ought to be of interest to the TLS WG.

spt

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [secdir] [new-work] WG Review: Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis 
(httpbis)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:13:13 -0700
From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) working group in the
Applications Area of the IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has
not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2012-09-25.

Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active Working Group

Chairs:
   Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>

Assigned Area Director:
   Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>

Mailing list
   Address: [email-masked]
   To Subscribe: [email-masked]
   Archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/

Charter of Working Group:

This Working Group is charged with maintaining and developing the "core"
specifications for HTTP.

The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
* A document (or set of documents) that is suitable to supersede RFC 2616
as
   the definition of HTTP/1.1 and move RFC 2817 to Historic status
* A document cataloguing the security properties of HTTP/1.1
* A document (or set of documents) that specifies HTTP/2.0, an improved
   binding of HTTP's semantics to an underlying transport.

HTTP/1.1
--------

HTTP/1.1 is one of the most successful and widely-used protocols on the
Internet today. However, its specification has several editorial issues.
Additionally, after years of implementation and extension, several
ambiguities
have become evident, impairing interoperability and the ability to easily
implement and use HTTP.

The working group will refine RFC2616 to:
* Incorporate errata and updates (e.g., references, IANA registries,
ABNF)
* Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of the
   specification
* Clarify conformance requirements
* Remove known ambiguities where they affect interoperability
* Clarify existing methods of extensibility
* Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely implemented and
   also unduly affect interoperability
* Where necessary, add implementation advice
* Document the security properties of HTTP and its associated mechanisms
   (e.g., Basic and Digest authentication, cookies, TLS) for common
   applications

It will also incorporate the generic authentication framework from RFC
2617, without obsoleting or updating that specification's definition of
the Basic and Digest schemes.

Finally, it will incorporate relevant portions of RFC 2817 (in
particular, the CONNECT method and advice on the use of Upgrade), so
that that specification can be moved to Historic status.

In doing so, it should consider:
* Implementer experience
* Demonstrated use of HTTP
* Impact on existing implementations and deployments

HTTP/2.0
--------

There is emerging implementation experience and interest in a protocol
that
retains the semantics of HTTP without the legacy of HTTP/1.x message
framing and syntax, which have been identified as hampering performance
and
encouraging misuse of the underlying transport.

The Working Group will produce a specification of a new expression of
HTTP's
current semantics in ordered, bi-directional streams. As with HTTP/1.x,
the primary target transport is TCP, but it should be possible to use
other transports.

Work will begin using draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 as a starting point;
proposals are to be expressed in terms of changes to that document. Note
that
consensus is required both for changes to the document and anything that
remains in the document.

As part of that work, the following issues are explicitly called out for
discussion:
* A negotiation mechanism that is capable of not only choosing between
   HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2.x, but also for bindings of HTTP URLs to other
   transports (for example).
* Header compression (which may encompass header encoding or
tokenisation)
* Server push (which may encompass pull or other techniques)

It is expected that HTTP/2.0 will:
* Substantially and measurably improve end-user perceived latency in most
   cases, over HTTP/1.1 using TCP.
* Address the "head of line blocking" problem in HTTP.
* Not require multiple connections to a server to enable parallelism,
thus
   improving its use of TCP, especially regarding congestion control.
* Retain the semantics of HTTP/1.1, leveraging existing documentation
(see
   above), including (but not limited to) HTTP methods, status codes,
URIs, and
   where appropriate, header fields.
* Clearly define how HTTP/2.0 interacts with HTTP/1.x, especially in
   intermediaries (both 2->1 and 1->2).
* Clearly identify any new extensibility points and policy for their
   appropriate use.

The resulting specification(s) are expected to meet these goals for
common
existing deployments of HTTP; in particular, Web browsing (desktop and
mobile), non-browsers ("HTTP APIs"), Web serving (at a variety of
scales), and
intermediation (by proxies, corporate firewalls, "reverse" proxies and
Content
Delivery Networks). Likewise, current and future semantic extensions to
HTTP/1.x (e.g., headers, methods, status codes, cache directives) should
be
supported in the new protocol.

Note that this does not include uses of HTTP where non-specified
behaviours
are relied upon (e.g., connection state such as timeouts or client
affinity,
and "interception" proxies); these uses may or may not be enabled by the
final
product.

Explicitly out-of-scope items include:
* Specifying the use of alternate transport-layer protocols. Note that it

   is expected that the Working Group will work with the TLS working group
   to define how the protocol is used with the TLS Protocol.
* Specifying how the HTTP protocol is to be used or presented in a
specific
   use case (e.g., in Web browsers).

The Working Group will coordinate this item with:
* The TLS Working Group, regarding use of TLS.
* The Transport Area, regarding impact on and interaction with transport
   protocols.
* The HYBI Working Group, regarding the possible future extension of
HTTP/2.0
   to carry WebSockets semantics.

The Working Group will give priority to HTTP/1.1 work until that work is
complete.

Other HTTP-Related Work
-----------------------

The Working Group may define additional extensions to HTTP as work items,
provided that:
* The Working Group Chairs judge that there is consensus to take on the
item
   and believe that it will not interfere with the work described above,
and
* The Area Directors approve the addition and add corresponding
milestones.

Additionally, the Working Group will not start work on any extensions
that
are specific to HTTP/2.0 until that work is completed.

Goals and Milestones

Done	First HTTP/1.1 Revision Internet Draft
Done	First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
Done	Call for Proposals for HTTP/2.0
Sep 2012	Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 Revision
Oct 2012	Working Group Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
Oct 2012	First WG draft of HTTP/2.0, based upon
draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00
Nov 2012	Submit HTTP/1.1 Revision to IESG for consideration as a Proposed
Standard
Nov 2012	Submit HTTP Security Properties to IESG for consideration as
Informational RFC
Apr 2014	Working Group Last call for HTTP/2.0
Nov 2014	Submit HTTP/2.0 to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Milestones:
   Done     - First HTTP/1.1 Revision Internet Draft
   Done     - First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
   Mar 2012 - Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 Revision
   Mar 2012 - Call for Proposals for HTTP/2.0
   Jun 2012 - Working Group Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
   Jul 2012 - Submit HTTP/1.1 Revision to IESG for consideration as a
Proposed Standard
   Jul 2012 - Submit HTTP Security Properties to IESG for consideration as
Informational RFC
   Aug 2012 - Re-charter to work on HTTP/2.0
_______________________________________________
new-work mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/new-work
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:46:08 -0700

This looks basically good, but I think some minor clarification might
be in order
to note that any 2818 bis would be in TLS.

E.g.,

>   to define how the protocol is used with the TLS Protocol.

Add: any revisions to RFC 2818 will be done in the TLS WG.

-Ekr