Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt

Hi there,

below comments on the current version in git:

>    The HTTP Tunnel-Protocol header field identifies the protocol that
>    will be spoken within the tunnel, using the application layer next
>    protocol identifier [RFC7301] specified for TLS [RFC5246].

Maybe intro "ALPN" here?

>    When CONNECT is used to establish a TLS tunnel, the Tunnel-Protocol
>    header field may be used to carry the same next protocol label as was
>    carried within the TLS handshake.  However, the HTTP-Protocol is an

"HTTP-Protocol"? Typo?

> 2.  The Tunnel-Protocol HTTP Request Header Field
>    Clients include the Tunnel-Protocol Request Header field in a HTTP
>    Connect request to indicate the application layer protocol used


>    within the tunnel.

Should we say something about the semantics of the field name in 
requests other than CONNECT?

> 2.1.  Header Field Values
>    Valid values for the protocol field are taken from the registry
>    established in [RFC7301].

It would be more helpful to reference the IANA registry 

> 2.2.  Syntax
>    The ABNF (Augmented Backus-Naur Form) syntax for the Tunnel-Protocol
>    header field is given below.  It is based on the Generic Grammar
>    defined in Section 2 of [RFC7230].

Section 2 of [RFC7230] doesn't define a "Generic Grammar".

>       Tunnel-Protocol = "Tunnel-Protocol:" protocol-id
>       protocol-id     = token ; percent-encoded ALPN protocol identifier

This should only define the field value (not the field name). See 
for an example.

>    ALPN protocol names are octet sequences with no additional
>    constraints on format.  Octets not allowed in tokens ([RFC7230],
>    Section 3.2.6) must be percent-encoded as per Section 2.1 of
>    [RFC3986].  Consequently, the octet representing the percent
>    character "%" (hex 25) must be percent-encoded as well.
>    In order to have precisely one way to represent any ALPN protocol
>    name, the following additional constraints apply:
>    o  Octets in the ALPN protocol must not be percent-encoded if they
>       are valid token characters except "%", and
>    o  When using percent-encoding, uppercase hex digits must be used.
>    With these constraints, recipients can apply simple string comparison
>    to match protocol identifiers.

(steal with pride :-)

>    For example:
>      CONNECT HTTP/1.1
>      Host:
>      Tunnel-Protocol: turn

Do we need to state how to treat multiple field instances? (Any security 
concern here?)

> 3.  IANA Considerations
>    [[anchor6: To Be Added]]

Insert header field registration...

> 4.  Security Considerations
>    In case of using HTTP CONNECT to a TURN server the security
>    consideration of Section 4.3.6 of [RFC7231] apply.  It states that
>    there "are significant risks in establishing a tunnel to arbitrary
>    servers, particularly when the destination is a well-known or
>    reserved TCP port that is not intended for Web traffic.  Proxies that
>    support CONNECT SHOULD restrict its use to a limited set of known
>    ports or a configurable whitelist of safe request targets."
>    The Tunnel-Protocol request header field described in this document
>    is an optional header and HTTP Proxies may of course not support the

s/header/header field/

- avoid lowercase "may"; maybe say "might".

>    header and therefore ignore it.  If the header is not present or
>    ignored then the proxy has no explicit indication as to the purpose
>    of the tunnel on which to provide consent, this is the generic case


>    that exists without the Tunnel-Protocol header.
> 5.  References
> 5.1.  Normative References
>    [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
>    [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
>               Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
>               RFC 3986, January 2005.
>    [RFC7230]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
>               (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230,
>               June 2014.
>    [RFC7231]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
>               (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.
>    [RFC7301]  Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
>               "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
>               Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, July 2014.
> 5.2.  Informative References
>    [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
>               (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 22 August 2014 09:58:44 UTC