Re: Method Mania

Rahul, All,

Rahul, I'm reading your draft.

All,

When using h2 & h3, when the client does a request, at the messaging layer,
what is the request line version string?

Is it:
GET / HTTP/2
GET / HTTP/3

Or
GET / HTTP/1.1
GET / HTTP/1.1

Does the version string reflect the transport layer or messaging layer?

If we add new methods, can we update the version string?




On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 9:40 PM Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Breakage up and down the stack from interception on-device (AV software)
> or MITM devices.
>
> I haven't rolled out new methods but, generally, the software makes
> assumptions and tends to break when those assumptions break.
>
> We've seen it with content-encodings a few times.
>
> We saw it when software was expecting headers and post body to all be sent
> in one socket write.
>
> The TLS example is similar to the write problem where the interceptor
> doesn't buffer the stream and expects the full client hello in a single
> read.
>
> In all cases it was mishandling of well-spec'd protocols but the
> interceptors took shortcuts and broke.
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 9:32 PM <joshco@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Patrick,
>>
>> When you say, “We have seen it more often than I care to admit…”,
>>
>> are you referring to failures due to HTTP methods, new frame types, or
>> something else?
>>
>>
>>
>> With respect to TLS failures, are those actual TLS related failures or
>> are they symptoms of the above problem?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 28, 2024 9:35 AM
>> *To:* Josh Cohen <joshco@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Method Mania
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply not to go forward or to necessarily find a
>> way to thread the needle but to explicitly plan for there to be
>> middle-boxes that break and to be deliberate about how to handle that case,
>> even for HTTPS.
>>
>>
>>
>> Failing loudly, in obvious and testable ways is WAY better than failing
>> silently or in random ways. It makes it much easier for IT teams and
>> software vendors to identify the root cause and test fixes. It can also be
>> good to force failures broadly rather than pick just a subset of the
>> population for it to work on (like requiring IPv6 features). There will be
>> some middleboxes with issues but there will be a lot more that don't have
>> issues and it would artificially limit the reach of the feature if you
>> disable it for all middlebox cases.
>>
>>
>>
>> I expect that new frame types for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 would be more
>> compatible than new methods just because devices are already parsing the
>> existing headers and streams for content and would be more likely to error
>> out when seeing a method they don't understand (but, odds are, new frames
>> will have some number of devices that fail as well).
>>
>>
>>
>> We have seen it more often than I care to admit, with the rollouts for
>> HTTP/2, brotli, post-quantum TLS and now with compression dictionaries
>> (which, you'd think the brotli rollout would have prepared devices for
>> handling content-encoding negotiation in a compatible way, but nope).
>>
>>
>>
>> The devices tend to fail the connections in painful ways, like closing
>> the whole connection when it sees payload content it doesn't like (wiping
>> out a bunch of multiplexed requests on a HTTP/2 connection for example).
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the site we're currently sending IT admins to when they get
>> reports of TLS failures with the post-quantum rollout (mostly because of
>> broken middleboxes): https://tldr.fail/
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd encourage the team to continue without trying to get too fancy, just
>> expect there will be some ecosystem cleanup needed when it is rolled out
>> and to plan for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Cohen <joshco@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Same here..  Patrick also said:
>>
>> "The better question is under what circumstances do we want to allow
>> those devices to "break" and force them to fix the implementations?"
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe a reasonable interpretation of Patrick's statement is that it's
>> time to be *bold.  *HTTP/1.1 RFC2616 was published in 1999.  It's the 25
>> year anniversary. 🥳  In the intervening years, the IETF has done a
>> great job evolving the transport.  That's created the foundation for things
>> we couldn't do back then.   I don't think it was a coincidence that Lisa
>> Dusseault was in the room.  The universe is speaking to us.  Maybe it's
>> time for a WebDAV re-spin..  The web could also have standardized pub/sub.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we add new functionality that users and devs want, and makes admin
>> life easier, that could be helpful in driving better implementations, and
>> uptake of HTTP/2/3 and masque proxying.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 10:07 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 27.07.2024 16:44, Patrick Meenan wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 4:23 AM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de
>> > <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On 26.07.2024 00:27, Josh Cohen wrote:
>> >      > On the httpwg agenda at IETF 120 were a proposal for a new QUERY
>> >     method
>> >      > and Braid, which has subscription functionality that overloads
>> >     the GET
>> >      > method.
>> >      >
>> >      > What I am curious about is if, at this point in the evolution of
>> the
>> >      > web, it is now safe to add new methods for new functionality.
>> >     I've been
>> >      > reading up on HTTP/2/3 and it seems that nowadays, connections
>> are
>> >      > end-to-end secure and are essentially tunneled through middle
>> boxes,
>> >      > including HTTP/1.1 proxies. I'm still just wrapping my head
>> around
>> >      > MASQUE, but it looks like it can handle arbitrary methods.
>> Similarly
>> >      > origin servers have evolved to support arbitrary methods.
>> >
>> >     It always has been "safe", when https was used.
>> >
>> >
>> > https is not "safe" in practical terms because of middleboxes that
>> > intercept the connections. It is very common in enterprise deployments
>> > where they install local trust anchors on the client devices and use
>> > mitm software to inspect the traffic.
>> > ...
>>
>> I meant "safe" wrt deploying new HTTP methods.
>>
>> When was the last time you encountered a problem?
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ---
>> *Josh Co*hen
>>
>>

-- 

---
*Josh Co*hen