Tag Archives: IETF

cURL and libcurl

A bug that was 23 years old or not

1 Comment

This is a tale of cookies, Internet code and a CVE. It goes back a long time so please take a seat, lean back and follow along.

The scene is of course curl, the internet transfer tool and library I work on.

1998

In October 1998 we shipped curl 4.9. In 1998. Few people had heard of curl or used it back then. This was a few months before the curl website would announce that curl achieved 300 downloads of a new release. curl was still small in every meaning of the word at that time.

curl 4.9 was the first release that shipped with the “cookie engine”. curl could then receive HTTP cookies, parse them, understand them and send back cookies properly in subsequent requests. Like the browsers did. I wrote the bigger part of the curl code for managing cookies.

In 1998, the only specification that existed and described how cookies worked was a very brief document that Netscape used to host called cookie_spec. I keep a copy of that document around for curious readers. It really does not document things very well and it leaves out enormous amounts information that you had to figure out by inspecting other clients.

The cookie code I implemented than was based on that documentation and what the browsers seemed to do at the time. It seemed to work with numerous server implementations. People found good use for the feature.

2000s

This decade passed with a few separate efforts in the IETF to create cookie specifications but they all failed. The authors of these early cookie specs probably thought they could create standards and the world would magically adapt to them, but this did not work. Cookies are somewhat special in the regard that they are implemented by so many different authors, code bases and websites that fundamentally changing the way they work in a “decree from above” like that is difficult if not downright impossible.

RFC 6265

Finally, in 2011 there was a cookie rfc published! This time with the reversed approach: it primarily documented and clarified how cookies were actually already being used.

I was there and I helped it get made by proving my views and opinions. I did not agree to everything that the spec includes (you can find blog posts about some of those details), but finally having a proper spec was still a huge improvement to the previous state of the world.

Double syntax

What did not bother me much at the time, but has been giving me a bad rash ever since, is the peculiar way the spec is written: it provides one field syntax for how servers should send cookies, and a different one for what syntax clients should accept for cookies.

Two syntax for the same cookies.

This has at least two immediate downsides:

  1. It is hard to read the spec as it is very easy to to fall over one of those and assume that syntax is valid for your use case and accidentally get the wrong role’s description.
  2. The syntax defining how to send cookie is not really relevant as the clients are the ones that decide if they should receive and handle the cookies. The existing large cookie parsers (== browsers) are all fairly liberal in what they accept so nobody notices nor cares about if the servers don’t follow the stricter syntax in the spec.

RFC 6265bis

Since a few years back, there is ongoing work in IETF on revising and updating the cookie spec of 2011. Things have evolved and some extensions to cookies have been put into use in the world and deserves to be included in the spec. If you would to implement code today that manage cookies, the old RFC is certainly not enough anymore. This cookie spec update work is called 6265bis.

curl is up to date and compliant with what the draft versions of RFC 6265bis say.

The issue about the double syntax from above is still to be resolved in the document, but I faced unexpectedly tough resistance when I recently shared my options and thoughts about that spec peculiarity.

It can be noted that fundamentally, cookies still work the same way as they did back in 1998. There are added nuances and knobs sure, but the basic principles have remained. And will so even in the cookie spec update.

One of oddities of cookies is that they don’t work on origins like most other web features do.

HTTP Request tunneling

While cookies have evolved slowly over time, the HTTP specs have also been updated and refreshed a few times over the decades, but perhaps even more importantly the HTTP server implementations have implemented stricter parsing policies as they have (together with the rest of the world) that being liberal in what you accept (Postel’s law) easily lead to disasters. Like the dreaded and repeated HTTP request tunneling/smuggling attacks have showed us.

To combat this kind of attack, and probably to reduce the risk of other issues as well, HTTP servers started to reject incoming HTTP requests early if they appear “illegal” or malformed. Block them already at the door and not letting obvious crap in. In particular this goes for control codes in requests. If you try to send a request to a reasonably new HTTP server today that contains a control code, chances are very high that the server will reject the request and just return a 400 response code.

With control code I mean a byte value between 1 and 31 (excluding 9 which is TAB)

The well known HTTP server Apache httpd has this behavior enabled by default since 2.4.25, shipped in December 2016. Modern nginx versions seem to do this as well, but I have not investigated since exactly when.

Cookies for other hosts

If cookies were designed today for the first time, they certainly would be made different.

A website that sets cookies sends cookies to the client. For each cookie it sends, it sets a number of properties for the cookie. In particular it sets matching parameters for when the cookie should be sent back again by the client.

One of these cookie parameters set for a cookie is the domain that need to match for the client to send it. A server that is called www.example.com can set a cookie for the entire example.com domain, meaning that the cookie will then be sent by the client also when visiting second.example.com. Servers can set cookies for “sibling sites!

Eventually the two paths merged

The cookie code added to curl in 1998 was quite liberal in what content it accepted and while it was of course adjusted and polished over the years, it was working and it was compatible with real world websites.

The main driver for changes in that area of the code has always been to make sure that curl works like and interoperates with other cookie-using agents out in the wild.

CVE-2022-35252

In the end of June 2022 we received a report of a suspected security problem in curl, that would later result in our publication of CVE-2022-35252.

As it turned out, the old cookie code from 1998 accepted cookies that contained control codes. The control codes could be part of the name or the the content just fine, and if the user enabled the “cookie engine” curl would store those cookies and send them back in subsequent requests.

Example of a cookie curl would happily accept:

Set-Cookie: name^a=content^b; domain=.example.com

The ^a and ^b represent control codes, byte code one and two. Since the domain can mark the cookie for another host, as mentioned above, this cookie would get included for requests to all hosts within that domain.

When curl sends a cookie like that to a HTTP server, it would include a header field like this in its outgoing request:

Cookie: name^a=content^b

400

… to which a default configure Apache httpd and other servers will respond 400. For a script or an application that received theses cookies, further requests will be denied for as long as the cookies keep getting sent. A denial of service.

What does the spec say?

The client side part of RFC 6265, section 5.2 is not easy to decipher and figuring out that a client should discard cookies with control cookies requires deep studies of the document. There is in fact no mention of “control codes” or this byte range in the spec. I suppose I am just a bad spec reader.

Browsers

It is actually easier to spot what the popular browsers do since their source codes are easily available, and it turns out of course that both Chrome and Firefox already ignore incoming cookies that contain any of the bytes 

%01-%08 / %0b-%0c / %0e-%1f / %7f

The range does not include %09, which is TAB and %0a / %0d which are line endings.

The fix

The curl fix was not too surprisingly and quite simply to refuse cookie fields that contain one or more of those banned byte values. As they are not accepted by the browser’s already, the risk that any legitimate site are using them for any benign purpose is very slim and I deem this change to be nearly risk-free.

The age of the bug

The vulnerable code has been in curl versions since version 4.9 which makes it exactly 8,729 days (23.9 years) until the shipped version 7.85.0 that fixed it. It also means that we introduced the bug on project day 201 and fixed it on day 8,930.

The code was not problematic when it shipped and it was not problematic during a huge portion of the time it has been used by a large amount of users.

It become problematic when HTTP servers started to refuse HTTP requests they suspected could be malicious. The way this code turned into a denial of service was therefore more or less just collateral damage. An unfortunate side effect.

Maybe the bug was born first when RFC 6265 was published. Maybe it was born when the first widely used HTTP server started to reject these requests.

Project record

8,729 days is a new project record age for a CVE to have been present in the code until found. It is still the forth CVE that were lingering around for over 8,000 days until found.

Credits

Thanks to Stefan Eissing for digging up historic Apache details.

Axel Chong submitted the CVE-2022-35252 report.

Campfire image by Martin Winkler from Pixabay

cURL and libcurl

Fun multipart/form-data inconsistencies

I still remember the RFC number off the top of my head for the first multipart formdata spec that I implemented support for in curl. Added to curl in version 5.0, December 1998. RFC 1867.

Multipart formdata is the name of the syntax for how HTTP clients send data in a HTTP POST when they want to send binary content and multiple fields. Perhaps the most common use case for users is when uploading a file or an image with a browser to a website. This is also what you fire off with curl’s -F command line option.

RFC 1867 was published in November 1995 and it has subsequently been updated several times. The most recent incarnation for this spec is now known as RFC 7578, published in July 2015. Twenty years of history, experiences and minor adjustments. How do they affect us?

I admit to having dozed off a little at the wheel and I hadn’t really paid attention to the little tweaks that slowly had been happening in the multipart formata world until Ryan Sleevi woke me up.

Percent-encoding

While I wasn’t looking, the popular browsers have now all switched over to a different encoding style for field and file names within the format. They now all use percent-encoding, where we originally all used to do backslash-escaping! I haven’t actually bothered to check exactly when they switched, primarily because I don’t think it matters terribly much. They do this because this is now the defined syntax in WHATWG’s HTML spec. Yes, another case of separate specs diverging and saying different things for what is essentially the same format.

curl 7.80.0 is probably the last curl version to do the escaping the old way and we are likely to switch to the new way by default starting in the next release. The work on this is done by Patrick Monnerat in his PR.

For us in the curl project it is crucial to maintain behavior, but it is also important to be standard compliant and to interoperate with the big world out there. When all the major browsers have switched to percent-encoding I suspect it is only a matter of time until servers and server-side scripts start to assume and require percent-encoding. This is a tricky balancing act. There will be users who expect us to keep up with the browsers, but also some that expect us to maintain the way we’ve done it for almost twenty-three years…

libcurl users at least, will be offered a way to switch back to use the old escaping mechanism to make sure applications that know they work with older style server decoders can keep their applications working.

Landing

This blog post is made public before the PR mentioned above has been merged in order for people to express opinions and comments before it is done. The plan is to have it merged and ship in curl 7.81.0, to be released in January 2022.

Network, Security

QUIC is RFC 9000

1 Comment

The official publication date of the relevant QUIC specifications is: May 27, 2021.

I’ve done many presentations about HTTP and related technologies over the years. HTTP/2 had only just shipped when the QUIC working group had been formed in the IETF and I started to mention and describe what was being done there.

I’ve explained HTTP/3

I started writing the document HTTP/3 explained in February 2018 before the protocol was even called HTTP/3 (and yeah the document itself was also called something else at first). The HTTP protocol for QUIC was just called “HTTP over QUIC” in the beginning and it took until November 2018 before it got the name HTTP/3. I did my first presentation using HTTP/3 in the title and on slides in early December 2018, My first recorded HTTP/3 presentation was in January 2019 (in Stockholm, Sweden).

In that talk I mentioned that the protocol would be “live” by the summer of 2019, which was an optimistic estimate based on the then current milestones set out by the IETF working group.

I think my optimism regarding the release schedule has kept up but as time progressed I’ve updated that estimation many times…

HTTP/3 – not yet

The first four RFC documentations to be ratified and published only concern QUIC, the transport protocol, and not the HTTP/3 parts. The two HTTP/3 documents are also in queue but are slightly delayed as they await some other prerequisite (“generic” HTTP update) documents to ship first, then the HTTP/3 ones can ship and refer to those other documents.

QUIC

QUIC is a new transport protocol. It is done over UDP and can be described as being something of a TCP + TLS replacement, merged into a single protocol.

Okay, the title of this blog is misleading. QUIC is actually documented in four different RFCs:

RFC 8999 – Version-Independent Properties of QUIC

RFC 9000 – QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport

RFC 9001 – Using TLS to Secure QUIC

RFC 9002 – QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control

My role: I’m just a bystander

I initially wanted to keep up closely with the working group and follow what happened and participate on the meetings and interims etc. It turned out to be too difficult for me to do that so I had to lower my ambitions and I’ve mostly had a casual observing role. I just couldn’t muster the energy and spend the time necessary to do it properly.

I’ve participated in many of the meetings, I’ve been present in the QUIC implementers slack, I’ve followed lots of design and architectural discussions on the mailing list and in GitHub issues. I’ve worked on implementing support for QUIC and h3 in curl and thanks to that helped out iron issues and glitches in various implementations, but the now published RFCs have virtually no traces of me or my feedback in them.

cURL and libcurl, Network, Web

Where is HTTP/3 right now?

1 Comment

tldr: the level of HTTP/3 support in servers is surprisingly high.

The specs

The specifications are all done. They’re now waiting in queues to get their final edits and approvals before they will get assigned RFC numbers and get published as such – they will not change any further. That’s a set of RFCs (six I believe) for various aspects of this new stack. The HTTP/3 spec is just one of those. Remember: HTTP/3 is the application protocol done over the new transport QUIC. (See http3 explained for a high-level description.)

The HTTP/3 spec was written to refer to, and thus depend on, two other HTTP specs that are in the works: httpbis-cache and https-semantics. Those two are mostly clarifications and cleanups of older HTTP specs, but this forces the HTTP/3 spec to have to get published after the other two, which might introduce a small delay compared to the other QUIC documents.

The working group has started to take on work on new specifications for extensions and improvements beyond QUIC version 1.

HTTP/3 Usage

In early April 2021, the usage of QUIC and HTTP/3 in the world is measured by a few different companies.

QUIC support

netray.io scans the IPv4 address space weekly and checks how many hosts that speak QUIC. Their latest scan found 2.1 million such hosts.

Arguably, the netray number doesn’t say much. Those two million hosts could be very well used or barely used machines.

HTTP/3 by w3techs

w3techs.com has been in the game of scanning web sites for stats purposes for a long time. They scan the top ten million sites and count how large share that runs/supports what technologies and they also check for HTTP/3. In their data they call the old Google QUIC for just “QUIC” which is confusing but that should be seen as the precursor to HTTP/3.

What stands out to me in this data except that the HTTP/3 usage seems very high: the top one-million sites are claimed to have a higher share of HTTP/3 support (16.4%) than the top one-thousand (11.9%)! That’s the reversed for HTTP/2 and not how stats like this tend to look.

It has been suggested that the growth starting at Feb 2021 might be explained by Cloudflare’s enabling of HTTP/3 for users also in their free plan.

HTTP/3 by Cloudflare

On radar.cloudflare.com we can see Cloudflare’s view of a lot of Internet and protocol trends over the world.

The last 30 days according to radar.cloudflare.com

This HTTP/3 number is significantly lower than w3techs’. Presumably because of the differences in how they measure.

Clients

The browsers

All the major browsers have HTTP/3 implementations and most of them allow you to manually enable it if it isn’t already done so. Chrome and Edge have it enabled by default and Firefox will so very soon. The caniuse.com site shows it like this (updated on April 4):

(Earlier versions of this blog post showed the previous and inaccurate data from caniuse.com. Not anymore.)

curl

curl supports HTTP/3 since a while back, but you need to explicitly enable it at build-time. It needs to use third party libraries for the HTTP/3 layer and it needs a QUIC capable TLS library. The QUIC/h3 libraries are still beta versions. See below for the TLS library situation.

curl’s HTTP/3 support is not even complete. There are still unsupported areas and it’s not considered stable yet.

Other clients

Facebook has previously talked about how they use HTTP/3 in their app, and presumably others do as well. There are of course also other implementations available.

TLS libraries

curl supports 14 different TLS libraries at this time. Two of them have QUIC support landed: BoringSSL and GnuTLS. And a third would be the quictls OpenSSL fork. (There are also a few other smaller TLS libraries that support QUIC.)

OpenSSL

The by far most popular TLS library to use with curl, OpenSSL, has postponed their QUIC work:

“It is our expectation that once the 3.0 release is done, QUIC will become a significant focus of our effort.”

At the same time they have delayed the OpenSSL 3.0 release significantly. Their release schedule page still today speaks of a planned release of 3.0.0 in “early Q4 2020”. That plan expects a few months from the beta to final release and we have not yet seen a beta release, only alphas.

Realistically, this makes QUIC in OpenSSL many months off until it can appear even in a first alpha. Maybe even 2022 material?

BoringSSL

The Google powered OpenSSL fork BoringSSL has supported QUIC for a long time and provides the OpenSSL API, but they don’t do releases and mostly focus on getting a library done for Google. People outside the company are generally reluctant to use and depend on this library for those reasons.

The quiche QUIC/h3 library from Cloudflare uses BoringSSL and curl can be built to use quiche (as well as BoringSSL).

quictls

Microsoft and Akamai have made a fork of OpenSSL available that is based on OpenSSL 1.1.1 and has the QUIC pull-request applied in order to offer a QUIC capable OpenSSL flavor to the world before the official OpenSSL gets their act together. This fork is called quictls. This should be compatible with OpenSSL in all other regards and provide QUIC with an API that is similar to BoringSSL’s.

The ngtcp2 QUIC library uses quictls. curl can be built to use ngtcp2 as well as with quictls,

Is HTTP/3 faster?

I realize I can’t blog about this topic without at least touching this question. The main reason for adding support for HTTP/3 on your site is probably that it makes it faster for users, so does it?

According to cloudflare’s tests, it does, but the difference is not huge.

We’ve seen other numbers say h3 is faster shown before but it’s hard to find up-to-date performance measurements published for the current version of HTTP/3 vs HTTP/2 in real world scenarios. Partly of course because people have hesitated to compare before there are proper implementations to compare with, and not just development versions not really made and tweaked to perform optimally.

I think there are reasons to expect h3 to be faster in several situations, but for people with high bandwidth low latency connections in the western world, maybe the difference won’t be noticeable?

Future

I’ve previously shown the slide below to illustrate what needs to be done for curl to ship with HTTP/3 support enabled in distros and “widely” and I think the same works for a lot of other projects and clients who don’t control their TLS implementation and don’t write their own QUIC/h3 layer code.

This house of cards of h3 is slowly getting some stable components, but there are still too many moving parts for most of us to ship.

I assume that the rest of the browsers will also enable HTTP/3 by default soon, and the specs will be released not too long into the future. That will make HTTP/3 traffic on the web increase significantly.

The QUIC and h3 libraries will ship their first non-beta versions once the specs are out.

The TLS library situation will continue to hamper wider adoption among non-browsers and smaller players.

The big players already deploy HTTP/3.

Updates

I’ve updated this post after the initial publication, and the biggest corrections are in the Chrome/Edge details. Thanks to immediate feedback from Eric Lawrence. Remaining errors are still all mine! Thanks also to Barry Pollard who filed the PR to update the previously flawed caniuse.com data.

Network, Web

HTTP/3

33 Comments

The protocol that’s been called HTTP-over-QUIC for quite some time has now changed name and will officially become HTTP/3. This was triggered by this original suggestion by Mark Nottingham.

The QUIC Working Group in the IETF works on creating the QUIC transport protocol. QUIC is a TCP replacement done over UDP. Originally, QUIC was started as an effort by Google and then more of a “HTTP/2-encrypted-over-UDP” protocol.

When the work took off in the IETF to standardize the protocol, it was split up in two layers: the transport and the HTTP parts. The idea being that this transport protocol can be used to transfer other data too and its not just done explicitly for HTTP or HTTP-like protocols. But the name was still QUIC.

People in the community has referred to these different versions of the protocol using informal names such as iQUIC and gQUIC to separate the QUIC protocols from IETF and Google (since they differed quite a lot in the details). The protocol that sends HTTP over “iQUIC” was called “hq” (HTTP-over-QUIC) for a long time.

Mike Bishop scared the room at the QUIC working group meeting in IETF 103 when he presented this slide with what could be thought of almost a logo…

On November 7, 2018 Dmitri of Litespeed announced that they and Facebook had successfully done the first interop ever between two HTTP/3 implementations. Mike Bihop’s follow-up presentation in the HTTPbis session on the topic can be seen here. The consensus in the end of that meeting said the new name is HTTP/3!

No more confusion. HTTP/3 is the coming new HTTP version that uses QUIC for transport!

Mozilla, Network, Web

HTTP Workshop – London edition. First day.

The HTTP workshop series is back for a third time this northern hemisphere summer. The selected location for the 2017 version is London and this time we’re down to a two-day event (we seem to remove a day every year)…

Nothing in this blog entry is a quote to be attributed to a specific individual but they are my interpretations and paraphrasing of things said or presented. Any mistakes or errors are all mine.

At 9:30 this clear Monday morning, 35 persons sat down around a huge table in a room in the Facebook offices. Most of us are the same familiar faces that have already participated in one or two HTTP workshops, but we also have a set of people this year who haven’t attended before. Getting fresh blood into these discussions is certainly valuable. Most major players are represented, including Mozilla, Google, Facebook, Apple, Cloudflare, Fastly, Akamai, HA-proxy, Squid, Varnish, BBC, Adobe and curl!

Mark (independent, co-chair of the HTTP working group as well as the QUIC working group) kicked it all off with a presentation on quic and where it is right now in terms of standardization and progress. The upcoming draft-04 is becoming the first implementation draft even though the goal for interop is set basically at handshake and some very basic data interaction. The quic transport protocol is still in a huge flux and things have not settled enough for it to be interoperable right now to a very high level.

Jana from Google presented on quic deployment over time and how it right now uses about 7% of internet traffic. The Android Youtube app’s switch to QUIC last year showed a huge bump in usage numbers. Quic is a lot about reducing latency and numbers show that users really do get a reduction. By that nature, it improves the situation best for those who currently have the worst connections.

It doesn’t solve first world problems, this solves third world connection issues.

The currently observed 2x CPU usage increase for QUIC connections as compared to h2+TLS is mostly blamed on the Linux kernel which apparently is not at all up for this job as good is should be. Things have clearly been more optimized for TCP over the years, leaving room for improvement in the UDP areas going forward. “Making kernel bypassing an interesting choice”.

Alan from Facebook talked header compression for quic and presented data, graphs and numbers on how HPACK(-for-quic), QPACK and QCRAM compare when used for quic in different networking conditions and scenarios. Those are the three current header compression alternatives that are open for quic and Alan first explained the basics behind them and then how they compare when run in his simulator. The current HPACK version (adopted to quic) seems to be out of the question for head-of-line-blocking reasons, the QCRAM suggestion seems to run well but have two main flaws as it requires an awkward layering violation and an annoying possible reframing requirement on resends. Clearly some more experiments can be done, possible with a hybrid where some QCRAM ideas are brought into QPACK. Alan hopes to get his simulator open sourced in the coming months which then will allow more people to experiment and reproduce his numbers.

Hooman from Fastly on problems and challenges with HTTP/2 server push, the 103 early hints HTTP response and cache digests. This took the discussions on push into the weeds and into the dark protocol corners we’ve been in before and all sorts of ideas and suggestions were brought up. Some of them have been discussed before without having been resolved yet and some ideas were new, at least to me. The general consensus seems to be that push is fairly complicated and there are a lot of corner cases and murky areas that haven’t been clearly documented, but it is a feature that is now being used and for the CDN use case it can help with a lot more than “just an RTT”. But is perhaps the 103 response good enough for most of the cases?

The discussion on server push and how well it fares is something the QUIC working group is interested in, since the question was asked already this morning if a first version of quic could be considered to be made without push support. The jury is still out on that I think.

ekr from Mozilla spoke about TLS 1.3, 0-RTT, how the TLS 1.3 handshake looks like and how applications and servers can take advantage of the new 0-RTT and “0.5-RTT” features. TLS 1.3 is already passed the WGLC and there are now “only” a few issues pending to get solved. Taking advantage of 0RTT in an HTTP world opens up interesting questions and issues as HTTP request resends and retries are becoming increasingly prevalent.

Next: day two.

cURL and libcurl, Firefox, Network, Web

One URL standard please

19 Comments

Following up on the problem with our current lack of a universal URL standard that I blogged about in May 2016: My URL isn’t your URL. I want a single, unified URL standard that we would all stand behind, support and adhere to.

What triggers me this time, is yet another issue. A friendly curl user sent me this URL:

http://user@example.com:80@daniel.haxx.se

… and pasting this URL into different tools and browsers show that there’s not a wide agreement on how this should work. Is the URL legal in the first place and if so, which host should a client contact?

  • curl treats the ‘@’-character as a separator between userinfo and host name so ‘example.com’ becomes the host name, the port number is 80 followed by rubbish that curl ignores. (wget2, the next-gen wget that’s in development works identically)
  • wget extracts the example.com host name but rejects the port number due to the rubbish after the zero.
  • Edge and Safari say the URL is invalid and don’t go anywhere
  • Firefox and Chrome allow ‘@’ as part of the userinfo, take the ’80’ as a password and the host name then becomes ‘daniel.haxx.se’

The only somewhat modern “spec” for URLs is the WHATWG URL specification. The other major, but now somewhat aged, URL spec is RFC 3986, made by the IETF and published in 2005.

In 2015, URL problem statement and directions was published as an Internet-draft by Masinter and Ruby and it brings up most of the current URL spec problems. Some of them are also discussed in Ruby’s WHATWG URL vs IETF URI post from 2014.

What I would like to see happen…

Which group? A group!

Friends I know in the WHATWG suggest that I should dig in there and help them improve their spec. That would be a good idea if fixing the WHATWG spec would be the ultimate goal. I don’t think it is enough.

The WHATWG is highly browser focused and my interactions with members of that group that I have had in the past, have shown that there is little sympathy there for non-browsers who want to deal with URLs and there is even less sympathy or interest for URL schemes that the popular browsers don’t even support or care about. URLs cover much more than HTTP(S).

I have the feeling that WHATWG people would not like this work to be done within the IETF and vice versa. Since I’d like buy-in from both camps, and any other camps that might have an interest in URLs, this would need to be handled somehow.

It would also be great to get other major URL “consumers” on board, like authors of popular URL parsing libraries, tools and components.

Such a URL group would of course have to agree on the goal and how to get there, but I’ll still provide some additional things I want to see.

Update: I want to emphasize that I do not consider the WHATWG’s job bad, wrong or lost. I think they’ve done a great job at unifying browsers’ treatment of URLs. I don’t mean to belittle that. I just know that this group is only a small subset of the people who probably should be involved in a unified URL standard.

A single fixed spec

I can’t see any compelling reasons why a URL specification couldn’t reach a stable state and get published as *the* URL standard. The “living standard” approach may be fine for certain things (and in particular browsers that update every six weeks), but URLs are supposed to be long-lived and inter-operate far into the future so they really really should not change. Therefore, I think the IETF documentation model could work well for this.

The WHATWG spec documents what browsers do, and browsers do what is documented. At least that’s the theory I’ve been told, and it causes a spinning and never-ending loop that goes against my wish.

Document the format

The WHATWG specification is written in a pseudo code style, describing how a parser would “walk” over the string with a state machine and all. I know some people like that, I find it utterly annoying and really hard to figure out what’s allowed or not. I much more prefer the regular RFC style of describing protocol syntax.

IDNA

Can we please just say that host names in URLs should be handled according to IDNA2008 (RFC 5895)? WHATWG URL doesn’t state any IDNA spec number at all.

Move out irrelevant sections

“Irrelevant” when it comes to documenting the URL format that is. The WHATWG details several things that are related to URL for browsers but are mostly irrelevant to other URL consumers or producers. Like section “5. application/x-www-form-urlencoded” and “6. API”.

They would be better placed in a “URL considerations for browsers” companion document.

Working doesn’t imply sensible

So browsers accept URLs written with thousands of forward slashes instead of two. That is not a good reason for the spec to say that a URL may legitimately contain a thousand slashes. I’m totally convinced there’s no critical content anywhere using such formatted URLs and no soul will be sad if we’d restricted the number to a single-digit. So we should. And yeah, then browsers should reject URLs using more.

The slashes are only an example. The browsers have used a “liberal in what you accept” policy for a lot of things since forever, but we must resist to use that as a basis when nailing down a standard.

The odds of this happening soon?

I know there are individuals interested in seeing the URL situation getting worked on. We’ve seen articles and internet-drafts posted on the issue several times the last few years. Any year now I think we will see some movement for real trying to fix this. I hope I will manage to participate and contribute a little from my end.

Mozilla, Network

First QUIC interim – in Tokyo

The IETF working group QUIC has its first interim meeting in Tokyo Japan for three days. Day one is today, January 24th 2017.

As I’m not there physically, I attend the meeting from remote using the webex that’s been setup for this purpose, and I’ll drop in a little screenshot below from one of the discussions (click it for hires) to give you a feel for it. It shows the issue being discussed and the camera view of the room in Tokyo. I run the jabber client on a different computer which allows me to also chat with the other participants. It works really well, both audio and video are quite crisp and understandable.

Japan is eight hours ahead of me time zone wise, so this meeting  runs from 01:30 until 09:30 Central European Time. That’s less comfortable and it may cause me some troubles to attend the entire thing.

On QUIC

We started off at once with a lot of discussions on basic issues. Versioning and what a specific version actually means and entails. Error codes and how error codes should be used within QUIC and its different components. Should the transport level know about priorities or shouldn’t it? How is the security protocol decided?

Everyone who is following the QUIC issues on github knows that there are plenty of people with a lot of ideas and thoughts on these matters and this meeting shows this impression is real.

For a casual bystander, you might’ve been fooled into thinking that because Google already made and deployed QUIC, these issues should be if not already done and decided, at least fairly speedily gone over. But nope. I think there are plenty of indications already that the protocol outputs that will come in the end of this process, the IETF QUIC will differ from the Google QUIC in a fair number of places.

The plan is that the different QUIC drafts (there are at least 4 different planned RFCs as they’re divided right now) should all be “done” during 2018.

(At 4am, the room took lunch and I wrote this up.)

cURL and libcurl, Network, Open Source

My first 20 years of HTTP

4 Comments

During the autumn 1996 I took my first swim in the ocean known as HTTP. Twenty years ago now.

I had previously worked with writing an IRC bot in C, and IRC is a pretty simple text based protocol over TCP so I could use some experiences from that when I started to look into HTTP. That IRC bot was my first real application distributed to the world that was using TCP/IP. It was portable to most unixes and Amiga and it was open source.

1996 was the year the movie Independence Day premiered and the single hit song that plagued the world more than others that year was called Macarena. AOL, Webcrawler and Netscape were the most popular websites on the Internet. There were less than 300,000 web sites on the Internet (compared to some 900 million today).

I decided I should spice up the bot and make it offer a currency exchange rate service so that people who were chatting could ask the bot what 200 SEK is when converted to USD or what 50 AUD might be in DEM. – Right, there was no Euro currency yet back then!

I simply had to fetch the currency rates at a regular interval and keep them in the same server that ran the bot. I just needed a little tool to download the rates over HTTP. How hard can that be? I googled around (this was before Google existed so that was not the search engine I could use!) and found a tool named ‘httpget’ that made pretty much what I wanted. It truly was tiny – a few hundred nokia-1610lines of code.

I don’t have an exact date saved or recorded for when this happened, only the general time frame. You know, we had no smart phones, no Google calendar and no digital cameras. I sported my first mobile phone back then, the sexy Nokia 1610 – viewed in the picture on the right here.

The HTTP/1.0 RFC had just recently came out – which was the first ever real spec published for HTTP. RFC 1945 was published in May 1996, but I was blissfully unaware of the youth of the standard and I plunged into my little project. This was the first published HTTP spec and it says:

HTTP has been in use by the World-Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This specification reflects common usage of the protocol referred too as "HTTP/1.0". This specification describes the features that seem to be consistently implemented in most HTTP/1.0 clients and servers.

Many years after that point in time, I have learned that already at this time when I first searched for a HTTP tool to use, wget already existed. I can’t recall that I found that in my searches, and if I had found it maybe history would’ve made a different turn for me. Or maybe I found it and discarded for a reason I can’t remember now.

I wasn’t the original author of httpget; Rafael Sagula was. But I started contributing fixes and changes and soon I was the maintainer of it. Unfortunately I’ve lost my emails and source code history from those earliest years so I cannot easily show my first steps. Even the oldest changelogs show that we very soon got help and contributions from users.

The earliest saved code archive I have from those days, is from after we had added support for Gopher and FTP and renamed the tool ‘urlget’. urlget-3.5.zip was released on January 20 1998 which thus was more than a year later my involvement in httpget started.

The original httpget/urlget/curl code was stored in CVS and it was licensed under the GPL. I did most of the early development on SunOS and Solaris machines as my first experiments with Linux didn’t start until 97/98 something.

sparcstation-ipc

The first web page I know we have saved on archive.org is from December 1998 and by then the project had been renamed to curl already. Roughly two years after the start of the journey.

RFC 2068 was the first HTTP/1.1 spec. It was released already in January 1997, so not that long after the 1.0 spec shipped. In our project however we stuck with doing HTTP 1.0 for a few years longer and it wasn’t until February 2001 we first started doing HTTP/1.1 requests. First shipped in curl 7.7. By then the follow-up spec to HTTP/1.1, RFC 2616, had already been published as well.

The IETF working group called HTTPbis was started in 2007 to once again refresh the HTTP/1.1 spec, but it took me a while until someone pointed out this to me and I realized that I too could join in there and do my part. Up until this point, I had not really considered that little me could actually participate in the protocol doings and bring my views and ideas to the table. At this point, I learned about IETF and how it works.

I posted my first emails on that list in the spring 2008. The 75th IETF meeting in the summer of 2009 was held in Stockholm, so for me still working  on HTTP only as a spare time project it was very fortunate and good timing. I could meet a lot of my HTTP heroes and HTTPbis participants in real life for the first time.

I have participated in the HTTPbis group ever since then, trying to uphold the views and standpoints of a command line tool and HTTP library – which often is not the same as the web browsers representatives’ way of looking at things. Since I was employed by Mozilla in 2014, I am of course now also in the “web browser camp” to some extent, but I remain a protocol puritan as curl remains my first “child”.