Category Archives: Firefox

Talk: web transport, today and tomorrow

At the Netnod spring meeting 2017 in Stockholm on the 5th of April I did a talk with the title of this post.

Why was HTTP/2 introduced, how well has HTTP/2 been deployed and used, did it deliver on its promises, where doesn’t HTTP/2 perform as well. Then a quick (haha) overview on what QUIC is and how it intends to fix some of the shortcomings of HTTP/2 and TCP. In 28 minutes.

One URL standard please

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.

HTTPS proxy with curl

Starting in version 7.52.0 (due to ship December 21, 2016), curl will support HTTPS proxies when doing network transfers, and by doing this it joins the small exclusive club of HTTP user-agents consisting of Firefox, Chrome and not too many others.

Yes you read this correctly. This is different than the good old HTTP proxy.

HTTPS proxy means that the client establishes a TLS connection to the proxy and then communicates over that, which is different to the normal and traditional HTTP proxy approach where the clients speak plain HTTP to the proxy.

Talking HTTPS to your proxy is a privacy improvement as it prevents people from snooping on your proxy communication. Even when using HTTPS over a standard HTTP proxy, there’s typically a setting up phase first that leaks information about where the connection is being made, user credentials and more. Not to mention that an HTTPS proxy makes HTTP traffic “safe” to and from the proxy. HTTPS to the proxy also enables clients to speak HTTP/2 more easily with proxies. (Even though HTTP/2 to the proxy is not yet supported in curl.)

In the case where a client wants to talk HTTPS to a remote server, when using a HTTPS proxy, it sends HTTPS through HTTPS.

Illustrating this concept with images. When using a traditional HTTP proxy, we connect initially to the proxy with HTTP in the clear, and then from then on the HTTPS makes it safe:

HTTP proxyto compare with the HTTPS proxy case where the connection is safe already in the first step:

HTTPS proxyThe access to the proxy is made over network A. That network has traditionally been a corporate network or within a LAN or something but we’re seeing more and more use cases where the proxy is somewhere on the Internet and then “Network A” is really huge. That includes use cases where the proxy for example compresses images or otherwise reduces bandwidth requirements.

Actual HTTPS connections from clients to servers are still done end to end encrypted even in the HTTP proxy case. HTTP traffic to and from the user to the web site however, will still be HTTPS protected to the proxy when a HTTPS proxy is used.

A complicated pull request

This awesome work was provided by Dmitry Kurochkin, Vasy Okhin, and Alex Rousskov. It was merged into master on November 24 in this commit.

Doing this sort of major change in the TLS area in curl code is a massive undertaking, much so because of the fact that curl supports getting built with one out of 11 or 12 different TLS libraries. Several of those are also system-specific so hardly any single developer can even build all these backends on his or hers own machines.

In addition to the TLS backend maze, curl and library also offers a huge amount of different options to control the TLS connection and handling. You can switch on and off features, provide certificates, CA bundles and more. Adding another layer of TLS pretty much doubles the amount of options since now you can tweak everything both in the TLS connection to the proxy as well as the one to the remote peer.

This new feature is supported with the OpenSSL, GnuTLS and NSS backends to start with.

Consider it experimental for now

By all means, go ahead and use it and torture the code and file issues for everything bad you see, but I think we make ourselves a service by considering this new feature set to be a bit experimental in this release.

New options

There’s a whole forest of new command line and libcurl options to control all the various aspects of the new TLS connection this introduces. Since it is a totally separate connection it gets a whole set of options that are basically identical to the server connection but with a –proxy prefix instead. Here’s a list:

  --proxy-cacert 
  --proxy-capath
  --proxy-cert
  --proxy-cert-type
  --proxy-ciphers
  --proxy-crlfile
  --proxy-insecure
  --proxy-key
  --proxy-key-type
  --proxy-pass
  --proxy-ssl-allow-beast
  --proxy-sslv2
  --proxy-sslv3
  --proxy-tlsv1
  --proxy-tlsuser
  --proxy-tlspassword
  --proxy-tlsauthtype

curl and TLS 1.3

Draft 18 of the TLS version 1.3 spec was publiSSL padlockshed at the end of October 2016.

Already now, both Firefox and Chrome have test versions out with TLS 1.3 enabled. Firefox 52 will have it by default, and while Chrome will ship it, I couldn’t figure out exactly when we can expect it to be there by default.

Over the last few days we’ve merged TLS 1.3 support to curl, primarily in this commit by Kamil Dudka. Both the command line tool and libcurl will negotiate TLS 1.3 in the next version (7.52.0 – planned release date at the end of December 2016) if built with a TLS library that supports it and told to do it by the user.

The two current TLS libraries that will speak TLS 1.3 when built with curl right now is NSS and BoringSSL. The plan is to gradually adjust curl over time as the other libraries start to support 1.3 as well. As always we will appreciate your help in making this happen!

Right now, there’s also the minor flux in that servers and clients may end up running implementations of different draft versions of the TLS spec which contributes to a layer of extra fun!

Three TLS current 1.3 test servers to play with: https://enabled.tls13.com/ , https://www.allizom.org/ and https://tls13.crypto.mozilla.org/. I doubt any of these will give you any guarantees of functionality.

TLS 1.3 offers a few new features that allow clients such as curl to do subsequent TLS connections much faster, with only 1 or even 0 RTTs, but curl has no code for any of those features yet.

1,000,000 sites run HTTP/2

… out of the top ten million sites that is. So there’s at least that many, quite likely a few more.

This is according to w3techs who runs checks daily. Over the last few months, there have been about 50,000 new sites per month switching it on.

ht2-10-percent

It also shows that the HTTP/2 ratio has increased from a little over 1% deployment a year ago to the 10% today.

HTTP/2 gets more used the more  popular site it is. Among the top 1,000 sites on the web, more than 20% of them use HTTP/2. HTTP/2 also just recently (September 9) overcame SPDY among the top-1000 most popular sites.

h2-sep28

On September 7, Amazon announced their CloudFront service having enabled HTTP/2, which could explain an adoption boost over the last few days. New CloudFront users get it enabled by default but existing users actually need to go in and click a checkbox to make it happen.

As the web traffic of the world is severely skewed toward the top ones, we can be sure that a significantly larger share than 10% of the world’s HTTPS traffic is using version 2.

Recent usage stats in Firefox shows that HTTP/2 is used in half of all its HTTPS requests!

http2

A workshop Monday

http workshopI decided I’d show up a little early at the Sheraton as I’ve been handling the interactions with hotel locally here in Stockholm where the workshop will run for the coming three days. Things were on track, if we ignore how they got the wrong name of the workshop on the info screens in the lobby, instead saying “Haxx Ab”…

Mark welcomed us with a quick overview of what we’re here for and quick run-through of the rough planning for the days. Our schedule is deliberately loose and open to allow for changes and adaptations as we go along.

Patrick talked about the 1 1/2 years of HTTP/2 working in Firefox so far, and we discussed a lot around the numbers and telemetry. What do they mean and why do they look like this etc. HTTP/2 is now at 44% of all HTTPS requests and connections using HTTP/2 are used for more than 8 requests on median (compared to slightly over 1 in the HTTP/1 case). What’s almost not used at all? HTTP/2 server push, Alt-Svc and HTTP 308 responses. Patrick’s presentation triggered a lot of good discussions. His slides are here.

RTT distribution for Firefox running on desktop and mobile, from Patrick’s slide set:

rtt-dist

The lunch was lovely.

Vlad then continued to talk about experiences from implementing and providing server push at Cloudflare. It and the associated discussions helped emphasize that we need better help for users on how to use server push and there might be reasons for browsers to change how they are stored in the current “secondary cache”. Also, discussions around how to access pushed resources and get information about pushes from javascript were briefly touched on.

After a break with some sweets and coffee, Kazuho continued to describe cache digests and how this concept can help making servers do better or more accurate server pushes. Back to more discussions around push and what it actually solved, how much complexity it is worth and so on. I thought I could sense hesitation in the room on whether this is really something to proceed with.

We intend to have a set of lightning talks after lunch each day and we have already have twelve such suggested talks listed in the workshop wiki, but the discussions were so lively and extensive that we missed them today and we even had to postpone the last talk of today until tomorrow. I can already sense how these three days will not be enough for us to cover everything we have listed and planned…

We ended the evening with a great dinner sponsored by Mozilla. I’d say it was a great first day. I’m looking forward to day 2!

decent durable defect density displayed

Here’s an encouraging graph from our regular Coverity scans of the curl source code, showing that we’ve maintained a fairly low “defect density” over the last two years, staying way below the average density level.
defect density over timeClick the image to view it slightly larger.

Defect density is simply the number of found problems per 1,000 lines of code. As a little (and probably unfair) comparison, right now when curl is flat on 0, Firefox is at 0.47, c-ares at 0.12 and libssh2 at 0.21.

Coverity is still the primary static code analyzer for C code that I’m aware of. None of the flaws Coverity picked up in curl during the last two years were detected by clang-analyzer for example.

HTTP/2 adoption, end of 2015

http2 front imageWhen I asked my surrounding in March 2015 to guess the expected HTTP/2 adoption by now, we as a group ended up with about 10%. OK, the question was vaguely phrased and what does it really mean? Let’s take a look at some aspects of where we are now.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the question was that it didn’t specify HTTPS. All the browsers of today only implement HTTP/2 over HTTPS so of course if every HTTPS site in the world would support HTTP/2 that would still be far away from all the HTTP requests. Admittedly, browsers aren’t the only HTTP clients…

During the fall of 2015, both nginx and Apache shipped release versions with HTTP/2 support. nginx made it slightly harder for people by forcing users to select either SPDY or HTTP/2 (which was a technical choice done by them, not really enforced by the protocols) and also still telling users that SPDY is the safer choice.

Let’s Encrypt‘s finally launching their public beta in the early December also helps HTTP/2 by removing one of the most annoying HTTPS obstacles: the cost and manual administration of server certs.

Amount of Firefox responses

This is the easiest metric since Mozilla offers public access to the metric data. It is skewed since it is opt-in data and we know that certain kinds of users are less likely to enable this (if you’re more privacy aware or if you’re using it in enterprise environments for example). This also then measures the share by volume of requests; making the popular sites get more weight.

Firefox 43 counts no less than 22% of all HTTP responses as HTTP/2 (based on data from Dec 8 to Dec 16, 2015).

Out of all HTTP traffic Firefox 43 generates, about 63% is HTTPS which then makes almost 35% of all Firefox HTTPS requests are HTTP/2!

Firefox 43 is also negotiating HTTP/2 four times as often as it ends up with SPDY.

Amount of browser traffic

One estimate of how large share of browsers that supports HTTP/2 is the caniuse.com number. Roughly 70% on a global level. Another metric is the one published by KeyCDN at the end of October 2015. When they enabled HTTP/2 by default for their HTTPS customers world wide, the average number of users negotiating HTTP/2 turned out to be 51%. More than half!

Cloudflare however, claims the share of supported browsers are at a mere 26%. That’s a really big difference and I personally don’t buy their numbers as they’re way too negative and give some popular browsers very small market share. For example: Chrome 41 – 49 at a mere 15% of the world market, really?

I think the key is rather that it all boils down to what you measure – as always.

Amount of the top-sites in the world

Netcraft bundles SPDY with HTTP/2 in their October report, but it says that “29% of SSL sites within the thousand most popular sites currently support SPDY or HTTP/2, while 8% of those within the top million sites do.” (note the “of SSL sites” in there)

That’s now slightly old data that came out almost exactly when Apache first release its HTTP/2 support in a public release and Nginx hadn’t even had it for a full month yet.

Facebook eventually enabled HTTP/2 in November 2015.

Amount of “regular” sites

There’s still no ideal service that scans a larger portion of the Internet to measure adoption level. The httparchive.org site is about to change to a chrome-based spider (from IE) and once that goes live I hope that we will get better data.

W3Tech’s report says 2.5% of web sites in early December – less than SPDY!

I like how isthewebhttp2yet.com looks so far and I’ve provided them with my personal opinions and feedback on what I think they should do to make that the preferred site for this sort of data.

Using the shodan search engine, we could see that mid December 2015 there were about 115,000 servers on the Internet using HTTP/2.  That’s 20,000 (~24%) more than isthewebhttp2yet site says. It doesn’t really show percentages there, but it could be interpreted to say that slightly over 6% of HTTP/1.1 sites also support HTTP/2.

On Dec 3rd 2015, Cloudflare enabled HTTP/2 for all its customers and they claimed they doubled the number of HTTP/2 servers on the net in that single move. (The shodan numbers seem to disagree with that statement.)

Amount of system lib support

iOS 9 supports HTTP/2 in its native HTTP library. That’s so far the leader of HTTP/2 in system libraries department. Does Mac OS X have something similar?

I had expected Window’s wininet or other HTTP libs to be up there as well but I can’t find any details online about it. I hear the Android HTTP libs are not up to snuff either but since okhttp is now part of Android to some extent, I guess proper HTTP/2 in Android is not too far away?

Amount of HTTP API support

I hear very little about HTTP API providers accepting HTTP/2 in addition or even instead of HTTP/1.1. My perception is that this is basically not happening at all yet.

Next-gen experiments

If you’re using a modern Chrome browser today against a Google service you’re already (mostly) using QUIC instead of HTTP/2, thus you aren’t really adding to the HTTP/2 client side numbers but you’re also not adding to the HTTP/1.1 numbers.

QUIC and other QUIC-like (UDP-based with the entire stack in user space) protocols are destined to grow and get used even more as we go forward. I’m convinced of this.

Conclusion

Everyone was right! It is mostly a matter of what you meant and how to measure it.

Future

Recall the words on the Chromium blog: “We plan to remove support for SPDY in early 2016“. For Firefox we haven’t said anything that absolute, but I doubt that Firefox will support SPDY for very long after Chrome drops it.

libbrotli is brotli in lib form

Brotli is this new cool compression algorithm that Firefox now has support for in Content-Encoding, Chrome will too soon and Eric Lawrence wrote up this nice summary about.

So I’d love to see brotli supported as a Content-Encoding in curl too, and then we just basically have to write some conditional code to detect the brotli library, add the adaption code for it and we should be in a good position. But…

There is (was) no brotli library!

It turns out the brotli team just writes their code to be linked with their tools, without making any library nor making it easy to install and use for third party applications.

an unmotivated circle sawWe can’t have it like that! I rolled up my imaginary sleeves (imaginary since my swag tshirt doesn’t really have sleeves) and I now offer libbrotli to the world. It is just a bunch of files and a build system that sucks in the brotli upstream repo as a submodule and then it builds a decoder library (brotlidec) and an encoder library (brotlienc) out of them. So there’s no code of our own here. Just building on top of the great stuff done by others.

It’s not complicated. It’s nothing fancy. But you can configure, make and make install two libraries and I can now go on and write a curl adaption for this library so that we can get brotli support for it done. Ideally, this (making a library) is something the brotli project will do on their own at some point, but until they do I don’t mind handling this.

As always, dive in and try it out, file any issues you find and send us your pull-requests for everything you can help us out with!