Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)

Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> Tue, 22 November 2016 04:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A149A129460 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:19:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OfvBtotqyKJa for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D59E129509 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c92Uh-0001yv-Bx for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 04:15:43 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 04:15:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c92Uh-0001yv-Bx@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tyoshino@google.com>) id 1c92US-0001QI-2h for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 04:15:28 +0000
Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <tyoshino@google.com>) id 1c92UL-00038W-8P for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 04:15:22 +0000
Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id c20so2121162itb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:15:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wmKYpcJpeI71YkTKyeROx7m0YJCTd6KUvzPMqwyJeeg=; b=g6W3UKP0Egiq9F9g+XcJRttCTzZe4f6eIGvteIqkO327iPd1VdOOyVg8gO8cRk9tPv edWi2at3hxiIHmXuJ1UuhOQhC5fmwLG8/+qSXr4EpbfmZDbXp5JDi8hIpDf2WmwTtRFw hmdKp7CVyqDC0JEsLeFrwDpzq8khoc9pi5YV2K13okmUsIdqM0/h2ww13vB9alOWjvWt ximsXcgg5xccFk34c5gJZZ1NQDnEdWhROC8HaljL8nabqCii0QHwI5jMFa2904e1OnYd HtfEsZNRRwoJXIh+t4gEpSIOaLoIy3IKzEZtZAK5DMR7a/Qzhh6RlUFHzxlygnuSiz77 sXbQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wmKYpcJpeI71YkTKyeROx7m0YJCTd6KUvzPMqwyJeeg=; b=U9jmlgX/8QWgiyJi9AFHvZxfoiVVdd9wlm51jaNEGnbNE7bbkZYYHWtgNOHzK7fpf+ d3a8NmUXb9RRQXNoBM6FKg8EQf4+X2eUK14S4AfDHDBf6GMZ8Yezj37wg4saJrT9Wzij KXwRmd2jXCeH2hI7baAArbj7H7E3ucCqWFJiX886bN41pXl2XRW6rfuKq+AgTAmez77V +dx12jOIqhcHZHdNm6I2bTAtH5rrwmfiUlkZnbrhQcGp90zxSxAEQH0rTyG04nIZkTSt v7iPh1f+/alHZIR7omLCQqjDh+E6e1DdlkGvoJDPUAqjnjVEKDQFwMMPhhRD3wSrtaNz Q/gA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01IMqIyoev9tPJ3OPrdn6j/KjZv3zeelxrLg1vmDdCmZIg+WUjStI0o28bNDM+U9Nao3XxVRheS9dKOd20i
X-Received: by 10.36.250.196 with SMTP id v187mr439947ith.91.1479788094958; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:14:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.141.217 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:14:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAG-EYChszHdWhp=o+fdOW+pAN90t61MExzsLnteM3tmf9=N0Yw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9hSJZdBJ02+Z6o=aanZ=5PN=9VwyL1ZcX2jct-6f_FFivLGA@mail.gmail.com> <0f79ddf6-c455-c41a-f269-a1bdcef05b14@ninenines.eu> <CAH9hSJb2R9gv2vNqoyTjbMV4hZTYdpX2PoAoYgWUT1UuigLHRA@mail.gmail.com> <5541be74-afcc-6aef-404e-63acb2f608eb@ninenines.eu> <CAH9hSJarsNFqX1tAL7BZmZQwUrEQs1X3wtrAPuMyz8s-k_7WRg@mail.gmail.com> <43998e7b-9227-7562-b2c6-c08134065e22@ninenines.eu> <CAD3-0rPRPzVvYb6_Z4wDZp73L5Kyb7LmE0P5j4A-2VSRwT7FMw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJb=mWdHP8xcBis8-jhWgQTfN-cgQXVV3eCyT4U8JYQHZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqnLaRvyQgXXkoNQPKcyMhv-O3RN67CMw5L_-1iQ9c6mhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJYpsPW4S9n2LaaLTYYKB7wR3Sod2=fny2CZoUR7A0bSJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqkOX1Sq6_=Sgb++QRiDWKEiOxAJ13kzMSr9heu-Ek3QmA@mail.gmail.com> <508f7085-b6b9-572e-7b0f-26cafc94dd44@ninenines.eu> <CAH9hSJZcGui08=DivN9vynKejvNFy+RYtRDYDnd6U6gxyX3UgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJZZCVMpQrpEV_JTceEmf2Y2aC_kJNXJmLW=LPebG+JR7g@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-Fqk9SQJOuKWQmf5cRm9z2ja9wWUeG9xmivhiJf5O57Uryw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJZTVKx-8vg2xcqr_g4Bg+hc1ufvPZ2hZ+F=dXeVOdSu_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-Fqm=OVaOJ1imySM41_OuNu0D12Jby59dOpgqz-Bg4M+YOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD3-0rM35uXJnwfGay-1s9uw=-P71EubOkxFdKF=gjoXub8YXw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJZB0SyFiqLqLjd9R-T11yTa12Ekb-H8hYwfc6FeOjD2xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqmU+uBas5zH8oQHkt0zh18YrBm-O-umGPGMkLAjShw1Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJa10DLSozTpXjETyFX0bVYqfRbRFJnmFQNRGeSuZVKWPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG-EYChszHdWhp=o+fdOW+pAN90t61MExzsLnteM3tmf9=N0Yw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:14:32 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJbNk83FT0WqB1tHJvEfaU5CMoAaKRdvy8NTb4zgEUdzBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c030cdcbe95f90541dc0380
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.45; envelope-from=tyoshino@google.com; helo=mail-it0-f45.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.722, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c92UL-00038W-8P 94916b42d01da3ea9695cf3cba369fbc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAH9hSJbNk83FT0WqB1tHJvEfaU5CMoAaKRdvy8NTb4zgEUdzBw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32953
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Ah, no. Martin just warned us that we might face the same issue that SSE
faced.

Mark's suggestion is a separate thing. The co-chairs (Mark and Patrick)
said that this (WiSH) doesn't seems to be a topic that should be discussed
in the HTTP WG given the charter of the WG, I think.

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not understand what this means.  Is the suggestion to ignore WiSH for
> now in favor of SSE?
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to share the feedback on WiSH from IETF 97.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Due to limited time, I got just one on-site comment from Martin about
>> comparison with Server-sent event (EventSource).
>>
>> As mentioned in the I-D, yes, this is kinda full-duplex SSE with the WS
>> framing, and it might suffer from unexpected buffering by intermediaries if
>> any as Martin said.
>>
>> WiSH should work well for deployment with TLS only (possibly with some
>> non-TLS part beyond server side front-end but are under control of the
>> service providers). Given the wide trend of encouraging TLS and browser
>> vendors' implementation status of H2, I think we should prioritize layering
>> simplicity than taking care of gain of WiSH/H2/TCP + transparent proxy
>> (with unexpected buffering) case. For H2-less TLS-less environment, we can
>> just use the WebSocket protocol.
>>
>> There can still be some risk of MITM (trusted) proxy and unexpected
>> buffering with AntiVirus/Firewall for deployment with TLS, but other
>> WebSocket/H2 mapping proposals also have issues of possible blocking,
>> buffering, etc. WebSocket/TCP's handshake success rate for non-TLS port 80
>> was also not so good when it started getting deployed, and got improved
>> gradually. I think the problems will get resolved once WiSH is accepted
>> widely, and I believe the total pain and cost would be smaller.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Mark suggested that we should find some other right place than HTTP WG.
>> I'll discuss this with Mark. Maybe we'll consult the DISPATCH WG.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Thanks everyone for the feedback.
>>
>> Takeshi
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Good timing -  http://httpwg.org/http-extensions/encryption-preview.html is
>>> addressing my concerns for
>>> webpush ( and general 'encrypted content' ), we're still discussing some
>>> details, but for this use
>>> case metadata won't be needed.
>>>
>>> Costin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:34 PM Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the answer and pointers. From earlier responses, it seems
>>>> possible to use GET
>>>> or a non-web-stream request to would avoid the extra cost of the
>>>> pre-flight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, at least the Content-Type in the HTTP request gets eliminated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One more question/issue: in some cases it would be good to send some
>>>> metadata (headers) along with binary frames. For example in webpush the
>>>> content is an encrypted
>>>> blob, and needs headers for the key/salt. I would assume a lot of other
>>>> 'binary' messages would
>>>> benefit if simple metadata could be sent along. Would it be possible to
>>>> use one of the reserved
>>>> bits for 'has metadata' and add some encoded headers ? I know in
>>>> websocket they are intended
>>>> for 'extensions', but 'headers' seems a very common use case.
>>>>
>>>> Q about webpush: is the metadata different for each binary message?
>>>>
>>>> We discussed about metadata and how to use one of RSV bits etc. For the
>>>> current version, let's make sure the WS compatibility is fully addressed
>>>> (with minimum wire encoding like WiSH)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Let's discuss the metadata needs separately. I agree it's
>>>> important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having the binary frame use some MIME encoding to pass both text
>>>> headers and the binary blob
>>>> is possible - but has complexity and overhead.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, if the binary blob relies on text headers (metata) to be useful,
>>>> then you probably need define a dedicated MIME encoding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Costin
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 5:27 AM Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Van, Costin.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 2:43 AM, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Good point - websocket is widely deployed, including IoT - and the
>>>> header is pretty easy to handle anyways.
>>>> +1.
>>>>
>>>> One question: is this intended to be handled by browsers, and exposed
>>>> using the W3C websocket API ?
>>>> Will a regular app be able to make WiSH requests and parse the stream
>>>> by itself, without browser
>>>> interference ? And if yes, any advice on how it interact with CORS ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first step would be using Streams based upload/download via the
>>>> Fetch API + protocol processing in JS.
>>>>
>>>> The next step could be either introduction of an optimized native
>>>> implementation of WiSH parser/framer in the form of the TransformStream
>>>> which can be used as follows:
>>>>
>>>> const responsePromise = fetch(url, init);
>>>> responsePromise.then(response => {
>>>>   const wishStream = response.body().pipeThrough(wishTransformStream);
>>>>   function readAndProcessMessage() {
>>>>     const readPromise = wishStream.read();
>>>>     readPromise.then(result => {
>>>>       if (result.done) {
>>>>         // End of stream.
>>>>         return;
>>>>       }
>>>>
>>>>       const message = result.value;
>>>>       // Process the message
>>>>       // E.g. access message.opcode for opcode, message.body for the
>>>> body data
>>>>       readAndProcessMessage();
>>>>     });
>>>>   }
>>>>   readAndProcessMessage();
>>>> });
>>>>
>>>> and provide a polyfill that presents this as the WebSocket API, and (or
>>>> skip the step and) go further i.e. native implementation for everything if
>>>> it turns out optimization is critical.
>>>>
>>>> We need to discuss this also in W3C/WHATWG.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding CORS, if the request includes non CORS-safelisted headers,
>>>> fetch() based JS polyfills will be basically subject to the CORS preflight
>>>> requirement. We could try to exempt some of well defined headers if any for
>>>> CORS like WebSocket handshake's headers and server-sent event's
>>>> Last-Event-Id are exempted. Regarding the proposed subprotocol negotiation
>>>> in the form of combination of the Accept header and the Content-Type
>>>> header, the Accept header is one of the CORS-safelisted headers, so it's
>>>> not a problem. The Content-Type header is considered to be
>>>> non-CORS-safelisted if it's value is none of the CORS-safelisted media
>>>> types. So, WiSH media type would trigger the preflight unless we exclude it.
>>>>
>>>> Origin policy https://wicg.github.io/origin-policy/ might also help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Costin
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:06 PM Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for being ambivalent.
>>>>
>>>> We can of course revisit each design decision we made for RFC 6455
>>>> framing and search for the optimal again. But as:
>>>> - one of the main philosophies behind WiSH is compatibility with
>>>> WebSocket in terms of both spec and implementation
>>>> - the WebSocket is widely deployed and therefore we have a lot of
>>>> implementations in various languages/platform
>>>> - most browsers already have logic for the framing
>>>> - the framing is not considered to be so big pain
>>>> inheriting the WebSocket framing almost as-is is just good enough.
>>>> Basically, I'm leaning toward this plan.
>>>>
>>>> Takeshi
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/28/2016 08:41 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Current overhead is 2 bytes if frame is up to 125 bytes long - which I
>>>> think it's not very common,
>>>> 4 bytes for up to 64k, and 10 bytes for anything larger.
>>>> IMHO adding one byte - i.e. making it fixed 5-byte, with first as is,
>>>> and next 4 fixed length would
>>>> be easiest to parse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is making it easy (or easier) to parse even a concern anymore?
>>>>
>>>> Considering the number of agents and servers already supporting
>>>> Websocket, the numerous libraries for nearly all languages and the great
>>>> autobahntestsuite project validating it all, reusing the existing code is a
>>>> very sensible solution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I've been having similar feeling regarding cost for
>>>> parser/encoder implementation though I might be biased.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are obviously too many options to encode and each has benefits -
>>>> my only concern was
>>>> that the choice of 1, 2, 8 bytes for length may not match common sizes.
>>>>
>>>> ( in webpush frames will be <4k ).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Loïc Hoguin
>>>> https://ninenines.eu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>