RE: Is the response header "Upgrade: h2" allowed when TLS is used?

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Tue, 19 April 2016 21:52 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 D67AC12E555 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.017
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.017 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 V7VTVSmau2J4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
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 795B812E426 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1asdUn-0000Qk-B6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:47:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:47:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1asdUn-0000Qk-B6@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1asdUh-0000Oj-Db for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:47:39 +0000
Received: from mail-bn1bon0141.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.56.111.141] helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1asdUc-0002nX-P0 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:47:38 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Pznez5U7kENZQDzD0YygiX0XnoOT1LAbwLud94zPeEE=; b=SDpREAlhjeXDpjIGWVFyOPhJ6ibG7CXh0PsfH9Tt7TgP6C8Zv3iVTadSWJJ4ZdwiQesNW7erX7enHy/jv2KBNi0/bJyVlm9EEcG9qHN5WnyFKBblp2hfuhiW5N82oUH8Vq/fpgYGge4oQ6z7SY46RNj+SYpkdruhEbAXGZcDKe0=
Received: from CH1PR03MB1916.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.164.115.156) by CH1PR03MB1913.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.164.115.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.453.26; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:47:06 +0000
Received: from CH1PR03MB1916.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.115.156]) by CH1PR03MB1916.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.115.156]) with mapi id 15.01.0453.029; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:47:06 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Michael Kaufmann <mail@michael-kaufmann.ch>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: Is the response header "Upgrade: h2" allowed when TLS is used?
Thread-Index: AQHRmkbn7rfCj3mJ2UGl5DAxJwBuoJ+RaEaAgAAD0ACAAAoBAIAAAJyAgAAGX4CAAFOxAIAAAt0g
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:47:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CH1PR03MB1916F1E7699825ACC4D741AA876C0@CH1PR03MB1916.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160419161634.Horde.7_VYZk5McZE4CAiQrQh-uXr@webmail.michael-kaufmann.ch> <7CF7F94CB496BF4FAB1676F375F9666A2A7CBD72@bgb01xud1012> <BE75D624-3A89-463A-B860-A2E83613C199@lukasa.co.uk> <5CBBE2E0-BA35-42B6-9E19-D658753D593B@greenbytes.de> <825033AC-9E67-4B81-84E6-FC5C67112037@lukasa.co.uk> <57165D31.5070604@treenet.co.nz> <20160419233014.Horde.pDb9tRgUZYP9jgWUZg3sUna@webmail.michael-kaufmann.ch>
In-Reply-To: <20160419233014.Horde.pDb9tRgUZYP9jgWUZg3sUna@webmail.michael-kaufmann.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: michael-kaufmann.ch; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;michael-kaufmann.ch; dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:e::527]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f98c74eb-ddbc-4eb5-9341-08d3689c2708
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CH1PR03MB1913; 5:QT2Ev8iqXU+SvPaxNStL1j4BZubj2gNCLz6u1mtpr3RCIRvOGw7rezniNk8M3AKtqdi9edrcVg9wVVQ+NIuvfoWwsy4zM5Zw/WWaHJZjZ9W4IeSF8SZ9/Jo6sHQ8uLCqMBQ8oODroAFFXS550wGMdw==; 24:hUvEq9ym/BnJDW6bQTkG2yDVw+LhmFg4Wj0xY78lT+Nv/odNfJEiwrRILmThi4A7ADkRuC8D11AJJxkLwxTIMGLYorLe+XLWgJ+pB3/J6qc=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CH1PR03MB1913;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CH1PR03MB19139006AC1B5C0CAAFF370C876C0@CH1PR03MB1913.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(9101521026)(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CH1PR03MB1913; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CH1PR03MB1913;
x-forefront-prvs: 0917DFAC67
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(13464003)(377454003)(3280700002)(106116001)(50986999)(2906002)(9686002)(76176999)(8990500004)(3660700001)(92566002)(54356999)(6116002)(102836003)(586003)(19580395003)(11100500001)(107886002)(76576001)(10400500002)(5001770100001)(2501003)(10290500002)(33656002)(5005710100001)(87936001)(189998001)(86362001)(99286002)(10090500001)(5008740100001)(15975445007)(1096002)(5003600100002)(5002640100001)(122556002)(74316001)(1220700001)(19580405001)(77096005)(2950100001)(81166005)(2900100001)(3826002)(376185003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CH1PR03MB1913; H:CH1PR03MB1916.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Apr 2016 21:47:06.6713 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CH1PR03MB1913
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=157.56.111.141; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.436, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1asdUc-0002nX-P0 87d43ba28ef6130057c94bca5fcd9269
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Is the response header "Upgrade: h2" allowed when TLS is used?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CH1PR03MB1916F1E7699825ACC4D741AA876C0@CH1PR03MB1916.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31517
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>

That would seem reasonable.  Hypothetically, a server could attempt RFC 2817-style Upgrade to TLS and then select "h2" as the ALPN token during the TLS handshake.  A logical flow for carrying the initial request into the h2 context would look a lot like that for h2c -- stream 1 is half-closed and already "contains" the client's initial request.  However, that still wouldn't use an "h2" Upgrade token and isn't actually defined anywhere.

"Upgrade: h2c" or offer Alt-Svc if you want to switch to HTTP/2 on a different, encrypted connection.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kaufmann [mailto:mail@michael-kaufmann.ch] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:30 PM
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is the response header "Upgrade: h2" allowed when TLS is used?

Zitat von Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>:

> On 20/04/2016 4:07 a.m., Cory Benfield wrote:
>>
>> Heh, I missed that. With that note, then, I’d say that Apache should 
>> stop putting h2 in the Upgrade header on a TLS-using connection
>> *unless* it believes that connection is for a HTTP-schemed URL, when 
>> it should put h2c.
>>
>> Cory
>>
>
>
> I think you are all overlooking the basic details:
>
> * RFC 7540 does not govern HTTP/1.1 connections, even TLS ones.
>
> * RFC 7540 section 3.2 is about negotiating http:// URLs over non-TLS 
> connections.
>
>
> When the client has negotiated for HTTP/1.1 over TLS to happen (aka 
> HTTPS). It is appropriate to Upgrade:h2. Since RFC 723x applies.
>
>
> But when the client negotiates h2c to happen. It is forbidden from 
> using
> Upgrade:h2 to get to h2. Avoiding the issues Upgrade would have with 
> only one-way encryption for the message pair.
>
> Note that h2c is also forbidden from being used in ALPN by section 3.3.
> So there is no valid way to be using TLS for h2c in the first place.
>
> If one is already using h2 it is pointless to Upgrade:h2.
>

I have just realized that RFC 7540 registers the "h2c" upgrade token (section 11.8) but it does NOT register an "h2" upgrade token. (it also registers the identification strings "h2" and "h2c" for ALPN in section 11.1, but that is a different thing)

The upgrade token "h2" probably does not exist according to the RFCs.  
It is also not mentioned here:  
http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens/http-upgrade-tokens.xhtml

So when using TLS, servers should not send "Upgrade: h2" because "h2"  
is an undefined upgrade token. And also when using TLS, servers should not send "Upgrade: h2c" because h2c means "HTTP/2 using cleartext TCP", and a connection that uses TLS cannot be "upgraded" to a connection that does not use TLS.

Do you agree...?

Regards,
Michael