[quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 Pseudoheader constraints are incorrect? (#2966)

martinduke <notifications@github.com> Wed, 14 August 2019 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24C7120E7D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=github.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 faab6wLaLTDH for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA43E120E7B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:59:09 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1565812749; bh=NH7kQUILLlD6aw3unhbUD00xErD91QP60ZJcXJvCm3w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=lVvCVe0/oks6Dggr/QuW8rOG5pSSBhlZfS994j57dxkW/BohXcw+8NCbxtG3lCqJv Y00g2GfPXSU0OMExycB9SWto2S+B2n0sn8p8o66JBcFsuTST/M34WqfrHCdL9K8HpB OQFDtD8+MBDc5POED5+RNjOe2cyOXySdRpHpwK/c=
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7GB6TU5WYY6I5WOJN3MGNI3EVBNHHBZKK5IY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2966@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 Pseudoheader constraints are incorrect? (#2966)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d54680dadde6_7d293fde2bccd9602377b4"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/uEWYBc1dL3GzOLZ4Ohm21Zw4-ow>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 19:59:13 -0000

I'm carefully parsing the wording in quic-http sec. 4.1.1 and don't think it's right:

> Endpoints MUST NOT
>    generate pseudo-header fields other than those defined in [HTTP2].
>    The restrictions on the use of pseudo-header fields in
>    Section 8.1.2.1 of [HTTP2] also apply to HTTP/3.

In RFC 7540, 8.1.2.1 says

> Endpoints MUST NOT
>    generate pseudo-header fields other than those defined in this
>    document...
> 
> Pseudo-header fields defined for requests MUST NOT appear
>    in responses; pseudo-header fields defined for responses MUST NOT
>    appear in requests.  Pseudo-header fields MUST NOT appear in
>    trailers.  Endpoints MUST treat a request or response that contains
>    undefined or invalid pseudo-header fields as malformed
>    (Section 8.1.2.6).
> 
>    All pseudo-header fields MUST appear in the header block before
>    regular header fields.  Any request or response that contains a
>    pseudo-header field that appears in a header block after a regular
>    header field MUST be treated as malformed (Section 8.1.2.6).

This notably does NOT include the further restrictions in 8.1.2.3:

> All HTTP/2 requests MUST include exactly one valid value for the
>    ":method", ":scheme", and ":path" pseudo-header fields, unless it is
>    a CONNECT request (Section 8.3).  An HTTP request that omits
>    mandatory pseudo-header fields is malformed (Section 8.1.2.6).

I am far from an expert on HTTP headers, but I suspect it's not right that clients could send quantities of :method, :scheme, and :path other than 1.

We should probably fix the section reference, though I haven't reviewed 8.1.2 carefully enough to know exactly how that should read.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2966