HN user
If anyone from Cloudflare happens to be reading this, you should know that you have some kind of misconfiguration
Thanks for the detailed information. I'm a someone from Cloudflare responsible for this, we'll get it looked at.
We certainly like it at Cloudflare. Look out for more blogs from the team related to the topics.
Very nice work.
From a qlog and MASQUE enthusiast
tools.ietf.org hosted a range of tools or links to resources. That is what i mean by service, which has been in the process of migration to other subdomains of ietf.org
From the page:
The IETF Datatracker is the day-to-day front-end to the IETF database for people who work on IETF standards. It contains data about the documents, working groups, meetings, agendas, minutes, presentations, and more, of the IETF.
This is the main way that folks interact with and do their work in the IETF. The other being discussion on mailing lists.
One might argue datatracker isn't a great name, but naming things is hard.
Odd this appeared on the front page. The service is deprecated and the tools will soon have been entirely migrated under https://datatracker.ietf.org
Yes it was, there was a pretty lengthy discussion dating back to 2017 on the issue tracker https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/253
TL;DR just like HTTP/2, we wanted to avoid friction in deploying these protocols. Having to rewrite URLs because of new schemes is pretty unpalatable, it has major impact. Instead, HTTP/3 can rely on other IETF-defined mechanisms like Alt-Svc (RFC 7838) and the more recent SVCB / HTTPS RR [1] DNS-based methods. The latter has been deployed on Cloudflare a while [2] and supported in Firefox. Other user agents have also expressed interest or intent to support it.
The net outcome is that developers can by and large focus on HTTP semantics, and let something a little further down the stack worry more about versions. Sometime devs will need to peek into that area, but not the majority.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-... [2] - https://blog.cloudflare.com/speeding-up-https-and-http-3-neg...
103 Early Hints is RFC 8297. It defines a status code. Because status codes are an HTTP semantic, they are common across all HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, and HTTP/3. There's nothing special that needs to be done from a specification perspective, early hints _can_ work on any version. Whether implementations support that is a slightly different matter.
For what it's worth, the HTTP/2 specification contains almost identical phrasing as HTTP/3 [1]. That's not unexpected, the considerations are similar: using a single connection with connection-specific values has potential implications. However, the possibility for fingerprinting is inherent in every protocol and HTTP semantics itself paints out the ways common features might get used.
Considerations are just that. Choices in light of considerations can be traded off by client implementations - they can make their own choices about how to address these matters.
The work in the IETF to define oblivious DNS and oblivious HTTP [2] protocols is a step towards reducing such surfaces, at the trade off of functionality.
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9113.html#section-10.8 [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ohai/about/
Co-chair of the QUIC WG here. Early in the process, we decided it was important that HTTP/3 provide parity with HTTP/2. That helps application developers to migrate back and forth between versions with less friction. So we include features of bidirectional stream multiplexing, request/response stream cancellation, server push, header compression, and graceful connection closure.
Some of those are more optional than others i.e. Server Push. Whether implementations choose to support a feature or not, at least the IETF maintain the close parity at the protocol level.
Stream prioritization is a different matter. That was very tricky in HTTP/3 [1], and through the process we designed Extensible Priorities, which is simpler and works over both H2 and H3. That was published today also as RFC 9218[2].
[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/adopting-a-new-approach-to-http-...
[2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9218
Edit: typo fix
You could build this as an application mapping over QUIC. Within a single QUIC connection use reliable streams for the metadata delivery, and unreliable datagrams [1] for the payload. The benefit of a single connection is shared security context and shared fates of different datatype transfers.
If I were the Internet Dictator, I'd be a big fan of standardizing the semantics of http separate from the physical transport and then defining best practices for using alternative transports in the wild, and then eventually standardizing what comes out of that process.
This is what the IETF has been doing for several years already as part of the core HTTP specification rewrite. Namely, see the HTTP Semantics document https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics...
Semantics are common, how those map to specific transport - how it looks on the wire - is then the job of each individual HTTP version.
It reads like you're overlooking the act of standardization in improving the definition of a protocol. Experimentation is good but often only focuses on a limited set of use cases, deployments, or implementations. Standardization is great for interoperability across a more diverse set of all those three. This typically yields protocols that are more generally applicable for a wider population of the Internet.
Google QUIC was focused on an HTTP use case and thatbran through the entire design. Through the IETF process, the design evolved to be a far more generic transport with rich extensibility and modularity.
Some related discussion in this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/alagoutte/status/1532013841718120449?t=W...
Proxy components are officially called Intermediaries in thr HTTP semantic specification; see https://httpwg.org/http-core/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-la....
Intermediaries can have different purposes. The official alternative to reverse proxy is "gateway", which is unfortunately overloaded with other kinds of gateways in networking.
Naming things is hard. Reverse proxy isn't great but all things considered is unique enough to allow folks to discriminate the sort of HTTP proxying that is happening
The vanilla CONNECT method is an instruction to open a TCP connection to the target server. What is sent over that is entirely up to client and target the server it doesn't need to match. Its often TLS carrying HTTP but it could be anything.
The proxy could inspect the traffic it is carrying and try to enforce some access control or policy. However, the use of TLS or other encrypted protocols limits the ability to do see what is happening. Then you get into a different logical layer of whether there is MITM happening, but that is tangential to conventional use case for HTTP proxy.