WEBPUSH M. Thomson
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track E. Damaggio
Expires: April 17, 2016 B. Raymor, Ed.
Microsoft
October 15, 2015
Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push
draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-01
Abstract
A simple protocol for the delivery of realtime events to user agents
is described. This scheme uses HTTP/2 server push.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. HTTP Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Subscribing for Push Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Subscribing for Push Message Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Requesting Push Message Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Requesting Push Message Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Push Message Time-To-Live . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Receiving Push Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Acknowledging Push Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Receiving Push Message Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Load Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Push Message Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. Subscription Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.4. Implications for Application Reliability . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Confidentiality from Push Service Access . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.3. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4. Denial of Service Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.5. Logging Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Header Field Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Link Relation URNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.1. Since draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-00 . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
Many applications on mobile and embedded devices require continuous
access to network communications so that real-time events - such as
incoming calls or messages - can be delivered (or "pushed") in a
timely fashion. These devices typically have limited power reserves,
so finding more efficient ways to serve application requirements
greatly benefits the application ecosystem.
One significant contributor to power usage is the radio. Radio
communications consume a significant portion of the energy budget on
a wireless device.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
Uncoordinated use of persistent connections or sessions from multiple
applications can contribute to unnecessary use of the device radio,
since each independent session independently incurs overheads. In
particular, keep alive traffic used to ensure that middleboxes do not
prematurely time out sessions, can result in significant waste.
Maintenance traffic tends to dominate over the long term, since
events are relatively rare.
Consolidating all real-time events into a single session ensures more
efficient use of network and radio resources. A single service
consolidates all events, distributing those events to applications as
they arrive. This requires just one session, avoiding duplicated
overhead costs.
The W3C Web Push API [API] describes an API that enables the use of a
consolidated push service from web applications. This expands on
that work by describing a protocol that can be used to:
o request the delivery of a push message to a user agent,
o create new push message delivery subscriptions, and
o monitor for new push messages.
Requesting the delivery of events is particularly important for the
Web Push API. The subscription, management and monitoring functions
are currently fulfilled by proprietary protocols; these are adequate,
but do not offer any of the advantages that standardization affords.
This document intentionally does not describe how a push service is
discovered. Discovery of push services is left for future efforts,
if it turns out to be necessary at all. User agents are expected to
be configured with a URL for a push service.
1.1. Conventions and Terminology
In cases where normative language needs to be emphasized, this
document falls back on established shorthands for expressing
interoperability requirements on implementations: the capitalized
words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD" and "MAY". The meaning of these
is described in [RFC2119].
This document defines the following terms:
application: Both the sender and ultimate consumer of push messages.
Many applications have components that are run on a user agent and
other components that run on servers.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
application server: The component of an application that runs on a
server and requests the delivery of a push message.
push message subscription: A message delivery context that is
established between the user agent and the push service and shared
with the application server. All push messages are associated
with a push message subscription.
push message: A message sent from an application server to a user
agent via a push service.
push message receipt: A message delivery confirmation sent from the
push service to the application server.
push service: A service that delivers push messages to user agents.
user agent: A device and software that is the recipient of push
messages.
Examples in this document use the HTTP/1.1 message format [RFC7230].
Many of the exchanges can be completed using HTTP/1.1, where HTTP/2
is necessary, the more verbose frame format from [RFC7540] is used.
2. Overview
A general model for push services includes three basic actors: a user
agent, a push service, and an application (server).
+-------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
| UA | | Push Service | | Application |
+-------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
| | |
| Subscribe | |
|--------------------->| |
| Monitor | |
|<====================>| |
| | |
| Distribute Push Resource |
|-------------------------------------------->|
| | |
: : :
| | Push Message |
| Push Message |<---------------------|
|<---------------------| |
| | |
At the very beginning of the process, a new message subscription is
created by the user agent and then distributed to its application
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
server. This subscription is the basis of all future interactions
between the actors.
To offer more control for authorization, a message subscription is
modeled as two resources with different capabilities:
o A subscription resource is used to receive messages from a
subscription and to delete a subscription. It is private to the
user agent.
o A push resource is used to send messages to a subscription. It is
public and shared by the user agent with its application server.
It is expected that a unique subscription will be distributed to each
application; however, there are no inherent cardinality constraints
in the protocol. Multiple subscriptions might be created for the
same application, or multiple applications could use the same
subscription. Note however that sharing subscriptions has security
and privacy implications.
Subscriptions have a limited lifetime. They can also be terminated
by either the push service or user agent at any time. User agents
and application servers must be prepared to manage changes in
subscription state.
2.1. HTTP Resources
This protocol uses HTTP resources [RFC7230] and link relations
[RFC5988]. The following resources are defined:
push service: This resource is used to create push message
subscriptions (see Section 3). A URL for the push service is
configured into user agents.
push message subscription: This resource provides read and delete
access for a message subscription. A user agent receives push
messages (Section 6) using a push message subscription. Every
push message subscription has exactly one push resource associated
with it.
push: A push resource is used by the application server to request
the delivery of a push message (see Section 5). A link relation
of type "urn:ietf:params:push" is used to identify a push
resource.
push message: A push message resource is created to identify push
messages that have been accepted by the push service. The push
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
message resource is also used to acknowledge receipt of a push
message.
receipt subscribe: A receipt subscribe resource is used by an
application server to create a receipt subscription (see
Section 4). A link relation of type
"urn:ietf:params:push:receipt" is used to identity a receipt
subscribe resource.
receipt subscription: An application server receives delivery
confirmations (Section 5.1) for push messages using a receipt
subscription.
3. Subscribing for Push Messages
A user agent sends a POST request to its configured push service
resource to create a new subscription.
POST /subscribe/ HTTP/1.1
Host: push.example.net
A response with a 201 (Created) status code includes a URI for a new
push message subscription resource in the Location header field.
The push service MUST provide a URI for the push resource
corresponding to the push message subscription using a link relation
of type "urn:ietf:params:push".
The push service MUST provide a URI for a receipt subscribe resource
in a link relation of type "urn:ietf:params:push:receipt".
An application-specific method is used to distribute the push and
receipt subscribe URIs to the application server. Confidentiality
protection and application server authentication MUST be used to
ensure that these URIs are not disclosed to unauthorized recipients
(see Section 8.3).
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:52 GMT
Link: </p/JzLQ3raZJfFBR0aqvOMsLrt54w4rJUsV>;
rel="urn:ietf:params:push"
Link: </receipts/xjTG79I3VuptNWS0DsFu4ihT97aE6UQJ>;
rel="urn:ietf:params:push:receipt"
Location: https://push.example.net/s/LBhhw0OohO-Wl4Oi971UGsB7sdQGUibx
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
4. Subscribing for Push Message Receipts
An application server requests the creation of a receipt subscription
by sending a HTTP POST request to the receipt subscribe resource
distributed to the application server by a user agent.
POST /receipts/xjTG79I3VuptNWS0DsFu4ihT97aE6UQJ HTTP/1.1
Host: push.example.net
A successful response with a 201 (Created) status code includes a URI
for the receipt subscription resource in the Location header field.
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:52 GMT
Location: https://push.example.net/r/3ZtI4YVNBnUUZhuoChl6omUvG4ZM9mpN
An application server that sends push messages to a large population
of user agents incurs a significant load if it has to monitor a
receipt subscription for each user agent. Reuse of receipt
subscriptions is critical in reducing load on application servers. A
receipt subscription can be used for all resources that have the same
receipt subscribe URI.
A push service SHOULD provide the same receipt subscribe URI to all
user agents. Application servers SHOULD reuse receipt subscription
URIs if the receipt subscribe URI provided with the push resource is
identical to the one used to create the receipt subscription.
Checking that the receipt subscribe URI is identical allows the
application server to avoid creating unnecessary receipt
subscriptions.
5. Requesting Push Message Delivery
An application server requests the delivery of a push message by
sending a HTTP request to a push resource distributed to the
application server by a user agent. The push message is included in
the body of the request.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
POST /p/JzLQ3raZJfFBR0aqvOMsLrt54w4rJUsV HTTP/1.1
Host: push.example.net
Push-Receipt: https://push.example.net/r/3ZtI4YVNBnUUZhuoChl6omUvG4ZM9mpN
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf8
Content-Length: 36
iChYuI3jMzt3ir20P8r_jgRR-dSuN182x7iB
A 201 (Created) response indicates that the push message was
accepted. A URI for the push message resource that was created in
response to the request is included in the Location header field.
This does not indicate that the message was delivered to the user
agent.
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:55 GMT
Location: https://push.example.net/d/qDIYHNcfAIPP_5ITvURr-d6BGtYnTRnk
A push service MAY generate a 413 (Payload Too Large) status code in
response to requests that include an entity body that is too large.
Push services MUST NOT generate a 413 status code in responses to an
entity body that is 4k (4096 bytes) or less in size.
5.1. Requesting Push Message Receipts
An application server can use the Push-Receipt header field to
request a confirmation from the push service when a push message is
delivered and acknowledged by the user agent. The Push-Receipt
header field is a URI-Reference as defined in Section 2.7 of
[RFC7230].
Push-Receipt = URI-reference
The application sets the Push-Receipt header field value to a receipt
subscription URI. This receipt subscription resource MUST be created
from the same receipt subscribe resource which was returned with the
push message subscription response (see Section 3).
5.2. Push Message Time-To-Live
A push service can improve the reliability of push message delivery
considerably by storing push messages for a period. User agents are
often only intermittently connected, and so benefit from having short
term message storage at the push service.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
Delaying delivery might also be used to batch communication with the
user agent, thereby conserving radio resources.
Some push messages are not useful once a certain period of time
elapses. Delivery of messages after they have ceased to be relevant
is wasteful. For example, if the push message contains a call
notification, receiving a message after the caller has abandoned the
call is of no value; the application at the user agent is forced to
suppress the message so that it does not generate a useless alert.
An application server can use the TTL header field to limit the time
that a push message is retained by a push service. The TTL header
field contains a value in seconds that describes how long a push
message is retained by the push service.
TTL = 1*DIGIT
Once the Time-To-Live (TTL) period elapses, the push service MUST NOT
attempt to deliver the push message to the user agent. A push
service might adjust the TTL value to account for time accounting
errors in processing. For instance, distributing a push message
within a server cluster might accrue errors due to clock skew or
propagation delays.
A push service is not obligated to account for time spent by the
application server in sending a push message to the push service, or
delays incurred while sending a push message to the user agent. An
application server needs to account for transit delays in selecting a
TTL header field value.
Absence of the TTL header field is interpreted as equivalent to a
zero value. A Push message with a zero TTL is immediately delivered
if the user agent is available to receive the message. After
delivery, the push service is permitted to immediately remove a push
message with a zero TTL. This might occur before the user agent
acknowledges receipt of the message by performing a HTTP DELETE on
the push message resource. Consequently, an application server
cannot rely on receiving acknowledgement receipts for zero TTL push
messages.
If the user agent is unavailable, a push message with a zero TTL
expires and is never delivered.
A push service MAY choose to retain a push message for a shorter
duration than that requested. It indicates this by including a TTL
header field in the response that includes the actual TTL. This TTL
value MUST be less than or equal to the value provided by the
application server.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
6. Receiving Push Messages
A user agent requests the delivery of new push messages by making a
GET request to a push message subscription resource. The push
service does not respond to this request, it instead uses HTTP/2
server push [RFC7540] to send the contents of push messages as they
are sent by application servers.
Each push message is pushed in response to a synthesized GET request.
The GET request is made to the push message resource that was created
by the push service when the application server requested message
delivery. The response body is the entity body from the most recent
request sent to the push resource.
The following example request is made over HTTP/2.
HEADERS [stream 7] +END_STREAM +END_HEADERS
:method = GET
:path = /s/LBhhw0OohO-Wl4Oi971UGsB7sdQGUibx
:authority = push.example.net
The push service permits the request to remain outstanding. When a
push message is sent by an application server, a server push is
associated with the initial request. The response includes the push
message.
PUSH_PROMISE [stream 7; promised stream 4] +END_HEADERS
:method = GET
:path = /d/qDIYHNcfAIPP_5ITvURr-d6BGtYnTRnk
:authority = push.example.net
HEADERS [stream 4] +END_HEADERS
:status = 200
date = Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:56 GMT
last-modified = Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:55 GMT
cache-control = private
content-type = text/plain;charset=utf8
content-length = 36
DATA [stream 4] +END_STREAM
iChYuI3jMzt3ir20P8r_jgRR-dSuN182x7iB
In response to this request, the push service MUST generate a server
push for all push messages that have not yet been delivered. In
addition, the push service SHOULD return link references to the push
and receipt subscribe resources.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
A user agent can request the contents of the push message
subscription resource immediately by including a Prefer header field
[RFC7240] with a "wait" parameter set to "0".
A 204 (No Content) status code with no associated server pushes
indicates that no messages are presently available. This could be
because push messages have expired.
6.1. Acknowledging Push Messages
To ensure that a push message is properly delivered to the user agent
at least once, the user agent MUST acknowledge receipt of the message
by performing a HTTP DELETE on the push message resource.
DELETE /d/qDIYHNcfAIPP_5ITvURr-d6BGtYnTRnk HTTP/1.1
Host: push.example.net
If the push service receives the acknowledgement and the application
has requested a delivery receipt, the push service MUST deliver a
success response to the application server monitoring the receipt
subscription resource.
If the push service does not receive the acknowledgement within a
reasonable amount of time, then the message is considered to be not
yet delivered. The push service SHOULD continue to retry delivery of
the message until its advertised expiration.
The push service MAY cease to retry delivery of the message prior to
its advertised expiration due to scenarios such as an unresponsive
user agent or operational constraints. If the application has
requested a delivery receipt, then the push service MUST deliver a
failure response to the application server monitoring the receipt
subscription resource.
6.2. Receiving Push Message Receipts
The application server requests the delivery of receipts from the
push service by making a HTTP GET request to the receipt subscription
resource. The push service does not respond to this request, it
instead uses HTTP/2 server push [RFC7540] to send push receipts when
messages are acknowledged (Section 6.1) by the user agent.
Each receipt is pushed in response to a synthesized GET request. The
GET request is made to the same push message resource that was
created by the push service when the application server requested
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
message delivery. A successful response includes a 410 (GONE) status
code with no data.
The following example request is made over HTTP/2.
HEADERS [stream 13] +END_STREAM +END_HEADERS
:method = GET
:path = /r/3ZtI4YVNBnUUZhuoChl6omUvG4ZM9mpN
:authority = push.example.net
The push service permits the request to remain outstanding. When the
user agent acknowledges the message, the push service pushes a
delivery receipt to the application server. A 410 (Gone) status code
confirms that the message was delivered and acknowledged.
PUSH_PROMISE [stream 13; promised stream 82] +END_HEADERS
:method = GET
:path = /d/qDIYHNcfAIPP_5ITvURr-d6BGtYnTRnk
:authority = push.example.net
HEADERS [stream 4] +END_STREAM
+END_HEADERS
:status = 410
date = Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:56 GMT
If the user agent fails to acknowledge the receipt of the push
message and the push service ceases to retry delivery of the message
prior to its advertised expiration, then the push service MUST push a
failure response with a status code of 5XX (TBD).
7. Operational Considerations
A push service is likely to have to maintain a very large number of
open TCP connections. Effective management of those connections can
depend on being able to move connections between server instances.
7.1. Load Management
A user agent MUST support the 307 (Temporary Redirect) status code
[RFC7231], which can be used by a push service to redistribute load
at the time that a new subscription is requested.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
A server that wishes to redistribute load can do so using alternative
services [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc]. Alternative services allows for
redistribution of load whilst maintaining the same URIs for various
resources. User agents can ensure a graceful transition by using the
GOAWAY frame once it has established a replacement connection.
7.2. Push Message Expiration
Storage of push messages based on the TTL header field comprises a
potentially significant amount of storage for a push service. A push
service is not obligated to store messages indefinitely. A push
service is able to indicate how long it intends to retain a message
to an application server using the TTL header field (see
Section 5.2).
A user agent that does not actively monitor for push messages will
not receive messages that expire during that interval.
Push messages that are stored and not delivered to a user agent are
delivered when the user agent recommences monitoring. Stored push
messages SHOULD include a Last-Modified header field (see Section 2.2
of [RFC7232]) indicating when delivery was requested by an
application server.
A GET request to a push message subscription resource that has only
expired messages results in response as though no push message were
ever sent.
Push services might need to limit the size and number of stored push
messages to avoid overloading. To limit the size of messages, the
push service MAY return the 413 (Payload Too Large) status code for
messages that are too large. To limit the number of stored push
messages, the push service MAY either expire messages prior to their
advertised Time-To-Live or reduce their advertised Time-To-Live.
7.3. Subscription Expiration
In some cases, it may be necessary to terminate subscriptions so that
they can be refreshed. This applies to both push message
subscriptions and receipt subscriptions.
A push service can remove a subscription at any time. If a user
agent or application server has an outstanding request to a
subscription resource (see Section 6), this can be signaled by
returning a 400-series status code, such as 410 (Gone).
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
A user agent or application server can request that a subscription be
removed by sending a DELETE request to the push message subscription
or receipt subscription URI.
A push service MUST return a 400-series status code, such as 404 (Not
Found) or 410 (Gone) if an application server attempts to send a push
message to a removed or expired push message subscription.
7.4. Implications for Application Reliability
A push service that does not support reliable delivery over
intermittent network connections or failing applications on devices,
forces the device to acknowledge receipt directly to the application
server, incurring additional power drain in order to establish
(usually secure) connections to the individual application servers.
Push message reliability can be important if messages contain
information critical to the state of an application. Repairing state
can be costly, particularly for devices with limited communications
capacity. Knowing that a push message has been correctly received
avoids costly retransmissions, polling and state resynchronization.
The availability of push message delivery receipts ensures that the
application developer is not tempted to create alternative mechanisms
for message delivery in case the push service fails to deliver a
critical message. Setting up a polling mechanism or a backup
messaging channel in order to compensate for these shortcomings
negates almost all of the advantages a push service provides.
However, reliability might not be necessary for messages that are
transient (e.g. an incoming call) or messages that are quickly
superceded (e.g. the current number of unread emails).
8. Security Considerations
This protocol MUST use HTTP over TLS [RFC2818]. This includes any
communications between user agent and push service, plus
communications between the application and the push service. All
URIs therefore use the "https" scheme. This provides confidentiality
and integrity protection for subscriptions and push messages from
external parties.
8.1. Confidentiality from Push Service Access
The protection afforded by TLS does not protect content from the push
service. Without additional safeguards, a push service is able to
see and modify the content of the messages.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
Applications are able to provide additional confidentiality,
integrity or authentication mechanisms within the push message
itself. The application server sending the push message and the
application on the user agent that receives it are frequently just
different instances of the same application, so no standardized
protocol is needed to establish a proper security context. The
process of providing the application server with subscription
information provides a convenient medium for key agreement.
The Web Push API codifies this practice by requiring that each push
subscription created by the browser be bound to a browser generated
encryption key. Pushed messages are authenticated and decrypted by
the browser before delivery to applications. This scheme ensures
that the push service is unable to examine the contents of push
messages.
The public key for a subscription ensures that applications using
that subscription can identify messages from unknown sources and
discard them. This depends on the public key only being disclosed to
entities that are authorized to send messages on the channel. The
push service does not require access to this public key.
8.2. Privacy Considerations
Push message confidentiality does not ensure that the identity of who
is communicating and when they are communicating is protected.
However, the amount of information that is exposed can be limited.
The URIs provided for push resources MUST NOT provide any basis to
correlate communications for a given user agent. It MUST NOT be
possible to correlate any two push resource URIs based solely on
their contents. This allows a user agent to control correlation
across different applications, or over time.
Similarly, the URIs provided by the push service to identify a push
message MUST NOT provide any information that allows for correlation
across subscriptions. Push message URIs for the same subscription
MAY contain information that would allow correlation with the
associated subscription or other push messages for that subscription.
User and device information MUST NOT be exposed through a push or
push message URI.
In addition, push URIs established by the same user agent or push
message URIs for the same subscription MUST NOT include any
information that allows them to be correlated with the user agent.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
Note: This need not be perfect as long as the resulting anonymity
set (see [RFC6973], Section 6.1.1) is sufficiently large. A push
URI necessarily identifies a push service or a single server
instance. It is also possible that traffic analysis could be used
to correlate subscriptions.
A user agent MUST be able to create new subscriptions with new
identifiers at any time.
8.3. Authorization
This protocol does not define how a push service establishes whether
a user agent is permitted to create a subscription, or whether push
messages can be delivered to the user agent. A push service MAY
choose to authorize requests based on any HTTP-compatible
authorization method available, of which there are numerous options.
The authorization process and any associated credentials are expected
to be configured in the user agent along with the URI for the push
service.
Authorization is managed using capability URLs for the push message
subscription, push, and receipt subscription resources (see
[CAP-URI]). A capability URL grants access to a resource based
solely on knowledge of the URL.
Capability URLs are used for their "easy onward sharing" and "easy
client API" properties. These make it possible to avoid relying on
relationships between push services and application servers, with the
protocols necessary to build and support those relationships.
Capability URLs act as bearer tokens. Knowledge of a push message
subscription URI implies authorization to either receive push
messages or delete the subscription. Knowledge of a push URI implies
authorization to send push messages. Knowledge of a push message URI
allows for reading and acknowledging that specific message.
Knowledge of a receipt subscription URI implies authorization to
receive push receipts. Knowledge of a receipt subscribe URI implies
authorization to create subscriptions for receipts.
Note that the same receipt subscribe URI could be returned for
multiple push message subscriptions. Using the same value for a
large number of subscriptions allows application servers to reuse
receipt subscriptions, which can provide a significant efficiency
advantage. A push service that uses a common receipt subscribe URI
loses control over the creation of receipt subscriptions. This can
result in a potential exposure to denial of service; stateless
resource creation can be used to mitigate the effects of this
exposure.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
Encoding a large amount of random entropy (at least 120 bits) in the
path component ensures that it is difficult to successfully guess a
valid capability URL.
8.4. Denial of Service Considerations
Discarding unwanted messages at the user agent based on message
authentication doesn't protect against a denial of service attack on
the user agent. Even a relatively small volume of push messages can
cause battery-powered devices to exhaust power reserves.
An application can limit where valid push messages can originate by
limiting the distribution of push URIs to authorized entities.
Ensuring that push URIs are hard to guess ensures that only
application servers that have been given a push URI can use it.
A malicious application with a valid push URI could use the greater
resources of a push service to mount a denial of service attack on a
user agent. Push services SHOULD limit the rate at which push
messages are sent to individual user agents. A push service or user
agent MAY terminate subscriptions (Section 7.3) that receive too many
push messages.
End-to-end confidentiality mechanisms, such as those in [API],
prevent an entity with a valid push message subscription URI from
learning the contents of push messages. Push messages that are not
successfully authenticated will not be delivered by the API, but this
can present a denial of service risk.
Conversely, a push service is also able to deny service to user
agents. Intentional failure to deliver messages is difficult to
distinguish from faults, which might occur due to transient network
errors, interruptions in user agent availability, or genuine service
outages.
8.5. Logging Risks
Server request logs can reveal subscription-related URIs. Acquiring
a push message subscription URI enables the receipt of messages or
deletion of the subscription. Acquiring a push URI permits the
sending of push messages. Logging could also reveal relationships
between different subscription-related URIs for the same user agent.
Encrypted message contents are not revealed to the push service.
Limitations on log retention and strong access control mechanisms can
ensure that URIs are not learned by unauthorized entities.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
9. IANA Considerations
This protocol defines new HTTP header fields in Section 9.1. New
link relation types are identified using the URNs defined in
Section 9.2.
9.1. Header Field Registrations
HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers"
registry maintained at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-
headers/>.
This document defines the following HTTP header fields, so their
associated registry entries shall be added according to the permanent
registrations below (see [RFC3864]):
+-------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| Header Field Name | Protocol | Status | Reference |
+-------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
| TTL | http | standard | Section 5.2 |
| Push-Receipt | http | standard | Section 5.1 |
+-------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet
Engineering Task Force".
9.2. Link Relation URNs
This document registers URNs for use in identifying link relation
types. These are added to a new "Web Push Identifiers" registry
according to the procedures in Section 4 of [RFC3553]; the
corresponding "push" sub-namespace is entered in the "IETF URN Sub-
namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers" registry.
The "Web Push Identifiers" registry operates under the IETF Review
policy [RFC5226].
Registry name: Web Push Identifiers
URN Prefix: urn:ietf:params:push
Specification: (this document)
Repository: [Editor/IANA note: please include a link to the final
registry location.]
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
Index value: Values in this registry are URNs or URN prefixes that
start with the prefix "urn:ietf:params:push". Each is registered
independently.
New registrations in the "Web Push Identifiers" are encouraged to
include the following information:
URN: A complete URN or URN prefix.
Description: A summary description.
Specification: A reference to a specification describing the
semantics of the URN or URN prefix.
Contact: Email for the person or group making the registration.
Index value: As described in [RFC3553], URN prefixes that are
registered include a description of how the URN is constructed.
This is not applicable for specific URNs.
These values are entered as the initial content of the "Web Push
Identifiers" registry.
URN: urn:ietf:params:push
Description: This link relation type is used to identify a resource
for sending push messages.
Specification: (this document)
Contact: The Web Push WG (webpush@ietf.org)
URN: urn:ietf:params:push:receipt
Description: This link relation type is used to identify a resource
for creating new push message receipt subscriptions.
Specification: (this document)
Contact: The Web Push WG (webpush@ietf.org)
10. Acknowledgements
Significant technical input to this document has been provided by
Costin Manolache, Robert Sparks, Mark Nottingham, Matthew Kaufman and
many others.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[CAP-URI] Tennison, J., "Good Practices for Capability URLs", FPWD
capability-urls, February 2014,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/capability-urls/>.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc]
Nottingham, M., McManus, P., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Alternative Services", draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-07 (work
in progress), May 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, June 2003.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
September 2004.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June
2014.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.
[RFC7232] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232, June 2014.
[RFC7240] Snell, J., "Prefer Header for HTTP", RFC 7240, June 2014.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol Version 2", RFC 7540, May 2015.
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
11.2. Informative References
[API] Sullivan, B., Fullea, E., and M. van Ouwerkerk, "Web Push
API", ED push-api, February 2015, <https://w3c.github.io/
push-api/>.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
2013.
Appendix A. Change Log
[[The RFC Editor is requested to remove this section at
publication.]]
A.1. Since draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-00
Editorial changes for Push Message Time-To-Live
Editorial changes for Push Acknowledgements
Removed subscription expiration based on HTTP cache headers
Authors' Addresses
Martin Thomson
Mozilla
331 E Evelyn Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
US
Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com
Elio Damaggio
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
Email: elioda@microsoft.com
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft HTTP Web Push October 2015
Brian Raymor (editor)
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
Email: brian.raymor@microsoft.com
Thomson, et al. Expires April 17, 2016 [Page 22]
