draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-08.txt   draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-09.txt 
MASQUE D. Schinazi MASQUE D. Schinazi
Internet-Draft Google LLC Internet-Draft Google LLC
Intended status: Standards Track 21 March 2022 Intended status: Standards Track 11 April 2022
Expires: 22 September 2022 Expires: 13 October 2022
UDP Proxying Support for HTTP UDP Proxying Support for HTTP
draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-08 draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-09
Abstract Abstract
This document describes how to proxy UDP over HTTP. Similar to how This document describes how to proxy UDP over HTTP. Similar to how
the CONNECT method allows proxying TCP over HTTP, this document the CONNECT method allows proxying TCP over HTTP, this document
defines a new mechanism to proxy UDP. It is built using HTTP defines a new mechanism to proxy UDP. When using HTTP/2 or HTTP/3,
Extended CONNECT. it uses Extended CONNECT; when using HTTP/1.1, it uses Upgrade.
Discussion Venues About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the MASQUE WG mailing list The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://ietf-wg-
(masque@ietf.org), which is archived at masque.github.io/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp/draft-ietf-masque-
connect-udp.html. Status information for this document may be found
at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the MASQUE Working Group
mailing list (mailto:masque@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp. https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 22 September 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 October 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Configuration of Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Configuration of Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. HTTP Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. HTTP Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Proxy Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Proxy Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. HTTP Request over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4. HTTP Request over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. HTTP Response over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. HTTP Response over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Note About Draft Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.6. Note About Draft Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Context Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Context Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. HTTP Datagram Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. HTTP Datagram Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Tunneling of ECN Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Tunneling of ECN Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. HTTP Upgrade Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. HTTP Upgrade Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Well-Known URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.2. Well-Known URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes how to proxy UDP over HTTP. Similar to how This document describes how to proxy UDP over HTTP. Similar to how
the CONNECT method (see Section 9.3.6 of [HTTP]) allows proxying TCP the CONNECT method (see Section 9.3.6 of [HTTP]) allows proxying TCP
[TCP] over HTTP, this document defines a new mechanism to proxy UDP [TCP] over HTTP, this document defines a new mechanism to proxy UDP
[UDP]. [UDP].
UDP Proxying supports all versions of HTTP and uses HTTP Datagrams UDP Proxying supports all versions of HTTP and uses HTTP Datagrams
[HTTP-DGRAM]. When using HTTP/2 or HTTP/3, UDP proxying uses HTTP [HTTP-DGRAM]. When using HTTP/2 [HTTP/2] or HTTP/3 [HTTP/3], UDP
Extended CONNECT as described in [EXT-CONNECT2] and [EXT-CONNECT3]. proxying uses HTTP Extended CONNECT as described in [EXT-CONNECT2]
When using HTTP/1.x, UDP proxying uses HTTP Upgrade as defined in and [EXT-CONNECT3]. When using HTTP/1.x [HTTP/1.1], UDP proxying
Section 7.8 of [HTTP]. uses HTTP Upgrade as defined in Section 7.8 of [HTTP].
1.1. Conventions and Definitions 1.1. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
In this document, we use the term "proxy" to refer to the HTTP server In this document, we use the term "proxy" to refer to the HTTP server
that opens the UDP socket and responds to the UDP proxying request. that acts upon the client's UDP proxying request to open a UDP socket
If there are HTTP intermediaries (as defined in Section 3.7 of to a target server, and generates the response to this request. If
[HTTP]) between the client and the proxy, those are referred to as there are HTTP intermediaries (as defined in Section 3.7 of [HTTP])
between the client and the proxy, those are referred to as
"intermediaries" in this document. "intermediaries" in this document.
Note that, when the HTTP version in use does not support multiplexing Note that, when the HTTP version in use does not support multiplexing
streams (such as HTTP/1.1), any reference to "stream" in this streams (such as HTTP/1.1), any reference to "stream" in this
document represents the entire connection. document represents the entire connection.
2. Configuration of Clients 2. Configuration of Clients
Clients are configured to use UDP Proxying over HTTP via an URI Clients are configured to use UDP Proxying over HTTP via a URI
Template [TEMPLATE] with the variables "target_host" and Template [TEMPLATE] with the variables "target_host" and
"target_port". Examples are shown below: "target_port". Examples are shown below:
https://masque.example.org/.well-known/masque/udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/ https://masque.example.org/.well-known/masque/udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/
https://proxy.example.org:4443/masque?h={target_host}&p={target_port} https://proxy.example.org:4443/masque?h={target_host}&p={target_port}
https://proxy.example.org:4443/masque{?target_host,target_port} https://proxy.example.org:4443/masque{?target_host,target_port}
Figure 1: URI Template Examples Figure 1: URI Template Examples
The URI template MUST be a level 3 template or lower. The URI The following requirements apply to the URI Template:
template MUST be in absolute form, and MUST include non-empty scheme,
authority and path components. The path component of the URI * The URI Template MUST be a level 3 template or lower.
template MUST start with a slash "/". All template variables MUST be
within the path component of the URI. The URI template MUST contain * The URI Template MUST be in absolute form, and MUST include non-
the two variables "target_host" and "target_port" and MAY contain empty scheme, authority and path components.
other variables. The URI template MUST NOT contain any non-ASCII
unicode characters and MUST only contain ASCII characters in the * The path component of the URI Template MUST start with a slash
range 0x21-0x7E inclusive (note that percent-encoding is allowed). "/".
The URI template MUST NOT use Reserved Expansion ("+" operator),
Fragment Expansion ("#" operator), Label Expansion with Dot-Prefix, * All template variables MUST be within the path component of the
Path Segment Expansion with Slash-Prefix, nor Path-Style Parameter URI.
Expansion with Semicolon-Prefix. If any of the requirements above
are not met by a URI template, the client MUST reject its * The URI template MUST contain the two variables "target_host" and
configuration and fail the request without sending it to the proxy. "target_port" and MAY contain other variables.
* The URI Template MUST NOT contain any non-ASCII unicode characters
and MUST only contain ASCII characters in the range 0x21-0x7E
inclusive (note that percent-encoding is allowed).
* The URI Template MUST NOT use Reserved Expansion ("+" operator),
Fragment Expansion ("#" operator), Label Expansion with Dot-
Prefix, Path Segment Expansion with Slash-Prefix, nor Path-Style
Parameter Expansion with Semicolon-Prefix.
If any of the requirements above are not met by a URI Template, the
client MUST reject its configuration and fail the request without
sending it to the proxy.
Since the original HTTP CONNECT method allowed conveying the target Since the original HTTP CONNECT method allowed conveying the target
host and port but not the scheme, proxy authority, path, nor query, host and port but not the scheme, proxy authority, path, nor query,
there exist proxy configuration interfaces that only allow the user there exist proxy configuration interfaces that only allow the user
to configure the proxy host and the proxy port. Client to configure the proxy host and the proxy port. Client
implementations of this specification that are constrained by such implementations of this specification that are constrained by such
limitations MUST use the default template which is defined as: limitations MAY attempt to access UDP Proxying capabilities using the
default template, which is defined as:
"https://$PROXY_HOST:$PROXY_PORT/.well-known/masque/ "https://$PROXY_HOST:$PROXY_PORT/.well-known/masque/
udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/" where $PROXY_HOST and $PROXY_PORT udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/" where $PROXY_HOST and $PROXY_PORT
are the configured host and port of the proxy respectively. Proxy are the configured host and port of the proxy respectively. Proxy
deployments SHOULD use the default template to facilitate deployments SHOULD offer service at this location if they need to
interoperability with such clients. interoperate with such clients.
Clients MAY interpret HTTP 400, 404, or 405 response codes as
indications that the URI template is not correct. Servers MUST NOT
return these response codes if the request is well-formed and the URI
matches a supported template.
3. HTTP Exchanges 3. HTTP Exchanges
This document defines the "connect-udp" HTTP Upgrade Token. "connect- This document defines the "connect-udp" HTTP Upgrade Token. "connect-
udp" uses the Capsule Protocol as defined in [HTTP-DGRAM]. udp" uses the Capsule Protocol as defined in Section 3.2 of
[HTTP-DGRAM]. The format of HTTP Datagrams is defined in Section 5.
A "connect-udp" request requests that the recipient proxy establish a Clients issue requests containing a "connect-udp" upgrade token to
tunnel over a single HTTP stream to the destination target identified initiate a UDP tunnel associated with a single HTTP stream. Tunnels
by the "target_host" and "target_port" variables of the URI template are commonly used to create an end-to-end virtual connection, which
(see Section 2). If the request is successful, the proxy commits to can then be secured using QUIC [QUIC] or another protocol running
converting received HTTP Datagrams into UDP packets and vice versa over UDP. The target of the tunnel is indicated by the client to the
until the tunnel is closed. Tunnels are commonly used to create an proxy via the "target_host" and "target_port" variables of the URI
end-to-end virtual connection, which can then be secured using QUIC Template (see Section 2). If the request is successful, the proxy
[QUIC] or another protocol running over UDP. commits to converting received HTTP Datagrams into UDP packets and
vice versa until the tunnel is closed.
When sending its UDP proxying request, the client SHALL perform URI When sending its UDP proxying request, the client SHALL perform URI
template expansion to determine the path and query of its request. Template expansion to determine the path and query of its request.
target_host supports using DNS names, IPv6 literals and IPv4 target_host supports using DNS names, IPv6 literals and IPv4
literals. Note that this URI template expansion requires using pct- literals. Note that this URI Template expansion requires using pct-
encoding, so for example if the target_host is "2001:db8::42", it encoding, so for example if the target_host is "2001:db8::42", it
will be encoded in the URI as "2001%3Adb8%3A%3A42". will be encoded in the URI as "2001%3Adb8%3A%3A42".
A payload within a UDP proxying request message has no defined By virtue of the definition of the Capsule Protocol (see
semantics; a UDP proxying request with a non-empty payload is [HTTP-DGRAM]), UDP proxying requests do not carry any message
malformed. content. Similarly, successful UDP proxying responses also do not
carry any message content.
Responses to UDP proxying requests are not cacheable. Responses to UDP proxying requests are not cacheable.
3.1. Proxy Handling 3.1. Proxy Handling
Upon receiving a UDP proxying request, the recipient proxy extracts Upon receiving a UDP proxying request, the recipient proxy extracts
the "target_host" and "target_port" variables from the URI it has the "target_host" and "target_port" variables from the URI it has
reconstructed from the request headers, and establishes a tunnel by reconstructed from the request headers, and establishes a tunnel by
directly opening a UDP socket to the requested target. directly opening a UDP socket to the requested target.
Unlike TCP, UDP is connection-less. The proxy that opens the UDP Unlike TCP, UDP is connection-less. The proxy that opens the UDP
socket has no way of knowing whether the destination is reachable. socket has no way of knowing whether the destination is reachable.
Therefore it needs to respond to the request without waiting for a Therefore it needs to respond to the request without waiting for a
packet from the target. However, if the target_host is a DNS name, packet from the target. However, if the target_host is a DNS name,
the proxy MUST perform DNS resolution before replying to the HTTP the proxy MUST perform DNS resolution before replying to the HTTP
request. If DNS resolution fails, the proxy MUST fail the request request. If errors occur during this process (for example, a DNS
and SHOULD send details using the Proxy-Status header [PROXY-STATUS]. resolution failure), the proxy MUST fail the request and SHOULD send
details using the Proxy-Status header field [PROXY-STATUS].
Proxies can use connected UDP sockets if their operating system Proxies can use connected UDP sockets if their operating system
supports them, as that allows the proxy to rely on the kernel to only supports them, as that allows the proxy to rely on the kernel to only
send it UDP packets that match the correct 5-tuple. If the proxy send it UDP packets that match the correct 5-tuple. If the proxy
uses a non-connected socket, it MUST validate the IP source address uses a non-connected socket, it MUST validate the IP source address
and UDP source port on received packets to ensure they match the and UDP source port on received packets to ensure they match the
client's request. Packets that do not match MUST be discarded by the client's request. Packets that do not match MUST be discarded by the
proxy. proxy.
The lifetime of the socket is tied to the request stream. The proxy The lifetime of the socket is tied to the request stream. The proxy
skipping to change at page 5, line 45 skipping to change at page 6, line 23
successful response indicates that the request has failed, and the successful response indicates that the request has failed, and the
client MUST therefore abort the request. client MUST therefore abort the request.
Proxies MUST NOT introduce fragmentation at the IP layer when Proxies MUST NOT introduce fragmentation at the IP layer when
forwarding HTTP Datagrams onto a UDP socket. In IPv4, the Don't forwarding HTTP Datagrams onto a UDP socket. In IPv4, the Don't
Fragment (DF) bit MUST be set if possible, to prevent fragmentation Fragment (DF) bit MUST be set if possible, to prevent fragmentation
on the path. Future extensions MAY remove these requirements. on the path. Future extensions MAY remove these requirements.
3.2. HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1 3.2. HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1
When using HTTP/1.1, a UDP proxying request will meet the following When using HTTP/1.1 [HTTP/1.1], a UDP proxying request will meet the
requirements: following requirements:
* the method SHALL be "GET". * the method SHALL be "GET".
* the request-target SHALL use absolute-form (see Section 3.2.2 of * the request-target SHALL use absolute-form (see Section 3.2.2 of
[H1]). [HTTP/1.1]).
* the request SHALL include a single Host header containing the * the request SHALL include a single Host header field containing
origin of the proxy. the origin of the proxy.
* the request SHALL include a single "Connection" header with value * the request SHALL include a single "Connection" header field with
"Upgrade". value "Upgrade" (note that this requirement is case-insensitive as
per Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP]).
* the request SHALL include a single "Upgrade" header with value * the request SHALL include a single "Upgrade" header field with
"connect-udp". value "connect-udp".
For example, if the client is configured with URI template For example, if the client is configured with URI Template
"https://proxy.example.org/.well-known/masque/ "https://proxy.example.org/.well-known/masque/
udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/" and wishes to open a UDP proxying udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/" and wishes to open a UDP proxying
tunnel to target 192.0.2.42:443, it could send the following request: tunnel to target 192.0.2.42:443, it could send the following request:
GET https://proxy.example.org/.well-known/masque/udp/192.0.2.42/443/ HTTP/1.1 GET https://proxy.example.org/.well-known/masque/udp/192.0.2.42/443/ HTTP/1.1
Host: proxy.example.org Host: proxy.example.org
Connection: upgrade Connection: Upgrade
Upgrade: connect-udp Upgrade: connect-udp
Figure 2: Example HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1 Figure 2: Example HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1
3.3. HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1 3.3. HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1
The proxy SHALL indicate a successful response by replying with the The proxy SHALL indicate a successful response by replying with the
following requirements: following requirements:
* the HTTP status code on the response SHALL be 101 (Switching * the HTTP status code on the response SHALL be 101 (Switching
Protocols). Protocols).
* the reponse SHALL include a single "Connection" header with value * the reponse SHALL include a single "Connection" header field with
"Upgrade". value "Upgrade" (note that this requirement is case-insensitive as
per Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP]).
* the response SHALL include a single "Upgrade" header with value * the response SHALL include a single "Upgrade" header field with
"connect-udp". value "connect-udp".
* the response SHALL NOT include any Transfer-Encoding or Content- * the response SHALL NOT include any Transfer-Encoding or Content-
Length header fields. Length header fields.
If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this
proxying attempt as failed and abort the connection. proxying attempt as failed and abort the connection.
For example, the proxy could respond with: For example, the proxy could respond with:
HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
Connection: upgrade Connection: Upgrade
Upgrade: connect-udp Upgrade: connect-udp
Figure 3: Example HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1 Figure 3: Example HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1
3.4. HTTP Request over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 3.4. HTTP Request over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3
When using HTTP/2 [H2] or HTTP/3 [H3], UDP proxying requests use HTTP When using HTTP/2 [HTTP/2] or HTTP/3 [HTTP/3], UDP proxying requests
pseudo-headers with the following requirements: use Extended CONNECT. This requires that servers send an HTTP
Setting as specified in [EXT-CONNECT2] and [EXT-CONNECT3], and that
requests use HTTP pseudo-header fields with the following
requirements:
* The ":method" pseudo-header field SHALL be "CONNECT". * The ":method" pseudo-header field SHALL be "CONNECT".
* The ":protocol" pseudo-header field SHALL be "connect-udp". * The ":protocol" pseudo-header field SHALL be "connect-udp".
* The ":authority" pseudo-header field SHALL contain the authority * The ":authority" pseudo-header field SHALL contain the authority
of the proxy. of the proxy.
* The ":path" and ":scheme" pseudo-header fields SHALL NOT be empty. * The ":path" and ":scheme" pseudo-header fields SHALL NOT be empty.
Their values SHALL contain the scheme and path from the URI Their values SHALL contain the scheme and path from the URI
template after the URI template expansion process has been Template after the URI template expansion process has been
completed. completed.
A UDP proxying request that does not conform to these restrictions is A UDP proxying request that does not conform to these restrictions is
malformed (see Section 8.1.1 of [H2]). malformed (see Section 8.1.1 of [HTTP/2]).
For example, if the client is configured with URI template For example, if the client is configured with URI Template
"https://proxy.example.org/{target_host}/{target_port}/" and wishes "https://proxy.example.org/{target_host}/{target_port}/" and wishes
to open a UDP proxying tunnel to target 192.0.2.42:443, it could send to open a UDP proxying tunnel to target 192.0.2.42:443, it could send
the following request: the following request:
HEADERS HEADERS
:method = CONNECT :method = CONNECT
:protocol = connect-udp :protocol = connect-udp
:scheme = https :scheme = https
:path = /.well-known/masque/udp/192.0.2.42/443/ :path = /.well-known/masque/udp/192.0.2.42/443/
:authority = proxy.example.org :authority = proxy.example.org
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 35
2xx (Successful) HTTP status code, without any Transfer-Encoding or 2xx (Successful) HTTP status code, without any Transfer-Encoding or
Content-Length header fields. Content-Length header fields.
If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this
proxying attempt as failed and abort the request. proxying attempt as failed and abort the request.
For example, the proxy could respond with: For example, the proxy could respond with:
HEADERS HEADERS
:status = 200 :status = 200
Figure 5: Example HTTP Response over HTTP/2 Figure 5: Example HTTP Response over HTTP/2
3.6. Note About Draft Versions 3.6. Note About Draft Versions
[[RFC editor: please remove this section before publication.]] [[RFC editor: please remove this section before publication.]]
In order to allow implementations to support multiple draft versions In order to allow implementations to support multiple draft versions
of this specification during its development, we introduce the of this specification during its development, we introduce the
"connect-udp-version" header. When sent by the client, it contains a "connect-udp-version" header field. When sent by the client, it
list of draft numbers supported by the client (e.g., "connect-udp- contains a list of draft numbers supported by the client (e.g.,
version: 0, 2"). When sent by the proxy, it contains a single draft "connect-udp-version: 0, 2"). When sent by the proxy, it contains a
number selected by the proxy from the list provided by the client single draft number selected by the proxy from the list provided by
(e.g., "connect-udp-version: 2"). Sending this header is RECOMMENDED the client (e.g., "connect-udp-version: 2"). Sending this header
but not required. Its ABNF is: field is RECOMMENDED but not required. The "connect-udp-version"
header field is a List Structured Field, see Section 3.1 of
connect-udp-version = sf-list [STRUCT-FIELD]. Each list member MUST be an Integer.
4. Context Identifiers 4. Context Identifiers
This protocol allows future extensions to exchange HTTP Datagrams This protocol allows future extensions to exchange HTTP Datagrams
which carry different semantics from UDP payloads. Some of these which carry different semantics from UDP payloads. Some of these
extensions can augment UDP payloads with additional data, while extensions can augment UDP payloads with additional data, while
others can exchange data that is completely separate from UDP others can exchange data that is completely separate from UDP
payloads. In order to accomplish this, all HTTP Datagrams associated payloads. In order to accomplish this, all HTTP Datagrams associated
with UDP Proxying request streams start with a context ID, see with UDP Proxying request streams start with a context ID, see
Section 5. Section 5.
Context IDs are 62-bit integers (0 to 2^62-1). Context IDs are Context IDs are 62-bit integers (0 to 2^62-1). Context IDs are
encoded as variable-length integers, see Section 16 of [QUIC]. The encoded as variable-length integers, see Section 16 of [QUIC]. The
context ID value of 0 is reserved for UDP payloads, while non-zero context ID value of 0 is reserved for UDP payloads, while non-zero
values are dynamically allocated: non-zero even-numbered context IDs values are dynamically allocated: non-zero even-numbered context IDs
are client-allocated, and odd-numbered context IDs are proxy- are client-allocated, and odd-numbered context IDs are proxy-
allocated. The context ID namespace is tied to a given HTTP request: allocated. The context ID namespace is tied to a given HTTP request:
it is possible for a context ID with the same numeric value to be it is possible for a context ID with the same numeric value to be
simultaneously assigned different semantics in distinct requests, simultaneously allocated in distinct requests, potentially with
potentially with different semantics. Context IDs MUST NOT be re- different semantics. Context IDs MUST NOT be re-allocated within a
allocated within a given HTTP namespace but MAY be allocated in any given HTTP namespace but MAY be allocated in any order. The context
order. Once allocated, any context ID can be used by both client and ID allocation restrictions to the use of even-numbered and odd-
proxy - only allocation carries separate namespaces to avoid numbered context IDs exist in order to avoid the need for
requiring synchronization. synchronisation between endpoints. However, once a context ID has
been allocated, those restrictions do not apply to the use of the
context ID: it can be used by any client or proxy, independent of
which endpoint initially allocated it.
Registration is the action by which an endpoint informs its peer of Registration is the action by which an endpoint informs its peer of
the semantics and format of a given context ID. This document does the semantics and format of a given context ID. This document does
not define how registration occurs. Future extensions MAY use HTTP not define how registration occurs. Future extensions MAY use HTTP
headers or capsules to register contexts. Depending on the method header fields or capsules to register contexts. Depending on the
being used, it is possible for datagrams to be received with Context method being used, it is possible for datagrams to be received with
IDs which have not yet been registered, for instance due to Context IDs which have not yet been registered, for instance due to
reordering of the datagram and the registration packets during reordering of the packet containing the datagram and the packet
transmission. containing the registration message during transmission.
5. HTTP Datagram Payload Format 5. HTTP Datagram Payload Format
When associated with UDP proxying request streams, the HTTP Datagram When HTTP Datagrams (see [HTTP-DGRAM]) are associated with UDP
Payload field of HTTP Datagrams (see [HTTP-DGRAM]) has the format proxying request streams, the HTTP Datagram Payload field has the
defined in Figure 6. Note that when HTTP Datagrams are encoded using format defined in Figure 6. Note that when HTTP Datagrams are
QUIC DATAGRAM frames, the Context ID field defined below directly encoded using QUIC DATAGRAM frames, the Context ID field defined
follows the Quarter Stream ID field which is at the start of the QUIC below directly follows the Quarter Stream ID field which is at the
DATAGRAM frame payload: start of the QUIC DATAGRAM frame payload:
UDP Proxying HTTP Datagram Payload { UDP Proxying HTTP Datagram Payload {
Context ID (i), Context ID (i),
Payload (..), Payload (..),
} }
Figure 6: UDP Proxying HTTP Datagram Format Figure 6: UDP Proxying HTTP Datagram Format
Context ID: A variable-length integer that contains the value of the Context ID: A variable-length integer (see Section 16 of [QUIC])
Context ID. If an HTTP/3 datagram which carries an unknown that contains the value of the Context ID. If an HTTP/3 datagram
Context ID is received, the receiver SHALL either drop that which carries an unknown Context ID is received, the receiver
datagram silently or buffer it temporarily (on the order of a SHALL either drop that datagram silently or buffer it temporarily
round trip) while awaiting the registration of the corresponding (on the order of a round trip) while awaiting the registration of
Context ID. the corresponding Context ID.
Payload: The payload of the datagram, whose semantics depend on Payload: The payload of the datagram, whose semantics depend on
value of the previous field. Note that this field can be empty. value of the previous field. Note that this field can be empty.
UDP packets are encoded using HTTP Datagrams with the Context ID set UDP packets are encoded using HTTP Datagrams with the Context ID set
to zero. When the Context ID is set to zero, the Payload field to zero. When the Context ID is set to zero, the Payload field
contains the unmodified payload of a UDP packet (referred to as "data contains the unmodified payload of a UDP packet (referred to as "data
octets" in [UDP]). octets" in [UDP]).
Clients MAY optimistically start sending proxied UDP packets before Clients MAY optimistically start sending UDP packets in HTTP
receiving the response to its UDP proxying request, noting however Datagrams before receiving the response to its UDP proxying request.
that those may not be processed by the proxy if it responds to the However, implementors should note that such proxied packets may not
request with a failure, or if the datagrams are received by the proxy be processed by the proxy if it responds to the request with a
before the request. failure, or if the proxied packets are received by the proxy before
the request.
Endpoints MUST NOT send HTTP Datagrams with payloads longer than By virtue of the definition of the UDP header [UDP], it is not
65527 using Context ID zero. An endpoint that receives a DATAGRAM possible to encode UDP payloads longer than 65527 bytes. Therefore,
capsule using Context ID zero whose payload is longer than 65527 MUST endpoints MUST NOT send HTTP Datagrams with a Payload field longer
abort the stream. If a proxy knows it can only send out UDP packets than 65527 using Context ID zero. An endpoint that receives a
of a certain length due to its underlying link MTU, it SHOULD discard DATAGRAM capsule using Context ID zero whose Payload field is longer
incoming DATAGRAM capsules using Context ID zero whose payload is than 65527 MUST abort the stream. If a proxy knows it can only send
longer than that limit without buffering the capsule contents. out UDP packets of a certain length due to its underlying link MTU,
it SHOULD discard incoming DATAGRAM capsules using Context ID zero
whose Payload field is longer than that limit without buffering the
capsule contents.
6. Performance Considerations 6. Performance Considerations
Proxies SHOULD strive to avoid increasing burstiness of UDP traffic: Proxies SHOULD strive to avoid increasing burstiness of UDP traffic:
they SHOULD NOT queue packets in order to increase batching. they SHOULD NOT queue packets in order to increase batching.
When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses
congestion control (e.g., [QUIC]), the proxied traffic will incur at congestion control (e.g., [QUIC]), the proxied traffic will incur at
least two nested congestion controllers. This can reduce performance least two nested congestion controllers. This can reduce performance
but the underlying HTTP connection MUST NOT disable congestion but the underlying HTTP connection MUST NOT disable congestion
skipping to change at page 11, line 28 skipping to change at page 12, line 15
A UDP proxy MUST ignore ECN bits in the IP header of UDP packets A UDP proxy MUST ignore ECN bits in the IP header of UDP packets
received from the target, and MUST set the ECN bits to Not-ECT on UDP received from the target, and MUST set the ECN bits to Not-ECT on UDP
packets it sends to the target. These do not relate to the ECN packets it sends to the target. These do not relate to the ECN
markings of packets sent between client and proxy in any way. markings of packets sent between client and proxy in any way.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
There are significant risks in allowing arbitrary clients to There are significant risks in allowing arbitrary clients to
establish a tunnel to arbitrary targets, as that could allow bad establish a tunnel to arbitrary targets, as that could allow bad
actors to send traffic and have it attributed to the proxy. Proxies actors to send traffic and have it attributed to the proxy. Proxies
that support UDP proxying SHOULD restrict its use to authenticated that support UDP proxying ought to restrict its use to authenticated
users. users.
Because the CONNECT method creates a TCP connection to the target, Because the CONNECT method creates a TCP connection to the target,
the target has to indicate its willingness to accept TCP connections the target has to indicate its willingness to accept TCP connections
by responding with a TCP SYN-ACK before the proxy can send it by responding with a TCP SYN-ACK before the proxy can send it
application data. UDP doesn't have this property, so a UDP proxy application data. UDP doesn't have this property, so a UDP proxy
could send more data to an unwilling target than a CONNECT proxy. could send more data to an unwilling target than a CONNECT proxy.
However, in practice denial of service attacks target open TCP ports However, in practice denial of service attacks target open TCP ports
so the TCP SYN-ACK does not offer much protection in real scenarios. so the TCP SYN-ACK does not offer much protection in real scenarios.
While a proxy could potentially limit the number of UDP packets it is
willing to forward until it has observed a response from the target,
that is unlikely to provide any protection against denial of service
attacks because such attacks target open UDP ports where the protocol
running over UDP would respond, and that would be interpreted as
willingness to accept UDP by the proxy.
UDP sockets for UDP proxying have a different lifetime than TCP
sockets for CONNECT, therefore implementors would be well served to
follow the advice in Section 3.1 if they base their UDP proxying
implementation on a preexisting implementation of CONNECT.
The security considerations described in [HTTP-DGRAM] also apply
here.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
8.1. HTTP Upgrade Token 8.1. HTTP Upgrade Token
This document will request IANA to register "connect-udp" in the HTTP This document will request IANA to register "connect-udp" in the
Upgrade Token Registry maintained at "HTTP Upgrade Tokens" registry maintained at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens>.
Value: connect-udp Value: connect-udp
Description: Proxying of UDP Payloads Description: Proxying of UDP Payloads
Expected Version Tokens: None Expected Version Tokens: None
Reference: This document Reference: This document
8.2. Well-Known URI 8.2. Well-Known URI
This document will request IANA to register "masque/udp" in the Well- This document will request IANA to register "masque/udp" in the
Known URIs Registry maintained at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ "Well-Known URIs" registry maintained at
well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris>.
URI Suffix: masque/udp URI Suffix: masque/udp
Change Controller: IETF Change Controller: IETF
Reference: This document Reference: This document
Status: permanent (if this document is approved) Status: permanent (if this document is approved)
Related Information: Includes all resources identified with the path Related Information: Includes all resources identified with the path
prefix "/.well-known/masque/udp/" prefix "/.well-known/masque/udp/"
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[DGRAM] Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable [DGRAM] Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
Datagram Extension to QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet- Datagram Extension to QUIC", RFC 9221,
Draft, draft-ietf-quic-datagram-10, 4 February 2022, DOI 10.17487/RFC9221, March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9221>.
datagram-10>.
[EXT-CONNECT2] [EXT-CONNECT2]
McManus, P., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/2", McManus, P., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/2",
RFC 8441, DOI 10.17487/RFC8441, September 2018, RFC 8441, DOI 10.17487/RFC8441, September 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8441>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8441>.
[EXT-CONNECT3] [EXT-CONNECT3]
Hamilton, R., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3", Work Hamilton, R., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-h3- in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-
websockets-04, 8 February 2022, websockets-04, 8 February 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
h3-websockets-04>. h3-websockets-04>.
[H1] Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, [HTTP] Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
httpbis-semantics-19, 12 September 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
semantics-19>.
[HTTP-DGRAM]
Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "HTTP Datagrams and the
Capsule Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-09, 11 April 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-
h3-datagram-09>.
[HTTP/1.1] Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke,
"HTTP/1.1", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- "HTTP/1.1", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
httpbis-messaging-19, 12 September 2021, httpbis-messaging-19, 12 September 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
messaging-19>. messaging-19>.
[H2] Thomson, M. and C. Benfield, "HTTP/2", Work in Progress, [HTTP/2] Thomson, M. and C. Benfield, "HTTP/2", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-07, 24 January Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-07, 24 January
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
httpbis-http2bis-07>. httpbis-http2bis-07>.
[H3] Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3 [HTTP/3] Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- (HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
quic-http-34, 2 February 2021, quic-http-34, 2 February 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
http-34>. http-34>.
[HTTP] Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP [PROXY-STATUS]
Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- Nottingham, M. and P. Sikora, "The Proxy-Status HTTP
httpbis-semantics-19, 12 September 2021, Response Header Field", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-08, 13 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
semantics-19>. proxy-status-08>.
[HTTP-DGRAM]
Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "Using Datagrams with HTTP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-h3-
datagram-07, 21 March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-
h3-datagram-07>.
[QUIC] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based [QUIC] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[STRUCT-FIELD]
Nottingham, M. and P-H. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941>.
[TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc793>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc793>.
[TEMPLATE] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M., [TEMPLATE] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570>.
[UDP] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [UDP] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
skipping to change at page 14, line 32 skipping to change at page 15, line 37
Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6040>. 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6040>.
[ICMP6] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet [ICMP6] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4443>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4443>.
[PROXY-STATUS]
Nottingham, M. and P. Sikora, "The Proxy-Status HTTP
Response Header Field", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-httpbis-proxy-status-08, 13 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
proxy-status-08>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
This document is a product of the MASQUE Working Group, and the This document is a product of the MASQUE Working Group, and the
author thanks all MASQUE enthusiasts for their contibutions. This author thanks all MASQUE enthusiasts for their contibutions. This
proposal was inspired directly or indirectly by prior work from many proposal was inspired directly or indirectly by prior work from many
people. In particular, the author would like to thank Eric Rescorla people. In particular, the author would like to thank Eric Rescorla
for suggesting to use an HTTP method to proxy UDP. Thanks to Lucas for suggesting to use an HTTP method to proxy UDP. Thanks to Lucas
Pardue for their inputs on this document. The extensibility design Pardue for their inputs on this document. The extensibility design
in this document came out of the HTTP Datagrams Design Team, whose in this document came out of the HTTP Datagrams Design Team, whose
members were Alan Frindell, Alex Chernyakhovsky, Ben Schwartz, Eric members were Alan Frindell, Alex Chernyakhovsky, Ben Schwartz, Eric
skipping to change at page 15, line 6 skipping to change at page 16, line 4
proposal was inspired directly or indirectly by prior work from many proposal was inspired directly or indirectly by prior work from many
people. In particular, the author would like to thank Eric Rescorla people. In particular, the author would like to thank Eric Rescorla
for suggesting to use an HTTP method to proxy UDP. Thanks to Lucas for suggesting to use an HTTP method to proxy UDP. Thanks to Lucas
Pardue for their inputs on this document. The extensibility design Pardue for their inputs on this document. The extensibility design
in this document came out of the HTTP Datagrams Design Team, whose in this document came out of the HTTP Datagrams Design Team, whose
members were Alan Frindell, Alex Chernyakhovsky, Ben Schwartz, Eric members were Alan Frindell, Alex Chernyakhovsky, Ben Schwartz, Eric
Rescorla, Lucas Pardue, Marcus Ihlar, Martin Thomson, Mike Bishop, Rescorla, Lucas Pardue, Marcus Ihlar, Martin Thomson, Mike Bishop,
Tommy Pauly, Victor Vasiliev, and the author of this document. Tommy Pauly, Victor Vasiliev, and the author of this document.
Author's Address Author's Address
David Schinazi David Schinazi
Google LLC Google LLC
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043, Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America United States of America
Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 65 change blocks. 
169 lines changed or deleted 221 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/