MASQUE                                                       D. Schinazi
Internet-Draft                                                Google LLC
Intended status: Standards Track                           11                           18 April 2022
Expires: 13 20 October 2022


                          Proxying Support for UDP in HTTP


   This document describes how to proxy UDP over HTTP.  Similar in HTTP, similar to how the
   HTTP CONNECT method allows proxying TCP over HTTP, in HTTP.  More specifically,
   this document defines a new mechanism protocol that allows HTTP clients to proxy UDP.  When using HTTP/2 or HTTP/3,
   it uses Extended CONNECT; when using HTTP/1.1, it uses Upgrade. create a
   tunnel for UDP communications through an HTTP server that acts as a

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://ietf-wg-
   connect-udp.html.  Status information for this document may be found

   Discussion of this document takes place on the MASQUE Working Group
   mailing list (, which is archived at

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at

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

   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 13 20 October 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 (
   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Client Configuration of Clients  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Tunnelling UDP over HTTP Exchanges  . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  UDP Proxy Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  HTTP Request over  HTTP/1.1 Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  HTTP Response over  HTTP/1.1 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  HTTP Request over  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.5.  HTTP Response over  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.6.  Note About Draft Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Context Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  HTTP Datagram Payload Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9  10
   6.  Performance Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10  11
     6.1.  MTU Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Tunneling of ECN Marks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  HTTP Upgrade Token  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Well-Known URI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15  16
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15  16

1.  Introduction

   This document describes how to proxy UDP over HTTP.  Similar to how

   While HTTP provides the CONNECT method (see Section 9.3.6 of [HTTP]) allows proxying
   for creating a TCP [TCP] over HTTP, this tunnel to a proxy, it lacks a method for
   doing so for UDP [UDP] traffic.

   This document defines describes a new mechanism protocol for tunnelling UDP to a server
   acting as a UDP-specific proxy over HTTP.  UDP
   [UDP]. tunnels are commonly
   used to create an end-to-end virtual connection, which can then be
   secured using QUIC [QUIC] or another protocol running over UDP.
   Unlike CONNECT, the UDP Proxying proxy itself is identified with an absolute
   URL containing the traffic's destination.  Clients generate those
   URLs using a URI Template [TEMPLATE], as described in Section 2.

   This protocol supports all versions of HTTP and uses by using HTTP Datagrams
   [HTTP-DGRAM].  When using HTTP/2 [HTTP/2] or HTTP/3 [HTTP/3], UDP
   proxying it uses
   HTTP Extended CONNECT as described in [EXT-CONNECT2] and
   [EXT-CONNECT3].  When using HTTP/1.x [HTTP/1.1], UDP proxying it uses HTTP Upgrade
   as defined in Section 7.8 of [HTTP].

1.1.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   In this document, we use the term "proxy" "UDP proxy" to refer to the HTTP
   server that acts upon the client's UDP proxying tunnelling request to open a
   UDP socket to a target server, and generates the response to this
   request.  If there are HTTP intermediaries (as defined in Section 3.7
   of [HTTP]) between the client and the UDP proxy, those are referred
   to as "intermediaries" in this document.

   Note that, when the HTTP version in use does not support multiplexing
   streams (such as HTTP/1.1), any reference to "stream" in this
   document represents the entire connection.

2.  Client Configuration of Clients


   HTTP clients are configured to use a UDP Proxying over HTTP via proxy with a URI Template
   [TEMPLATE] with that has the variables "target_host" and "target_port".
   Examples are shown below:{target_host}/{target_port}/{target_host}&p={target_port}{?target_host,target_port}

                   Figure 1: URI Template Examples

   The following requirements apply to the URI Template:

   *  The URI Template MUST be a level 3 template or lower.

   *  The URI Template MUST be in absolute form, and MUST include non-
      empty scheme, authority and path components.

   *  The path component of the URI Template MUST start with a slash

   *  All template variables MUST be within the path component or query components
      of the URI.

   *  The URI template MUST contain the two variables "target_host" and
      "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 the client detects that 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 UDP proxy.  While clients
   SHOULD validate the requirements above, some clients MAY use a
   general-purpose URI Template implementation that lacks this specific

   Since the original HTTP CONNECT method allowed conveying the target
   host and port but not the scheme, proxy authority, path, nor query,
   there exist proxy configuration interfaces that only allow the user
   to configure the proxy host and the proxy port.  Client
   implementations of this specification that are constrained by such
   limitations MAY attempt to access UDP Proxying proxying capabilities using the
   default template, which is defined as:
   udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/" where $PROXY_HOST and $PROXY_PORT
   are the configured host and port of the UDP proxy respectively.  Proxy  UDP
   proxy deployments SHOULD offer service at this location if they need
   to 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.  Tunnelling UDP over HTTP Exchanges


   To allow negotiation of a tunnel for UDP over HTTP, this document
   defines the "connect-udp" HTTP Upgrade Token. "connect-
   udp" uses  The resulting UDP
   tunnels use the Capsule Protocol as defined in (see Section 3.2 of
   [HTTP-DGRAM].  The format of [HTTP-DGRAM])
   with HTTP Datagrams is Datagram in the format defined in Section 5.

   Clients issue requests containing a "connect-udp" upgrade token to

   To initiate a UDP tunnel associated with a single HTTP stream.  Tunnels
   are commonly used to create an end-to-end virtual connection, which
   can then be secured using QUIC [QUIC] or another protocol running
   over UDP. stream,
   clients issue a request containing the "connect-udp" upgrade token.
   The target of the tunnel is indicated by the client to the UDP proxy
   via the "target_host" and "target_port" variables of the URI
   Template (see
   Template, see Section 2). 2.  If the request is successful, the UDP proxy
   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
   Template expansion to determine the path and query of its request.
   target_host supports using DNS names, IPv6 literals and IPv4
   literals.  Note that this URI Template expansion requires using pct-
   encoding, so for example if the target_host is "2001:db8::42", it
   will be encoded in the URI as "2001%3Adb8%3A%3A42".

   By virtue of the definition of the Capsule Protocol (see
   [HTTP-DGRAM]), UDP proxying requests do not carry any message
   content.  Similarly, successful UDP proxying responses also do not
   carry any message content.

   Responses to UDP proxying requests are not cacheable.

3.1.  UDP Proxy Handling

   Upon receiving a UDP proxying request, the recipient UDP proxy
   extracts the "target_host" and "target_port" variables from the URI
   it has reconstructed from the request headers, and establishes a
   tunnel by directly opening a UDP socket to the requested target.

   Unlike TCP, UDP is connection-less.  The UDP proxy that opens the UDP
   socket has no way of knowing whether the destination is reachable.
   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,
   the UDP proxy MUST perform DNS resolution before replying to the HTTP
   request.  If errors occur during this process (for example, a DNS
   resolution failure), the UDP proxy MUST fail the request and SHOULD
   send details using the Proxy-Status an appropriate "Proxy-Status" header field


   UDP proxies can use connected UDP sockets if their operating system
   supports them, as that allows the UDP proxy to rely on the kernel to
   only send it UDP packets that match the correct 5-tuple.  If the UDP
   proxy uses a non-connected socket, it MUST validate the IP source
   address 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 UDP proxy.

   The lifetime of the socket is tied to the request stream.  The UDP
   proxy MUST keep the socket open while the request stream is open.  If
   a UDP proxy is notified by its operating system that its socket is no
   longer usable (for example, this can happen when an ICMP "Destination
   Unreachable" message is received, see Section 3.1 of [ICMP6]), it
   MUST close the request stream.  Proxies  UDP proxies MAY choose to close
   sockets due to a period of inactivity, but they MUST close the
   request stream when closing the socket.  Proxies  UDP proxies that close
   sockets after a period of inactivity SHOULD NOT use a period lower
   than two minutes, see Section 4.3 of [BEHAVE].

   A successful response (as defined in Section 3.3 and Section 3.5)
   indicates that the UDP proxy has opened a socket to the requested
   target and is willing to proxy UDP payloads.  Any response other than
   a successful response indicates that the request has failed, and the
   client MUST therefore abort the request.


   UDP proxies MUST NOT introduce fragmentation at the IP layer when
   forwarding HTTP Datagrams onto a UDP socket.  In IPv4, the Don't
   Fragment (DF) bit MUST be set if possible, to prevent fragmentation
   on the path.  Future extensions MAY remove these requirements.

3.2.  HTTP Request over  HTTP/1.1 Request

   When using HTTP/1.1 [HTTP/1.1], a UDP proxying request will meet the
   following requirements:

   *  the method SHALL be "GET".

   *  the request-target SHALL use absolute-form (see Section 3.2.2 of

   *  the request SHALL include a single Host "Host" header field containing
      the origin of the UDP proxy.

   *  the request SHALL include a single "Connection" header field with value
      "Upgrade" (note that this requirement is case-insensitive as per
      Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP]).

   *  the request SHALL include a single an "Upgrade" header field with value

   For example, if the client is configured with URI Template
   udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/" and wishes to open a UDP proxying
   tunnel to target, it could send the following request:

Connection: Upgrade
Upgrade: connect-udp

                  Figure 2: Example HTTP Request over HTTP/1.1 Request

   In HTTP/1.1, this protocol uses the GET method to mimic the design of
   the WebSocket Protocol [WEBSOCKET].

3.3.  HTTP Response over  HTTP/1.1 Response

   The UDP proxy SHALL indicate a successful response by replying with
   the following requirements:

   *  the HTTP status code on the response SHALL be 101 (Switching

   *  the reponse SHALL include a single "Connection" header field with
      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 field with
      value "connect-udp".

   *  the response SHALL NOT include any Transfer-Encoding "Transfer-Encoding" or Content-
      "Content-Length" header fields.

   If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this
   proxying attempt as failed and abort the connection.

   For example, the UDP proxy could respond with:

   HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
   Connection: Upgrade
   Upgrade: connect-udp

                    Figure 3: Example HTTP Response over HTTP/1.1 Response

3.4.  HTTP Request over  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Requests

   When using HTTP/2 [HTTP/2] or HTTP/3 [HTTP/3], UDP proxying requests
   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

   *  The ":method" pseudo-header field SHALL be "CONNECT".

   *  The ":protocol" pseudo-header field SHALL be "connect-udp".

   *  The ":authority" pseudo-header field SHALL contain the authority
      of the UDP proxy.

   *  The ":path" and ":scheme" pseudo-header fields SHALL NOT be empty.
      Their values SHALL contain the scheme and path from the URI
      Template after the URI template expansion process has been

   A UDP proxying request that does not conform to these restrictions is
   malformed (see Section 8.1.1 of [HTTP/2]).

   For example, if the client is configured with URI Template
   "{target_host}/{target_port}/" and wishes
   to open a UDP proxying tunnel to target, it could send
   the following request:

   :method = CONNECT
   :protocol = connect-udp
   :scheme = https
   :path = /.well-known/masque/udp/
   :authority =

                      Figure 4: Example HTTP Request over HTTP/2 Request

3.5.  HTTP Response over  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Responses

   The UDP proxy SHALL indicate a successful response by replying with
   any 2xx (Successful) HTTP status code, without any Transfer-Encoding "Transfer-
   Encoding" or
   Content-Length "Content-Length" header fields.

   If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this
   proxying attempt as failed and abort the request.

   For example, the UDP proxy could respond with:

   :status = 200

                     Figure 5: Example HTTP Response over HTTP/2 Response

3.6.  Note About Draft Versions

   [[RFC editor: please remove this section before publication.]]

   In order to allow implementations to support multiple draft versions
   of this specification during its development, we introduce the
   "connect-udp-version" header field.  When sent by the client, it
   contains a list of draft numbers supported by the client (e.g.,
   "connect-udp-version: 0, 2").  When sent by the UDP proxy, it
   contains a single draft number selected by the UDP proxy from the
   list provided by the client (e.g., "connect-udp-version: 2").
   Sending this header field is RECOMMENDED but not required.  The
   "connect-udp-version" header field is a List Structured Field, see
   Section 3.1 of [STRUCT-FIELD].  Each list member MUST be an Integer.

4.  Context Identifiers

   This protocol allows future extensions to exchange HTTP Datagrams
   which carry different semantics from UDP payloads.  Some of these
   extensions can augment UDP payloads with additional data, while
   others can exchange data that is completely separate from UDP
   payloads.  In order to accomplish this, all HTTP Datagrams associated
   with UDP Proxying request streams start with a context ID, see
   Section 5.

   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
   context ID value of 0 is reserved for UDP payloads, while non-zero
   values are dynamically allocated: non-zero even-numbered context IDs
   are client-allocated, and odd-numbered context IDs are proxy-
   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
   simultaneously allocated in distinct requests, potentially with
   different semantics.  Context IDs MUST NOT be re-allocated within a
   given HTTP namespace but MAY be allocated in any order.  The context
   ID allocation restrictions to the use of even-numbered and odd-
   numbered context IDs exist in order to avoid the need for
   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 UDP proxy, independent of
   which endpoint initially allocated it.

   Registration is the action by which an endpoint informs its peer of
   the semantics and format of a given context ID.  This document does
   not define how registration occurs.  Future extensions MAY use HTTP
   header fields or capsules to register contexts.  Depending on the
   method being used, it is possible for datagrams to be received with
   Context IDs which have not yet been registered, for instance due to
   reordering of the packet containing the datagram and the packet
   containing the registration message during transmission.

5.  HTTP Datagram Payload Format

   When HTTP Datagrams (see [HTTP-DGRAM]) are associated with UDP
   proxying request streams, the HTTP Datagram Payload field has the
   format defined in Figure 6.  Note that when HTTP Datagrams are
   encoded using QUIC DATAGRAM frames, the Context ID field defined
   below directly follows the Quarter Stream ID field which is at the
   start of the QUIC DATAGRAM frame payload:

   UDP Proxying HTTP Datagram Payload {
     Context ID (i),
     Payload (..),

                Figure 6: UDP Proxying HTTP Datagram Format

   Context ID:  A variable-length integer (see Section 16 of [QUIC])
      that contains the value of the Context ID.  If an HTTP/3 datagram
      which carries an unknown Context ID is received, the receiver
      SHALL either drop that datagram silently or buffer it temporarily
      (on the order of a round trip) while awaiting the registration of
      the corresponding Context ID.
   Payload:  The payload of the datagram, whose semantics depend on
      value of the previous field.  Note that this field can be empty.

   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
   contains the unmodified payload of a UDP packet (referred to as "data
   octets" in [UDP]).

   Clients MAY optimistically start sending UDP packets in HTTP
   Datagrams before receiving the response to its UDP proxying request.
   However, implementors should note that such proxied packets may not
   be processed by the UDP proxy if it responds to the request with a
   failure, or if the proxied packets are received by the UDP proxy
   before the request.

   By virtue of the definition of the UDP header [UDP], it is not
   possible to encode UDP payloads longer than 65527 bytes.  Therefore,
   endpoints MUST NOT send HTTP Datagrams with a Payload field longer
   than 65527 using Context ID zero.  An endpoint that receives a
   DATAGRAM capsule using Context ID zero whose Payload field is longer
   than 65527 MUST abort the stream.  If a UDP proxy knows it can only
   send 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


   UDP proxies SHOULD strive to avoid increasing burstiness of UDP
   traffic: they SHOULD NOT queue packets in order to increase batching.

   When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses
   congestion control (e.g., [QUIC]), the proxied traffic will incur at
   least two nested congestion controllers.  This can reduce performance
   but the underlying HTTP connection MUST NOT disable congestion
   control unless it has an out-of-band way of knowing with absolute
   certainty that the inner traffic is congestion-controlled.

   If a client or UDP proxy with a connection containing a UDP proxying
   request stream disables congestion control, it MUST NOT signal ECN
   support on that connection.  That is, it MUST mark all IP headers
   with the Not-ECT codepoint.  It MAY continue to report ECN feedback
   via ACK_ECN frames, as the peer may not have disabled congestion

   When the protocol running over UDP that is being proxied uses loss
   recovery (e.g., [QUIC]), and the underlying HTTP connection runs over
   TCP, the proxied traffic will incur at least two nested loss recovery
   mechanisms.  This can reduce performance as both can sometimes
   independently retransmit the same data.  To avoid this, UDP proxying
   SHOULD be performed over HTTP/3 to allow leveraging the QUIC DATAGRAM

6.1.  MTU Considerations

   When using HTTP/3 with the QUIC Datagram extension [DGRAM], UDP
   payloads are transmitted in QUIC DATAGRAM frames.  Since those cannot
   be fragmented, they can only carry payloads up to a given length
   determined by the QUIC connection configuration and the path MTU.  If
   a UDP proxy is using QUIC DATAGRAM frames and it receives a UDP
   payload from the target that will not fit inside a QUIC DATAGRAM
   frame, the UDP proxy SHOULD NOT send the UDP payload in a DATAGRAM
   capsule, as that defeats the end-to-end unreliability characteristic
   that methods such as Datagram Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery
   (DPLPMTUD) depend on [DPLPMTUD].  In this scenario, the UDP proxy
   SHOULD drop the UDP payload and send an ICMP "Packet Too Big" message
   to the target, see Section 3.2 of [ICMP6].

6.2.  Tunneling of ECN Marks

   UDP proxying does not create an IP-in-IP tunnel, so the guidance in
   [ECN-TUNNEL] about transferring ECN marks between inner and outer IP
   headers does not apply.  There is no inner IP header in UDP proxying

   Note that UDP proxying clients do not have the ability in this
   specification to control the ECN codepoints on UDP packets the UDP
   proxy sends to the target, nor can UDP proxies communicate the
   markings of each UDP packet from target to UDP proxy.

   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
   packets it sends to the target.  These do not relate to the ECN
   markings of packets sent between client and UDP proxy in any way.

7.  Security Considerations

   There are significant risks in allowing arbitrary clients to
   establish a tunnel to arbitrary targets, as that could allow bad
   actors to send traffic and have it attributed to the UDP proxy.  Proxies  HTTP
   servers that support UDP proxying ought to restrict its use to
   authenticated users.

   Because the CONNECT method creates a TCP connection to the target,
   the target has to indicate its willingness to accept TCP connections
   by responding with a TCP SYN-ACK before the CONNECT proxy can send it
   application data.  UDP doesn't have this property, so a UDP proxy
   could send more data to an unwilling target than a CONNECT proxy.
   However, in practice denial of service attacks target open TCP ports
   so the TCP SYN-ACK does not offer much protection in real scenarios.
   While a UDP 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 UDP 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

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  HTTP Upgrade Token

   This document will request IANA to register "connect-udp" in the
   "HTTP Upgrade Tokens" registry maintained at

   Value:  connect-udp
   Description:  Proxying of UDP Payloads
   Expected Version Tokens:  None
   Reference:  This document

8.2.  Well-Known URI

   This document will request IANA to register "masque/udp" in the
   "Well-Known URIs" registry maintained at

   URI Suffix:  masque/udp
   Change Controller:  IETF
   Reference:  This document
   Status:  permanent (if this document is approved)
   Related Information:  Includes all resources identified with the path
      prefix "/.well-known/masque/udp/"

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [DGRAM]    Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
              Datagram Extension to QUIC", RFC 9221,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9221, March 2022,

              McManus, P., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/2",
              RFC 8441, DOI 10.17487/RFC8441, September 2018,

              Hamilton, R., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-h3-
              websockets-04, 8 February 2022,

   [HTTP]     Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
              Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              httpbis-semantics-19, 12 September 2021,

              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,

   [HTTP/1.1] Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke,
              "HTTP/1.1", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              httpbis-messaging-19, 12 September 2021,

   [HTTP/2]   Thomson, M. and C. Benfield, "HTTP/2", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-07, 24 January
              2022, <

   [HTTP/3]   Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
              (HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              quic-http-34, 2 February 2021,

              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,

   [QUIC]     Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <>.

              Nottingham, M. and P-H. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
              HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,

   [TCP]      Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,

   [TEMPLATE] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,

   [UDP]      Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,

9.2.  Informative References

   [BEHAVE]   Audet, F., Ed. and C. Jennings, "Network Address
              Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
              UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, DOI 10.17487/RFC4787, January
              2007, <>.

   [DPLPMTUD] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
              Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
              Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
              September 2020, <>.

              Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
              Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
              2010, <>.

   [ICMP6]    Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
              RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,

              Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",
              RFC 6455, DOI 10.17487/RFC6455, December 2011,


   This document is a product of the MASQUE Working Group, and the
   author thanks all MASQUE enthusiasts for their contibutions.  This
   proposal was inspired directly or indirectly by prior work from many
   people.  In particular, the author would like to thank Eric Rescorla
   for suggesting to use an HTTP method to proxy UDP.  Thanks  The author is
   indebted to Mark Nottingham and Lucas Pardue for their inputs on the many
   improvements they contributed to this document.  The extensibility
   design in this document came out of the HTTP Datagrams Design Team,
   whose members were Alan Frindell, Alex Chernyakhovsky, Ben Schwartz,
   Eric Rescorla, Lucas Pardue, Marcus Ihlar, Martin Thomson, Mike
   Bishop, Tommy Pauly, Victor Vasiliev, and the author of this

Author's Address

   David Schinazi
   Google LLC
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   United States of America