Internet-Draft Chunked OHTTP December 2024
Pauly & Thomson Expires 5 June 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
OHAI Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
T. Pauly
Apple
M. Thomson
Mozilla

Chunked Oblivious HTTP Messages

Abstract

This document defines a variant of the Oblivious HTTP message format that allows chunks of requests and responses to be encrypted and decrypted before the entire request or response is processed. This allows incremental processing of Oblivious HTTP messages, which is particularly useful for handling large messages or systems that process messages slowly.

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-ohai.github.io/draft-ohai-chunked-ohttp/draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the OHAI Working Group mailing list (mailto:ohai@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ohai/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohai/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/draft-ohai-chunked-ohttp.

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 https://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 5 June 2025.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Oblivious HTTP [OHTTP] defines a system for sending HTTP requests and responses as encrypted messages. Clients send requests via a relay to a gateway, which is able to decrypt and forward the request to a target server. Responses are encrypted with an ephemeral symmetric key by the gateway and sent back to the client via the relay. The messages are protected with Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE; [HPKE]), and are intended to prevent the gateway from linking any two independent requests to the same client.

The definition of Oblivious HTTP in [OHTTP] encrypts messages such that entire request and response bodies need to be received before any of the content can be decrypted. This is well-suited for many of the use cases of Oblivious HTTP, such as DNS queries or metrics reporting.

However, some applications of Oblivious HTTP can benefit from being able to encrypt and decrypt parts of the messages in chunks. If a request or response can be processed by a receiver in separate parts, and is particularly large or will be generated slowly, then sending a series of encrypted chunks can improve the performance of applications.

Incremental delivery of responses allows an Oblivious Gateway Resource to provide Informational (1xx) responses (Section 15.2 of [HTTP]).

This document defines an optional message format for Oblivious HTTP that supports the progressive creation and processing of both requests and responses. New media types are defined for this purpose.

1.1. Applicability

Like the non-chunked variant, chunked Oblivious HTTP has limited applicability as described in Section 2.1 of [OHTTP], and requires the use of a willing Oblivious Relay Resource and Oblivious Gateway Resource.

Chunked Oblivious HTTP is intended to be used in cases for where the privacy properties of Oblivious HTTP are needed — specifically, removing linkage at the transport layer between separate HTTP requests — but incremental processing is also needed for performance or functionality.

One specific functional capability that requires chunked Oblivious HTTP is support for Informational (1xx) responses (Section 15.2 of [HTTP]).

In order to be useful, the content of chunked Oblivious HTTP needs to be possible to process incrementally. Since incremental processing means that the message might end up being truncated, for example in the case of an error on the underlying transport, applications also need to be prepared to safely handle incomplete messages (see Section 7 for more discussion). Applications that use the Indeterminate format of Binary HTTP (Section 3.2 of [BHTTP]) are well-suited to using chunked Oblivious HTTP.

Chunked Oblivious HTTP is not intended to be used for long-lived sessions between clients and servers that might build up state, or as a replacement for a proxied TLS session.

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "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.

Notational conventions from [OHTTP] are used in this document.

3. Chunked Requests and Responses

Chunked Oblivious HTTP defines different media than the non-chunked variant. These media types are "message/ohttp-chunked-req" (defined in Section 8.1) and "message/ohttp-chunked-res" (defined in Section 8.2).

Chunked OHTTP requests and responses SHOULD include the Incremental header field [INCREMENTAL] in order to signal to intermediaries (such as the relay) that the content of the messages are intended to be delivered incrementally. Without this signal, intermediaries might buffer request or response body until complete, removing the benefits of using Chunked OHTTP.

Chunked OHTTP messages generally will not include a Content-Length header field, since the complete length of all chunks might not be known ahead of time.

For example, a Chunked OHTTP request could look like the following:

POST /request.example.net/proxy HTTP/1.1
Host: proxy.example.org
Content-Type: message/ohttp-chunked-req
Incremental: ?1

<content is an Encapsulated Request>

4. Request Format

Chunked OHTTP requests start with the same header as used for the non-chunked variant, which consists of a key ID, algorithm IDs, and the KEM shared secret. This header is followed by chunks of data protected with HPKE, each of which is preceded by a variable-length integer (as defined in Section 16 of [QUIC]) that indicates the length of the chunk. The final chunk is preceded by a length field with the value 0, which means the chunk extends to the end of the outer stream.

Chunked Encapsulated Request {
  Chunked Request Header (56 + 8 * Nenc),
  Chunked Request Chunks (..),
}

Chunked Request Header {
  Key Identifier (8),
  HPKE KEM ID (16),
  HPKE KDF ID (16),
  HPKE AEAD ID (16),
  Encapsulated KEM Shared Secret (8 * Nenc),
}

Chunked Request Chunks {
  Non-Final Request Chunk (..),
  Final Request Chunk Indicator (i) = 0,
  HPKE-Protected Final Chunk (..),
}

Non-Final Request Chunk {
  Length (i) = 1..,
  HPKE-Protected Chunk (..),
}
Figure 1: Chunked Encapsulated Request Format

The content of the HPKE-protected chunks is defined in Section 6.1.

5. Response Format

Chunked OHTTP responses start with a nonce, followed by chunks of data protected with an AEAD. Each chunk is preceded by a variable-length integer that indicates the length of the chunk. The final chunk is preceded by a length field with the value 0, which means the chunk extends to the end of the outer stream.

Chunked Encapsulated Response {
  Response Nonce (Nk),
  Chunked Response Chunks (..),
}

Chunked Response Chunks {
  Non-Final Response Chunk (..),
  Final Response Chunk Indicator (i) = 0,
  AEAD-Protected Final Response Chunk (..),
}

Non-Final Response Chunk {
  Length (i) = 1..,
  AEAD-Protected Chunk (..),
}
Figure 2: Chunked Encapsulated Response Format

6. Encapsulation of Chunks

The encapsulation of chunked Oblivious HTTP requests and responses uses the same approach as the non-chunked variant, with the difference that the body of requests and responses are sealed and opened in chunks, instead of as a whole.

The AEAD that protects both requests and responses protects individual chunks from modification or truncation. Additionally, chunk authentication protects two other pieces of information:

  1. the order of the chunks (the sequence number of each chunk), which is included in the nonce of each chunk.

  2. which chunk is the final chunk, which is indicated by a sentinel in the AAD of the final chunk.

The format of the outer packaging that carries the chunks (the length prefix for each chunk specifically) is not explicitly authenticated. This allows the chunks to be transported by alternative means, and still be valid as long as the order and finality are preserved. In particular, the variable-length encoding used for lengths allows for different expressions of the same value, where the choice between equivalent encodings is not authenticated.

6.1. Request Encapsulation

For requests, the setup of the HPKE context and the encrypted request header is the same as the non-chunked variant. This is the Chunked Request Header defined in Section 4.

hdr = concat(encode(1, key_id),
             encode(2, kem_id),
             encode(2, kdf_id),
             encode(2, aead_id))
info = concat(encode_str("message/bhttp chunked request"),
              encode(1, 0),
              hdr)
enc, sctxt = SetupBaseS(pkR, info)
enc_request_hdr = concat(hdr, enc)

Each chunk is sealed using the HPKE context. For non-final chunks, the AAD is empty.

sealed_chunk = sctxt.Seal("", chunk)
sealed_chunk_len = varint_encode(len(sealed_chunk))
non_final_chunk = concat(sealed_chunk_len, sealed_chunk)

The final chunk in a request uses an AAD of the string "final".

sealed_final_chunk = sctxt.Seal("final", chunk)
sealed_final_chunk_len = varint_encode(len(sealed_final_chunk))
final_chunk = concat(sealed_final_chunk_len, sealed_final_chunk)

HPKE already maintains a sequence number for sealing operations as part of the context, so the order of chunks is protected. HPKE will produce an error if the sequence number overflows, which puts a limit on the number of chunks that can be sent in a request.

6.2. Response Encapsulation

For responses, the first piece of data sent back is the response nonce, as in the non-chunked variant. As in the non-chunked variant, the length of the nonce is max(Nn, Nk), where Nn and Nk are the length of the AEAD nonce and key.

entropy_len = max(Nn, Nk)
response_nonce = random(entropy_len)

Each chunk is sealed using the same AEAD key and AEAD nonce that are derived for the non-chunked variant, which are calculated as follows:

secret = context.Export("message/bhttp chunked response", entropy_len)
salt = concat(enc, response_nonce)
prk = Extract(salt, secret)
aead_key = Expand(prk, "key", Nk)
aead_nonce = Expand(prk, "nonce", Nn)

The sender also maintains a counter of chunks, which is set to 0 for the first chunk an incremented by 1 after encoding each chunk.

counter = 0

The AEAD nonce is XORed with the counter for encrypting (and decrypting) each chunk. For non-final chunks, the AAD is empty.

chunk_nonce = aead_nonce XOR encode(Nn, counter)
sealed_chunk = Seal(aead_key, chunk_nonce, "", chunk)
sealed_chunk_len = varint_encode(len(sealed_chunk))
non_final_chunk = concat(sealed_chunk_len, sealed_chunk)
counter++

The final chunk in a response uses an AAD of the string "final".

chunk_nonce = aead_nonce XOR encode(Nn, counter)
sealed_final_chunk = Seal(aead_key, chunk_nonce, "final", chunk)
sealed_final_chunk_len = varint_encode(len(sealed_final_chunk))
final_chunk = concat(sealed_final_chunk_len, sealed_final_chunk)

If the counter reached the maximum value that can be held in an integer with Nn bits (that maximum being 2^Nn), where Nn is the length of the AEAD nonce, the chunk_nonce would wrap and be reused. Therefore, the response MUST NOT use 2^Nn or more chunks.

7. Security Considerations

In general, Chunked OHTTP inherits the same security considerations as Oblivious HTTP [OHTTP]. Note specifically that while Chunked OHTTP allows for incremental delivery and processing of messages, it does not add forward secrecy between chunks. As with the non-chunked variant, forward secrecy is only provided when changing the key configuration. This is particularly important when chunking is used to enable interactivity.

7.1. Message Truncation

The primary advantage of a chunked encoding is that chunked requests or responses can be generated or processed incrementally. However, for a recipient in particular, processing an incomplete message can have security consequences.

The potential for message truncation is not a new concern for HTTP. All versions of HTTP provide incremental delivery of messages. For this use of Oblivious HTTP, incremental processing that might result in side-effects demands particular attention as Oblivious HTTP does not provide strong protection against replay attacks; see Section 6.5 of [OHTTP]. Truncation might be the result of interference at the network layer, or by a malicious Oblivious Relay Resource.

Endpoints that receive chunked messages can perform early processing if the risks are understood and accepted. Conversely, endpoints that depend on having a complete message MUST ensure that they do not consider a message complete until having received a chunk with a 0-valued length prefix, which was successfully decrypted using the expected sentinel value, "final", in the AAD.

7.2. Interactivity and Privacy

Without chunking, Oblivious HTTP involves a single request and response, with no further interactivity. Using a chunked variant at both Client and Oblivious Gateway Resource creates the possibility that an exchange could lead to multiple rounds of interaction. Information from early chunks from a peer could influence how an endpoint constructs later chunks of their message.

An Oblivious Gateway Resource could be able to observe the round trip time to the Client if the Client conditions the timing or content of chunks on what it receives in a response.

Client implementations therefore need to be aware of the possibility that processing chunks might result in observable interactivity that could reduces the privacy protection that the protocol could otherwise provide. Interactivity that is deliberate might be acceptable. For instance, the 100-continue feature in HTTP, which has the client withhold the body of a request until it receives a 100 Informational response, is not possible without chunked encoding. This highlights the risks involved in the use of this chunked encoding to adapt an existing HTTP-based interaction to use Oblivious HTTP as such an adaptation might not achieve expected privacy outcomes.

In order to prevent the Oblivious Gateway Resource from observing the round trip time to the client, client implementations can choose to not base the sending of request chunks based on received response chunks. These interactions can still benefit from chunked processing, without incurring additional observability risks.

8. IANA Considerations

This document updates the "Media Types" registry at https://iana.org/assignments/media-types to add the media types "message/ohttp-chunked-req" (Section 8.1), and "message/ohttp-chunked-res" (Section 8.2), following the procedures of [RFC6838].

8.1. message/ohttp-chunked-req Media Type

The "message/ohttp-chunked-req" identifies an encrypted binary HTTP request that is transmitted or processed in chunks. This is a binary format that is defined in Section 4.

Type name:

message

Subtype name:

ohttp-chunked-req

Required parameters:

N/A

Optional parameters:

N/A

Encoding considerations:

"binary"

Security considerations:

see Section 7

Interoperability considerations:

N/A

Published specification:

this specification

Applications that use this media type:

Oblivious HTTP and applications that use Oblivious HTTP use this media type to identify encapsulated binary HTTP requests that are incrementally generated or processed.

Fragment identifier considerations:

N/A

Additional information:
Magic number(s):
N/A
Deprecated alias names for this type:
N/A
File extension(s):
N/A
Macintosh file type code(s):
N/A
Person and email address to contact for further information:

see Authors' Addresses section

Intended usage:

COMMON

Restrictions on usage:

N/A

Author:

see Authors' Addresses section

Change controller:

IETF

8.2. message/ohttp-chunked-res Media Type

The "message/ohttp-chunked-res" identifies an encrypted binary HTTP response that is transmitted or processed in chunks. This is a binary format that is defined in Section 5.

Type name:

message

Subtype name:

ohttp-chunked-res

Required parameters:

N/A

Optional parameters:

N/A

Encoding considerations:

"binary"

Security considerations:

see Section 7

Interoperability considerations:

N/A

Published specification:

this specification

Applications that use this media type:

Oblivious HTTP and applications that use Oblivious HTTP use this media type to identify encapsulated binary HTTP responses that are incrementally generated or processed.

Fragment identifier considerations:

N/A

Additional information:
Magic number(s):
N/A
Deprecated alias names for this type:
N/A
File extension(s):
N/A
Macintosh file type code(s):
N/A
Person and email address to contact for further information:

see Authors' Addresses section

Intended usage:

COMMON

Restrictions on usage:

N/A

Author:

see Authors' Addresses section

Change controller:

IETF

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[BHTTP]
Thomson, M. and C. A. Wood, "Binary Representation of HTTP Messages", RFC 9292, DOI 10.17487/RFC9292, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9292>.
[HPKE]
Barnes, R., Bhargavan, K., Lipp, B., and C. Wood, "Hybrid Public Key Encryption", RFC 9180, DOI 10.17487/RFC9180, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9180>.
[INCREMENTAL]
Oku, K., Pauly, T., and M. Thomson, "Incremental HTTP Messages", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-kazuho-httpbis-incremental-http-00, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kazuho-httpbis-incremental-http-00>.
[OHTTP]
Thomson, M. and C. A. Wood, "Oblivious HTTP", RFC 9458, DOI 10.17487/RFC9458, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9458>.
[QUIC]
Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC6838]
Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

9.2. Informative References

[HTTP]
Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledgements.

Authors' Addresses

Tommy Pauly
Apple
Martin Thomson
Mozilla