Internet-Draft | HTTP Problem Types for Digest Fields | November 2024 |
Kleidl, et al. | Expires 8 May 2025 | [Page] |
This document specifies problem types that servers can use in responses to problems encountered while dealing with a request carrying integrity fields and integrity preference fields.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://ietf-wg-httpapi.github.io/digest-fields-problem-types/draft-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the Building Blocks for HTTP APIs Working Group mailing list (mailto:httpapi@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/httpapi/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpapi/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/digest-fields-problem-types.¶
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 8 May 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include 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.¶
[DIGEST] by design does not define, require or recommend any specific behavior for error handling relating to integrity. The responsibility is instead delegated to applications. This draft defines a set of problem types ([PROBLEM]) that can be used by server applications to indicate that a problem was encountered while dealing with a request carrying integrity fields and integrity preference fields.¶
For example, a request message may include content alongside Content-Digest
and Repr-Digest
fields that use a digest algorithm the server does not support. An application could decide to reject this request because it cannot validate the integrity. Using a problem type, the server can provide machine-readable error details to aid debugging or error reporting, as shown in the following example.¶
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.¶
The terms "integrity fields" and "integrity preference fields" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [DIGEST].¶
The term "problem type" in this document is to be interpreted as described in [PROBLEM].¶
The term "request", "response", "intermediary", "sender", and "server" are from [HTTP].¶
This section defines the "https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#digest-unsupported-algorithm" problem type. A server MAY use this problem type if it wants to communicate to the client that one of the hashing algorithms referenced in the integrity or integrity preference fields present in the request is not supported.¶
For this problem type, unsupported-algorithm
is defined as the only extension member.
It SHOULD be populated in a response using this problem type, with its value being the algorithm key of the unsupported algorithm from the request.
The response can include the corresponding integrity preference field to indicate the server's algorithm support and preference.¶
Example:¶
This problem type is a hint to the client about algorithm support, which the client could use to retry the request with a different, supported, algorithm. Note that a request may contain more than one integrity field.¶
This problem type can also be used when a request contains an integrity preference field. For example:¶
This section defines the "https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#digest-invalid-value" problem type. A server MAY use this problem type when responding to a request, whose integrity fields include a digest value, that cannot be generated by the corresponding hashing algorithm. For example, if the digest value of the sha-512
hashing algorithm is not 64 bytes long, it cannot be a valid digest value and the server can skip computing the digest value. This problem type MUST NOT be used if the server is not able to parse the integrity fields according to Section 4.5 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS], for example because of a syntax error in the field value.¶
The server SHOULD include a human-readable description why the value is considered invalid in the title
member.¶
The following example shows a request with the content {"hello": "world"}
(plus LF), but the digest has been truncated. The subsequent response indicates the invalid SHA-512 digest.¶
This problem type indicates a fault in the sender's calculation or encoding of the digest value. A retry of the same request without modification will likely not yield a successful response.¶
This section defines the "https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#digest-mismatching-value" problem type. A server MAY use this problem type when responding to a request, whose integrity fields include a digest value that does not match the digest value that the server calculated for the request content or representation.¶
Three problem type extension members are defined: the algorithm
, provided-digest
, and calculated-digest
members. A response using this problem type SHOULD populate all members, with the value of algorithm
being the algorithm key of the used hashing algorithm, with the value of provided-digest
being the digest value taken from the request's integrity fields, and the value of calculated-digest
being the calculated digest. The digest values MUST BE serialized as byte sequences as described in Section 4.1.8 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS].¶
The following example shows a request with the content {"hello": "woXYZ"}
(plus LF), but the representation digest for {"hello": "world"}
(plus LF). The subsequent response indicates the mismatching SHA-256 digest values.¶
If the sender receives this problem type, the request might be modified unintentionally by an intermediary. The sender could use this information to retry the request without modification to address temporary transmission issues.¶
Disclosing error details could leak information such as the presence of intermediaries or the server's implementation details. Moreover, they can be used to fingerprint the server.¶
To mitigate these risks, a server could assess the risk of disclosing error details and prefer a general problem type over a more specific one.¶
IANA is asked to register the following entries in the "HTTP Problem Types" registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types.¶
https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#digest-unsupported-algorithm¶
Unsupported Hashing Algorithm¶
400¶
Section 3.1 of this document¶
https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#digest-invalid-value¶
Invalid Digest Value¶
400¶
Section 3.2 of this document¶
https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#digest-mismatching-value¶
Mismatching Digest Value¶
400¶
Section 3.3 of this document¶