-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 281
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add a WebTransport spec #404
Changes from 17 commits
fba76c4
fc10260
48dda39
1e927c4
0882c03
72f6c15
599b3f4
243fd04
2cec2b3
3601074
ee95b87
df56a5f
92e4635
76d7217
afa554d
1942361
f968d72
5ab529d
1219d07
4f498a1
53d98bd
5271135
bb90d58
f9f8613
0a9a7bb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ | ||
# libp2p WebTransport | ||
|
||
| Lifecycle Stage | Maturity | Status | Latest Revision | | ||
|-----------------|--------------------------|--------|-----------------| | ||
| 1A | Candidate Recommendation | Active | r0, 2022-09-28 | | ||
|
||
Authors: [@marten-seemann] | ||
|
||
Interest Group: [@MarcoPolo], [@mxinden] | ||
|
||
See the [lifecycle document](../00-framework-01-spec-lifecycle.md) for context about maturity level | ||
and spec status. | ||
|
||
## Introduction | ||
|
||
WebTransport is a way for browsers to establish a stream-multiplexed and bidirectional connection to servers using QUIC. | ||
|
||
The WebTransport protocol is currently under development at the IETF. Chrome has implemented and shipped support for [draft-02](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3/), and Firefox [is working](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1709355) on WebTransport support. | ||
|
||
The most exciting feature for libp2p (other than the numberous performance benefits that QUIC gives us) is that the W3C added a browser API allowing browsers to establish connections to nodes with self-signed certificates, provided they know the hash of the certificate in advance: [`serverCertificateHashes`](https://www.w3.org/TR/webtransport/#dom-webtransportoptions-servercertificatehashes). This API is already [implemented in Chrome](https://chromestatus.com/feature/5690646332440576). Firefox is working on a WebTransport implementation and is [likely to implement](https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/167#issuecomment-1015951396) `serverCertificateHashes` as well. | ||
marten-seemann marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
## Certificates | ||
|
||
Since most libp2p nodes don't possess a TLS certificate signed by a Certificate Authority, servers use a self-signed certificates. According to the [w3c WebTransport certification](https://www.w3.org/TR/webtransport/), the validity of the certificate MUST be at most 14 days, and must not use an RSA key. Nodes then include the hash of one (or more) certificates in their multiaddr (see [Addressing](#addressing)). | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. MUST, it's part of the webtransport spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/webtransport/#web-transport-configuration There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's "MUST NOT", not "MUST not" ;) This entire section needs a rewrite though. It is possible to use a CA-signed certificate. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I rewrote this section. Please take another look. |
||
|
||
Servers need to take care to regularly renew their certificate. In the following, the RECOMMENDED logic for rolling certificates is described. At first boot of the node, it creates one self-signed certificate with a validity of 14 days, starting immediately, and another certificate with the 14 day valididity period starting on the expiry date of the first certificate. The node advertises a multiaddr containing the certificate hashes of these two certificates. | ||
marten-seemann marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
Once the first certificate has expired, the node prepares the next certificate, and updates the multiaddr it advertises. | ||
marten-seemann marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
## Addressing | ||
|
||
Webtransport multiaddresses are composed of a QUIC multiaddr, followed by `/webtransport` and a list of multihashes of the certificates that the server uses. | ||
marten-seemann marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
Examples: | ||
* `/ip4/1.2.3.4/udp/443/quic/webtransport/certhash/<hash1>` | ||
* `/ip6/fe80::1ff:fe23:4567:890a/udp/1234/quic/webtransport/certhash/<hash1>/certhash/<hash2>/certhash/<hash3>` | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why do we call it There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There's some discussion here: multiformats/multiaddr#130. But I think the important part is that we can be a bit more specific here to highlight that this is a certificate hash rather than a hash for some other (?) thing. We also don't have a use case for a generic hash, but do have this use case for the certificate hash. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Vote for more specific field name too. it consumes less encoding space and allows easier extension. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think that being specific pays off here, by making us more future-proof. |
||
|
||
## WebTransport HTTP endpoint | ||
|
||
WebTransport needs a HTTPS URL to establish a WebTransport session, e.g. `https://example.com/webtransport`. As multiaddrs don't allow the encoding of URLs, this spec standardizes the endpoint. The HTTP endpoint of a libp2p WebTransport server MUST be located at `/.well-known/libp2p-webtransport`. | ||
marten-seemann marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
To allow future evolution of the way we run the libp2p handshake over WebTransport, we use a URL parameter. The handshake described in this document MUST be signaled by setting the `type` URL parameter to `noise`. | ||
|
||
Example: The WebTransport URL of a WebTransport server advertising `/ip4/1.2.3.4/udp/1443/quic/webtransport/` would be `https://1.2.3.4:1443/.well-known/libp2p-webtransport?type=noise`. | ||
marten-seemann marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
## Security Handshake | ||
|
||
Unfortunately, the self-signed certificate doesn't allow the nodes to authenticate each others' peer IDs. It is therefore necessary to run an additional libp2p handshake on a newly established WebTransport connection. | ||
marten-seemann marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
The first stream that the client opens on a new WebTransport session is used to perform a libp2p handshake using Noise (https://github.com/libp2p/specs/tree/master/noise). The client SHOULD start the handshake right after sending the CONNECT request, without waiting for the server's response. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is just a curious question regarding handshake starting right after Connect. Is connect referring to establishing a socket level connection? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is WebTransport CONNECT request as described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3-03#section-3.2. |
||
|
||
In order to verify end-to-end encryption of the connection, the peers need to establish that no MITM intercepted the connection. To do so, the server MUST include the certificate hash of the currently used certificate as well as the certificate hashes of all future certificates it has already advertised to the network in the `webtransport_certhashes` Noise extension (see Noise Extension section of the [Noise spec](/noise/README.md)). The hash of recently used, but expired certificates SHOULD also be included. | ||
|
||
On receipt of the `webtransport_certhashes` extension, the client MUST verify that the certificate hash of the certificate that was used on the connection is contained in the server's list. If the client was willing to accept multiple certificate hashes, but cannot determine which certificate was actually used to establish the connection (this will commonly be the case for browser clients), it MUST verify that all certificate hashes are contained in the server's list. If verification fails, it MUST abort the handshake. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is it necessary to specify how the peer should detect and retire expired certificate? or is it true that the webtransport connections are shortlived so that the expiration is usually not an issue? |
||
|
||
For the client, the libp2p connection is fully established once it has sent the last Noise handshake message. For the server, processing of that message completes the handshake. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I understand it correctly, when we talk about the WebTransport protocol in this doc, we actually mean the WebTransport over HTTP-3 protocol as described in draft-ietf-webtrans-http3.
WebTransport as specified in draft-ietf-webtrans-overview is a protocol framework and not a single protocol. I think we should add a note/ sentence on that. At least for me it was a bit confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah. Not the best naming from the IETF's side here...
Everybody thinks of WebTransport over HTTP/3 when WebTransport, but then there's the HTTP/2 fallback that not a lot of people care about to begin with...
I've added some text (and links) to clarify things. Let me know if that's less confusing now.