Internet-Draft Proxy Configuration PvDs June 2023
Pauly Expires 29 December 2023 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-pauly-intarea-proxy-config-pvd-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
T. Pauly
Apple, Inc.

Communicating Proxy Configurations in Provisioning Domains

Abstract

This document defines a mechanism for accessing provisioning domain information associated with a proxy, such a list of DNS zones that are accessible via an HTTP CONNECT proxy. It also defines a way to enumerate proxies that are associated with a known provisioning domain.

Discussion Venues

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

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/tfpauly/privacy-proxy.

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 29 December 2023.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

HTTP proxies that use the CONNECT method Section 9.3.6 of [HTTP] (often referred to as "forward" proxies) allow clients to open connections to hosts via a proxy. These typically allow for TCP stream proxying, but can also support UDP proxying [CONNECTUDP] and IP packet proxying [CONNECTIP]. Such proxies are not just defined as hostnames and ports, but can use URI templates [URITEMPLATE].

In order to make use of multiple related proxies, clients need a way to understand which proxies are associated with one another.

Client can also benefit from learning about additional information associated with the proxy to optimize their proxy usage, such knowing that a proxy is configured to only allow access to a limited set of next hops.

These improvements to client behavior can be achieved through the use of Provisioning Domains. Provisioning Domains (PvDs) are defined in [PVD] as consistent sets of network configuration information, which can include proxy configuration details Section 2 of [PVD]. [PVDDATA] defines a JSON [JSON] format for describing Provisioning Domain Additional Information, which is an extensible dictionary of properties of the Provisioning Domain.

This document defines two mechanisms to use PvDs to help clients understand how to use proxies:

  1. A way to fetch PvD Additional Information associated with a proxy URI, which allows defining a limited set of DNS zones that are accessible through the proxy Section 2.
  2. A way to associate one or more proxy URIs with a known PvD to allow clients to learn about other proxies when they already know about a proxy PvD or network-provided PvD Section 3.

1.1. Background

Other non-standard mechanisms for proxy configuration and discovery have been used historically, some of which are described in [RFC3040].

Proxy Auto Configuration (PAC) files Section 6.2 of [RFC3040] are Javascript scripts that take URLs as input and provide an output of a proxy configuration to use.

Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol (WPAD) Section 6.4 of [RFC3040] allows networks to advertise proxies to use by advertising a PAC file. This solution squats on DHCP option 252.

These common (but non-standard) mechanisms only support defining proxies by hostname and port, and do not support configuring a full URI template [URITEMPLATE].

The mechanisms defined in this document are intended to offer a standard alternative that works for URI-based proxies and avoids dependencies on executing Javascript scripts, which can open up security vulnerabilities.

1.2. Requirements

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.

2. Accessing PvD Additional Information for proxies

This document defines a way to fetch PvD Additional Information associated with a particular proxy resource. This PvD describes the properties of the network accessible through the proxy.

2.1. Fetching proxy PvDs

Some HTTP forward proxies, like those used for UDP and IP proxying, are identified by URI templates that contains paths, such as "https://proxy.example.org/masque{?target_host,target_port}". For such cases, a client can fetch the PvD Additional Information by issuing a GET request Section 9.3.1 of [HTTP] to the proxy URI, with template variables removed, and setting the media type "application/pvd+json" [PVDDATA] in an Accept header.

For example, a client would issue the following request for the PvD associated with "https://proxy.example.org/masque{?target_host,target_port}":

:method = GET
:scheme = https
:authority = proxy.example.org
:path = /masque
accept = application/pvd+json

CONNECT forward proxies that proxy TCP streams do not contain a path. For such cases, a client can fetch the PvD Additional Information by issuing a GET request to the path "/". For example:

:method = GET
:scheme = https
:authority = proxy.example.org
:path = /
accept = application/pvd+json

2.2. Proxy PvD contents

PvD Additional Information is required to contain the "identifier", "expires", and "prefixes" keys.

For proxy PvDs as defined in this document, the "identifier" MUST match the hostname of the HTTP proxy. The "prefixes" array SHOULD be empty by default.

2.2.1. Split DNS accessibility

Split DNS configurations are cases where only a subset of domains is routed through a VPN tunnel or a proxy. For example, IKEv2 defines split DNS configuration in [IKEV2SPLIT].

PvD Additional Information can be used to indicate that a proxy PvD has a split DNS configuration.

Section 4.3 of [PVDDATA] defines the optional dnsZones key, which contains searchable and accessible DNS zones as an array of strings.

When present in a PvD Additional Information dictionary that is retrieved using a GET request to the proxy URI as described in Section 2, domains in the dnsZones array indicate specific zones that are accessible using the proxy. If a hostname is not included in the enumerated zones, then a client SHOULD assume that the hostname will not be accessible through the proxy.

Entries listed in dnsZones MUST NOT expand the set of domains that a client is willing to send to a particular proxy. The list can only narrow the list of domains that the client is willing to send through the proxy. For example, if the client has a local policy to only send requests for "example.com" to a proxy "proxy.example.com", and the dnsZones array contains "internal.example.com" and "other.company.com", the client would end up only proxying "internal.example.com" through the proxy.

2.3. Example

Given a proxy URI template "https://proxy.example.org/masque{?target_host,target_port}", which in this case is for UDP proxying, the client could request PvD additional information with the following request:

:method = GET
:scheme = https
:authority = proxy.example.org
:path = /masque
accept = application/pvd+json

If the proxy has a PvD definition for this proxy, it could return the following response to indicate a PvD that has one accessible zone, "internal.example.org".

:status = 200
content-type = application/pvd+json
content-length = 135

{
  "identifier": "proxy.example.org.",
  "expires": "2023-06-23T06:00:00Z",
  "prefixes": [],
  "dnsZones": ["internal.example.org"]
}

The client could then choose to use this proxy only for accessing names that fall within the "internal.example.org" zone.

3. Enumerating proxies within a PvD

PvD Additional Information can also be used to list proxies that are associated with a particular PvD. This association represents availability of a proxy, but does not indicate any policy of the PvD that requires clients to use a proxy or not.

This document defines a new PvD Additional Information key, proxies, that is an array of strings that is a list of proxy URIs (or URI templates [URITEMPLATE]). The new key is registered in Section 5.

The kind of proxy is implied by the URI scheme and any template variables. For example, since UDP proxying [CONNECTUDP] has the URI template variables target_host and target_port, the URI "https://proxy.example.org:4443/masque{?target_host,target_port}" implies that the proxy supports UDP proxying.

3.1. Associating proxies with known proxies

When a PvD that contains the proxies key is fetched from a known proxy URI, using the method described in Section 2, the proxies list describes equivalent proxies (potentially supporting other protocols) that can be used in addition to the known proxy.

Such cases are useful for informing clients of related proxies as a discovery method, with the assumption that the client already is aware of one proxy.

3.2. Associating proxies with a PvD identifier

When a PvD that contains the proxies key is fetched from the well-known PvD URI (".well-known/pvd"), the list allows enumeration of proxies that apply to the entire PvD identifier. There are two use cases this can support: configuring proxies from an FQDN and configuring proxies from a network.

3.2.1. Proxy configuration from a FQDN

Many historical methods of configuring a proxy only allow configuring a single FQDN hostname for the proxy. A client can attempt to fetch the PvD information from the well-known URI to learn the list of complete URIs that support non-default protocols, such as [CONNECTUDP] and [CONNECTIP].

For example, if a user has configured a proxy with the name "proxy.example.com", the client can fetch "https://proxy.example.com/.well-known/pvd" to detect a list of associated proxies.

3.2.2. Network-specified proxies

[PVDDATA] defines how PvD Additional Information is discovered based on network advertisements using Router Advertisements [RFC4861]. A network defining its configuration via PvD information can include the proxies key to inform clients of a list of proxies available on the network.

Policy for whether or not clients use the proxies is implementation-specific and might depend on other keys defined in the PvD Additional Information.

3.3. Example

Given a known FQDN "company.example.org", which was discovered from a PvD Router Advertisement option, a client could request PvD additional information with the following request:

:method = GET
:scheme = https
:authority = company.example.org
:path = /.well-known/pvd
accept = application/pvd+json

If the proxy has a PvD definition for this FQDN, it could return the following response to indicate a PvD that has two related proxy URIs.

:status = 200
content-type = application/pvd+json
content-length = 222

{
  "identifier": "company.example.org.",
  "expires": "2023-06-23T06:00:00Z",
  "prefixes": ["2001:db8:cafe::/48"],
  "proxies": ["https://proxy.example.org","https://proxy.example.org/masque{?target_host,target_port}"]
}

The client could then choose to use the available proxies, and could look up the PvD Additional Information files on those URIs, depending on client policy for using proxies.

4. Security Considerations

Configuration advertised via PvD Additional Information, such DNS zones or associated proxies, can only be safely used when fetched over a secure TLS-protected connection, and the client has validated that that the hostname of the proxy, the identifier of the PvD, and the validated hostname identity on the certificate all match.

5. IANA Considerations

This document registers a new key in the "Additional Information PvD Keys" registry.

JSON Key: proxies

Description: Array of proxy URIs associated with this PvD

Type: Array of strings

Example: ["https://proxy.example.com", "https://proxy.example.com/masque{?target_host,tcp_port}"]

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[CONNECTIP]
Pauly, T., Schinazi, D., Chernyakhovsky, A., Kühlewind, M., and M. Westerlund, "Proxying IP in HTTP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-13, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-13>.
[CONNECTUDP]
Schinazi, D., "Proxying UDP in HTTP", RFC 9298, DOI 10.17487/RFC9298, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9298>.
[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>.
[JSON]
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259>.
[PVDDATA]
Pfister, P., Vyncke, É., Pauly, T., Schinazi, D., and W. Shao, "Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data", RFC 8801, DOI 10.17487/RFC8801, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8801>.
[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>.
[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>.
[URITEMPLATE]
Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M., and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570>.

6.2. Informative References

[IKEV2SPLIT]
Pauly, T. and P. Wouters, "Split DNS Configuration for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 8598, DOI 10.17487/RFC8598, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8598>.
[PVD]
Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7556>.
[RFC3040]
Cooper, I., Melve, I., and G. Tomlinson, "Internet Web Replication and Caching Taxonomy", RFC 3040, DOI 10.17487/RFC3040, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3040>.
[RFC4861]
Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861>.

Author's Address

Tommy Pauly
Apple, Inc.