INTERNET-DRAFT Paul Gauthier
Expires: December 1999 Inktomi Corporation
Category: Standards Track Josh Cohen
draft-ietf-wrec-wpad-01.txt Microsoft Corporation
Martin Dunsmuir
RealNetworks, Inc.
Charles Perkins
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol
Status of This Memo
This document is a submission by the WREC Working Group of the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be
submitted to the wrec@cs.utk.edu mailing list.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at:
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
A mechanism is needed to permit web clients to locate nearby web
proxy caches. Current best practice is for end users to hand
configure their web client (i.e., browser) with the URL of an "auto
configuration file". In large environments this presents a
formidable support problem. It would be much more manageable for
the web client software to automatically learn the configuration
information for its web proxy settings. This is typically referred
to as a resource discovery problem.
Web client implementers are faced with a dizzying array of resource
discovery protocols at varying levels of implementation and
deployment. This complexity is hampering deployment of a "web proxy
auto-discovery "facility. This document proposes a pragmatic
approach to web proxy auto-discovery. It draws on a number of
proposed standards in the light of practical deployment concerns. It
proposes an escalating strategy of resource discovery attempts in
order to find a nearby web proxy server. It attempts to provide rich
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
mechanisms for supporting a complex environment, which may contain
multiple web proxy servers.
Table of Contents
Status of This Memo...................................................1
Abstract..............................................................1
Table of Contents.....................................................2
1. Conventions used in this document................................2
2. Introduction.....................................................2
3. Defining Web Proxy Auto-Discovery................................3
4. The Discovery Process............................................4
4.1. WPAD Overview................................................4
4.2. When to Execute WPAD.........................................6
4.2.1. Upon Startup of the Web Client............................7
4.2.2. Network Stack Events......................................7
4.2.3. Expiration of the CFILE...................................7
4.3. WPAD Protocol Specification..................................7
4.4. Discovery Mechanisms.........................................9
4.4.1. DHCP......................................................9
4.4.2. SVRLOC/SLP...............................................10
4.4.3. DNS A/CNAME "Well Known Aliases........................10
4.4.4. DNS SRV Records..........................................10
4.4.5. DNS TXT service: Entries.................................11
4.4.6. Fallback.................................................11
4.4.7. Timeouts.................................................11
4.5. Composing a Candidate CURL..................................12
4.6. Retrieving the CFILE at the CURL............................12
4.7. Resuming Discovery..........................................12
5. Client Implementation Considerations............................12
6. Proxy Server Considerations.....................................13
7. Administrator Considerations....................................13
8. Conditional Compliance..........................................14
8.1. Class 0 - Minimally compliant...............................15
8.2. Class 1 - Compliant.........................................15
8.3. Class 2 - Maximally compliant...............................15
9. Security Considerations.........................................15
10. Acknowledgements................................................16
11. Copyright.......................................................16
12. References......................................................16
13. Author Information..............................................17
1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in "Key words for use in
RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [KEYWORDS].
2. Introduction
The problem of locating nearby web proxy cache servers can not wait
for the implementation and large scale deployment of various
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
upcoming resource discovery protocols. The widespread success of the
HTTP protocol and the recent popularity of streaming media has
placed unanticipated strains on the networks of corporations, ISPs
and backbone providers. There currently is no effective method for
these organizations to realize the obvious benefits of web caching
without tedious and error prone configuration by each and every end
user.
The de-facto mechanism for specifying a web proxy server
configuration in web clients is the download of a script or
configuration file named by a URL. Users are currently expected to
hand configure this URL into their Browser or other web client.
This mechanism suffers from a number of drawbacks:
- Difficulty in supporting a large body of end-users. Many users
misconfigure their proxy settings and are unable to diagnose the
cause of their problems.
- Lack of support for mobile clients who require a different proxy
as their point of access changes.
- Lack of support for complex proxy environments where there may
exist a number of proxy servers with different affinities for
different clients (based on network proximity, for example).
Currently, clients would have to "know" which proxy server was
optimal for their use.
Currently available methods for resource discovery need to be
exploited in the context of a well defined framework. Simple,
functional and efficient mechanisms stand a good chance of solving
this pressing and basic need. As new resource discovery mechanisms
mature they can be folded into this framework with little
difficulty.
This document is a specification for implementers of web client
software. It defines a protocol for automatically configuring those
clients to use a local proxy. It also defines how an administrator
should configure various resource discovery services in their
network to support WPAD compatible web clients.
While it does contain suggestions for web proxy server implementers,
it does not make any specific demands of those parties.
3. Defining Web Proxy Auto-Discovery
As mentioned above, currently web client software needs to be
configured with the URL of a proxy auto-configuration file or
script. The contents of this script are vendor specific and not
currently standardized. This document does not attempt to discuss
the contents of these files (see[8] for an example file format).
Thus, the Web Proxy Auto-Discovery (WPAD) problem reduces to
providing the web client a mechanism for discovering the URL of the
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
Configuration File. Once this Configuration URL (CURL) is known, the
client software already contains mechanisms for retrieving and
interpreting the Configuration File (CFILE) to enable access to the
specified proxy cache servers.
It is worth carefully noting that the goal of the WPAD process is to
discover the correct CURL at which to retrieve the CFILE. The client
is *not* trying to directly discover the name of the proxy server.
That would circumvent the additional capabilities provided by proxy
Configuration Files (such as load balancing, request routing to an
array of servers, automated fail-over to backup proxy server [6,8]).
It is worth noting that different clients requesting the CURL may
receive completely different CFILEs in response. The web server may
send back different CFILES based on a number of criteria such as the
"User-Agent" header, "Accept" headers, client IP address/subnet,
etc. The same client could conceivably receive a different CFILE on
successive retrievals (as a method of round-robin load balancing,
for example).
This document will discuss a range of mechanisms for discovering the
Configuration URL. The client will attempt them in a predefined
order, until one succeeds. Existing widely deployed facilities may
not provide enough expressiveness to specify a complete URL. As
such, we will define default values for portions of the CURL which
may not be expressible by some discovery mechanisms:
http://<HOST>:<PORT><PATH>
<HOST> - There is no default for this potion. Any succeeding
discovery mechanism will provide a value for the <HOST> portion
of the CURL. The client MUST NOT provide a default.
<PORT> - The client MUST assume port 80 if the successful discovery
mechanism does not provide a port component.
<PATH> - The client MUST assume a path of "/wpad.dat" if the
successful discovery mechanism does not provide a path
component.
4. The Discovery Process
4.1. WPAD Overview
This sub-section will present a descriptive overview of the WPAD
protocol. It is intended to introduce the concepts and flow of the
protocol. The remaining sub-sections (3.2-3.7) will provide the
rigorous specification of the protocol details. WPAD uses a
collection of pre-existing Internet resource discovery mechanisms to
perform web proxy auto-discovery. Readers may wish to refer to [1]
for a similar approach to resource discovery, since it was a basis
for this strategy. The WPAD protocol specifies the following:
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
- how to use each mechanism for the specific purpose of web proxy
auto-discovery
- the order in which the mechanisms should be performed
- the minimal set of mechanisms which must be attempted by a WPAD
compliant web client
The resource discovery mechanisms utilized by WPAD are as follows.
- Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP, [3,7]).
- Service Location Protocol (SLP, [4]).
- "Well Known Aliases using DNS A records [5,9].
- DNS SRV records [2,9].
- "service: URLs" in DNS TXT records [10].
Of all these mechanisms only the DHCP and Well Known Aliases are
required in WPAD clients. This decision is based on three reasons:
these facilities are currently widely deployed in existing vendor
hardware and software; they represent functionality that should
cover most real world environments; they are relatively simple to
implement.
DNS servers supporting A records are clearly the most widely
deployed of the services outlined above. It is reasonable to expect
API support inside most web client development environments (POSIX
C, Java, etc). The hierarchical nature of DNS makes it possible to
support hierarchies of proxy servers.
DNS is not suitable in every environment, unfortunately.
Administrators often choose a DNS domain name hierarchy that does
not correlate to network topologies, but rather with some
organizational model (for example, foo.development.bar.com and
foo.marketing.bar.com). DHCP servers, on the other hand, are
frequently deployed with concern for network topologies. DHCP
servers provide support for making configuration decisions based on
subnets, which are directly related to network topology.
Full client support for DHCP is not as ubiquitous as for DNS. That
is, not all clients are equipped to take advantage of DHCP for their
essential network configuration (assignment of IP address, network
mask, etc). APIs for DHCP are not as widely available. Luckily,
using DHCP for WPAD does not require either of these facilities. It
is relatively easy for web client developers to speak just the
minimal DHCP protocol to perform resource discovery. It entails
building a simple UDP packet, sending it to the subnet broadcast
address, and parsing the reply UDP packet(s) which are received to
extract the WPAD option field. A reference implementation of this
code in C is available [11].
The WPAD client attempts a series of resource discovery requests,
using the discovery mechanisms mentioned above, in a specific order.
Clients only attempt mechanisms that they support (obviously). Each
time the discovery attempt succeeds; the client uses the information
obtained to construct a CURL. If a CFILE is successfully retrieved
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
at that CURL, the process completes. If not, the client resumes
where it left of in the predefined series of resource discovery
requests. If no untried mechanisms remain and a CFILE has not been
successfully retrieved, the WPAD protocol fails and the client is
configured to use no proxy server.
First the client tries DHCP, followed by SLP. If no CFILE has been
retrieved the client moves on to the DNS based mechanisms. The
client will cycle through the DNS SRV, Well Known Aliases and DNS
TXT record methods multiple times. Each time through the QNAME being
used in the DNS query is made less and less specific. In this manner
the client can locate the most specific configuration information
possible, but can fall back on less specific information. Every DNS
lookup has the QNAME prefixed with wpad to indicate the resource
type being requested.
As an example, consider a client with hostname johns-
desktop.development.foo.com. Assume the web client software supports
all of the mechanisms listed above. This is the sequence of
discovery attempts the client would perform until one succeeded in
locating a valid CFILE:
- DHCP
- SLP
- DNS A lookup on QNAME=wpad.development.foo.com.
- DNS SRV lookup on QNAME=wpad.development.foo.com.
- DNS TXT lookup on QNAME=wpad.development.foo.com.
- DBS A lookup on QNAME=wpad.foo.com.
- DNS SRV lookup on QNAME=wpad.foo.com.
- DNS TXT lookup on QNAME=wpad.foo.com.
4.2. When to Execute WPAD
Web clients need to perform the WPAD protocol periodically to
maintain correct proxy settings. This should occur on a regular
basis corresponding to initialization of the client software or the
networking stack below the client. As well, WPAD will need to occur
in response to expiration of existing configuration data. The
following sections describe the details of these scenarios. 3.2.1.
Periodic Discovery
The web proxy auto-discovery process MUST occur at least as
frequently as one of the following two options. A web client can use
either option depending on which makes sense in their environment.
Clients MUST use at least one of the following options. They MAY
also choose to implement both options.
- Upon startup of the web client.
- Whenever there indication from the networking stack that the IP
address of the client host either has, or could have, changed.
In addition, the client MUST attempt a discovery cycle upon
expiration of a previously downloaded CFILE in accordance with
HTTP/1.1.
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
4.2.1. Upon Startup of the Web Client
For many types of web client (like web browsers) there can be many
instances of the client operating for a given user at one time. This
is often to allow display of multiple web pages in different
windows, for example. There is no need to re-perform WPAD every time
a new instance of the web client is opened. WPAD MUST be performed
when the number of web client instances transitions from 0 to 1. It
SHOULD NOT be performed as additional instances are created.
4.2.2. Network Stack Events
Another option for clients is to tie the execution of WPAD to
changes in the networking environment. If the client can learn about
the change of the local hosts IP address, or the possible change of
the IP address, it MUST re-perform the WPAD protocol. Many
operating systems provide indications of network up events, for
example. Those types of events and system-boot events might be the
triggers for WPAD in many environments.
4.2.3. Expiration of the CFILE
The HTTP retrieval of the CURL may return HTTP headers specifying a
valid lifetime for the CFILE returned. The client MUST obey these
timeouts and rerun the PAD process when it expires. A client MAY
rerun the WPAD process if it detects a failure of the currently
configured proxy (which is not otherwise recoverable via the
inherent mechanisms provided by the currently active Configuration
File).
Whenever the client decides to invalidate the current CURL or CFILE,
it MUST rerun the entire WPAD protocol to ensure it discovers the
currently correct CURL. Specifically, if the valid lifetime of the
CFILE ends(as specified by the HTTP headers provided when it was
retrieved),the complete WPAD protocol MUST be rerun. The client MUST
NOT simply re-use the existing CURL to obtain a fresh copy of the
CFILE.
A number of network round trips, broadcast and/or multicast
communications may be required during the WPAD protocol. The WPAD
protocol SHOULD NOT be invoked at a more frequent rate than
specified above (such as per-URL retrieval).
4.3. WPAD Protocol Specification
The following pseudo-code defines the WPAD protocol. If a
particular discovery mechanism is not supported, treat it as a
failed discovery attempt in the pseudo-code.
In addition, this logic is expressed below in pseudo-code.
The following pseudo-code fragment defines WPAD. Unsupported
discovery mechanisms are treated as failure in the pseudo-code.
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
Two subroutines need explanation. The subroutine
strip_leading_component(dns_string) strips off the leading
characters, up to and including the first dot (`.') in the string
which is passed as a parameter, and is expected to contain DNS name.
The Boolean subroutine is_not_canonical(dns_string) returns FALSE if
dns_string is one of the canonical domain suffixes defined in RFC
1591 [13] (for example, "com").
The slp_list and dns_list elements below are assumed to be linked
lists containing a data field and a pointer to the next element.
The data field contains the elements used to override the default
values in creating a CURL, as detailed in section 3.5.
load_CFILE() {
/* MUST use DHCP */
curl = dhcp_query(/*WPAD option (section 4.4.1) */);
if (curl != null) { /* DHCP succeeded */
if isvalid (read_CFILE(curl))
return SUCCESS; /* valid CFILE */
}
/* Should use SLP */
slp_list = slp_query(/*(WPAD attributes (Section 4.4.2)*/);
while (slp_list != null) { /* test each curl */
if isvalid(read_CFILE(slp_list.curl_data))
return SUCCESS; /* valid CFILE */
else
slp_list = slp_list.next;
}
/* all the DNS mechanisms */
TGTDOM = gethostbyname(me);
TGTDOM = strip_leading_component(TGTDOM);
while (is_not_canonical(TGTDOM)) {
/* SHOULD try DNS SRV records */
dns_list = dns_query(/*QNAME=wpad.TGTDOM.,
QTYPE=SRV (section 4.4.4)*/);
while (dns_list != null) { /* each TXT record */
if isvalid(read_CFILE(dns_list, curl_data))
return SUCCESS; /* valid CFILE */
else
dns_list = dns_list.next;
}
/* SHOULD try DNS TXT records */
dns_list = dns_query(/*QNAME=wpad.TGTDOM.,
QTYPE=TXT (section 4.4.5)*/);
while (dns_list != null) { /* each TXT record */
if isvalid(read_CFILE(dns_list, curl_data))
return SUCCESS; /* valid CFILE */
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
else
dns_list = dns_list.next;
}
/* MUST try DNS A records */
dns_list = dns_query(/*QNAME=wpad.TGTDOM.,
QTYPE=A (Section 4.4.3)*/);
while (dns_list != null) { /* check each A record */
if isvalid(read_CFILE(dns_list, curl_data))
return SUCCESS; /* valid CFILE */
else
dns_list = dns_list.next;
}
/* Still no match, remove leading component and iterate */
TGTDOM = strip_leading_component(TGTDOM);
} /* no A, TXT or SRV records for wpad.* */
return FAILED; /* could not locate valid CFILE */
}
4.4. Discovery Mechanisms
Each of the resource discovery methods will be marked as to whether
the client MUST, SHOULD, MAY, or MUST NOT implement them to be
compliant. Client implementers are encouraged to implement as many
mechanisms as possible, to promote maximum interoperability.
+-------------------------+--------+----------+
| Discovery | | Document |
| Mechanism | Status | Section |
+-------------------------+--------+----------+
| DHCP | MUST | 4.4.1 |
| SLP | SHOULD | 4.4.2 |
| "Well Known Alias" | MUST | 4.4.3 |
| DNS SRV Records | SHOULD | 4.4.4 |
| DNS TXT "service: URLs" | SHOULD | 4.4.5 |
+-------------------------+--------+----------+
SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY MECHANISMS
4.4.1. DHCP
Client implementations MUST support DHCP. DHCP has widespread
support innumerous vendor hardware and software implementations, and
is widely deployed. It is also perfectly suited to this task, and is
used to discover other network resources (such a time servers,
printers, etc). The DHCP protocol is detailed in RFC 2131 [3].
We propose a new DHCP option with code 252 for use in web proxy
auto-discovery. See RFC 2132 [7] for a list of existing DHCP
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
options. See "Conditional Compliance" for more information on DHCP
requirements.
The client should obtain the value of the DHCP option code 252 as
returned by the DHCP server. If the client has already conducted
DHCP protocol during its initialization, the DHCP server may already
have supplied that value. If the value is not available through a
client OS API, the client SHOULD use a DHCPINFORM message to query
the DHCP server to obtain the value.
The DHCP option code for WPAD is 252 by agreement of the DHC working
group chair. This option is of type STRING. This string contains a
URL which points to an appropriate config file. The STRING is of
arbitrary size.
An example STRING value would be:
"http://server.domain/proxyconfig.pac"
4.4.2. Service Location Protocol /SLP
The Service Location Protocol [RFC2608] is a Proposed Standard for
discovering services in the Internet. SLP has several reference
implementations available; for details, check the following web
page:
http://www.svrloc.org/
A service type for use with WPAD has been defined and is available
as an Internet Draft.
Client implementations SHOULD implement SLP. SLP Service Replies
will provide one or more complete CURLs. Each candidate CURL so
created should be pursued as specified in section 4.5 and beyond.
4.4.3. DNS A/CNAME "Well Known Aliases
Client implementations MUST support this mechanism. This should be
straightforward since only basic DNS lookup of A records is
required. See RFC 2219 [5] for a description of using "well known"
DNS aliases for resource discovery. We propose the "well known
alias of "wpad" for web proxy auto-discovery.
The client performs the following DNS lookup:
QNAME=wpad.TGTDOM., QCLASS=IN, QTYPE=A
Each A RR, which is returned, contains an IP address which is used
to replace the <HOST> default in the CURL.
Each candidate CURL so created should be pursued as specified in
section 4.5 and beyond.
4.4.4. DNS SRV Records
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
Client implementations SHOULD support the DNS SRV mechanism. Details
of the protocol can be found in RFC 2052 [2]. If the implementation
language/environment provides the ability to perform DNS lookups on
QTYPEs other than A, client implementers are strongly encouraged to
provide this support. It is acknowledged that not all resolver APIs
provide this functionality.
The client issues the following DNS lookup:
QNAME=wpad.tcp.TGTDOM., QCLASS=IN, QTYPE=SRV
If it receives SRV RRs in response, the client should use each valid
RR in the order specified in RFC 2052 [2]. Each valid record will
specify both a <HOST> and a <PORT> to override the CURL defaults.
Each candidate CURL so created should be pursued as specified in
section 4.5 and beyond.
4.4.5. DNS TXT service: Entries
Client implementation SHOULD support this mechanism. If the
implementation language/environment provides the ability to perform
DNS lookups on QTYPEs other than A, the vendor is strongly
encouraged to provide this support. It is acknowledged that not all
resolver APIs provide this functionality.
The client should attempt to retrieve TXT RRs from the DNS to obtain
service: URLs contained therein. The service: URL will be of the
following format, specifying a complete candidate CURL for each
record located:
service: wpad:http://<HOST>:<PORT><PATH>
The client should first issue the following DNS query:
QNAME=wpad.TGTDOM., QCLASS=IN, QTYPE=TXT
It should process each TXT RR it receives (if any) using each
service:URL found (if any) to generate a candidate CURL. These CURLs
should be pursued as described in section 3.5 and beyond.
Readers familiar with [1] should note that WPAD clients MUST NOT
perform the QNAME=TGTDOM., QCLASS=IN, QTYPE=TXT lookup which would
be suggested by that document.
4.4.6. Fallback
Clients MUST NOT implement the "Fallback" mechanism described in
[1]. It is unlikely that a client will find a web server prepared to
handle the CURL request at a random suffix of its FQDN. This will
only increase the number of DNS probes and introduce an excess of
spurious "GET" requests on those hapless web servers.
Instead, the "Well Known Aliases method of section 3.4.4 provides
equivalent functionality.
4.4.7. Timeouts
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
Implementers are encouraged to limit the time elapsed in each
discovery phase. When possible, limiting each phase to 10 seconds
is considered reasonable. Implementers may choose a different value
which is more appropriate to their network properties. For example,
a device implementation, which operated over a wireless network, may
use a much larger timeout to account for low bandwidth or high
latency.
4.5. Composing a Candidate CURL
Any successful discovery mechanism response will provide a
<HOST>(perhaps in the form of an IP address). Some mechanisms will
also provide a <PORT> and/or a <PATH>. The client should override
the default CURL fields with all of those supplied by the discovery
mechanism.
4.6. Retrieving the CFILE at the CURL
The client then requests the CURL via HTTP.
When making the request it MUST transmit HTTP "Accept" headers
indicating what CFILE formats it is capable of accepting. For
example, Netscape Navigator browsers with versions 2.0 and beyond
might include the following line in the HTTP Request:
Accept: application/x-ns-proxy-autoconfig
The client MUST follow HTTP redirect directives (response codes 3xx)
returned by the server. The client SHOULD send a valid "User-Agent"
header.
4.7. Resuming Discovery
If the HTTP request fails for any reason (fails to connect, server
error response, etc) the client MUST resume the search for a
successful CURL where it left off. It should continue attempting
other sub-steps in a specific discovery mechanism, and then move on
to the next mechanism or TGTDOM iteration, etc.
5. Client Implementation Considerations
The large number of discovery mechanisms specified in this document
may raise concerns about network traffic and performance. The DHCP
portion of the process will result in a single broadcast by the
client, and perhaps a few replies by listening DHCP servers.
The remaining mechanisms are all DNS based. All DNS queries should
have the QNAME terminated with a trailing '.' to indicate a FQDN and
expedite the lookup. As such each TGTDOM iteration will cause 3 DNS
lookups, each a unicast UDP packet and a reply. Most clients will
have fewer than 2TGTDOM iterations, limiting the total number of DNS
request/replies to6.
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
All total, 7 UDP request/reply packets on client startup is quite a
low overhead. The first web page downloaded by the client will
likely dwarf that packet count. Each of the DNS lookups should stand
a high chance of hitting the cache in the client's DNS server, since
other clients will have likely looked them up recently, providing a
low total elapsed time.
This is of course the worst case, where no CURLS are obtained, and
assuming a long client FQDN. Often, a successful CURL will be found
early in the protocol, reducing the total packet count.
Client implementations are encouraged to overlap this protocol work
with other startup activities. Also, client implementers with
concerns about performance can choose to implement only the
discovery mechanisms listed as MUST in section 3.4.
A longer delay could occur if a CURL is obtained, but the hosting
web server is down. The client could spend considerable time waiting
for the TCP connect () call to fail. Luckily this is an extremely
rare case where the web server hosting the CFILE has failed. See
section 5, where proxy server implementers are encouraged to provide
support for hosting CURLs on the proxy itself (acting as web
server). Since proxy servers are often deployed with considerable
attention to fault tolerance, this corner case can be further
minimized.
6. Proxy Server Considerations
As mentioned in the previous section, it is suggested that proxy
servers be capable of acting as a web server, so that they can host
the CURL directly.
The implementers of proxy servers are most likely to understand the
deployment situations of proxy caches, the formats of proxy
configuration files, etc. They can also build in the ability select
a CFILE based on all the various inputs at the time of the CURL
request("User-Agent", "Accept", client IP address/subnet/hostname,
topological distribution of nearby proxy servers, etc).
7. Administrator Considerations
Administrators should configure at least one of the DHCP or DNS A RR
methods in their environment (since those are the only two all
compatible clients MUST implement). Beyond that, configuring to
support mechanisms earlier in the search order will improve client
startup time.
One of the major motivations for this protocol structure was to
support client location of "nearby" proxy servers. In many
environments there may be a number of proxy servers (workgroup,
corporate gateway, ISP, backbone). There are a number of possible
points at which "nearness" decisions can be made in this framework:
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
- DHCP servers for different subnets can return different answers.
They can also base decisions on the client cipaddr field or the
client identifier option.
- DNS servers can be configured to return different SRV/A/TXT RRs
for Different domain suffixes (for example, QNAMEs
wpad.marketing.bigcorp.com and wpad.development.bigcorp.com).
- The web server handling the CURL request can make decisions based
on the "User-Agent", "Accept", client IP
address/subnet/hostname, and the topological distribution of
nearby proxy servers, etc. This can occur inside a CGI
executable created to handle the CURL. As mentioned above it
could be a proxy server itself handing the CURL request and
making those decisions.
- The CFILE may be expressive enough to select from a set of
alternatives at "runtime" on the client. CARP [6] is based on
this premise for an array of caches. It is not inconceivable
that the CFILE could compute some network distance or fitness
metrics to a set of candidate proxy servers and then select the
"closest" or "most responsive" server.
Note that it is valid to configure a DHCP daemon to respond only to
INFORM option queries in static IP environments
Not all of the above mechanisms can be supported in all currently
deployed vendor hardware and software. The hope is that enough
flexibility is provided in this framework that administrators can
select which mechanisms will work in their environments.
8. Conditional Compliance
In light of the fact that many of the discovery technologies
described in this document are not well deployed or not available on
all platforms, this specification permits conditional compliance.
Conditional compliance is designated by three class identifications.
Additionally, due to the possible security implications of a DHCP
broadcast request, it is onerous to REQUIRE an implementer to put
himself or his implementation at undue risk. It is quite common to
have rogue DHCP servers on a network which may fool a DHCP broadcast
implementation into using a malicious configuration file. On
platforms which do not support DHCP natively and cannot get the WPAD
option along with its IP address, and which cannot support the DHCP
INFORM unicast request, presumably to a known and trusted DHCP
server, the likelihood of an undetected spoofing attack is
increased. Having an individual program, such as a browser, trying
to detect a DHCP server on a network is unreasonable, in the
authors' opinion. On platforms which use DHCP for their system IP
address and have previously trusted a DHCP server, a unicast DHCP
INFORM to that same trusted server does not introduce any additional
trust to that server.
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
8.1. Class 0 - Minimally compliant
A WPAD implementation which implements only the following discovery
mechanisms and interval schemes is considered class 0 compliant:
DNS A record queries
Browser or System session refresh intervals
Class 0 compliance is only applicable to systems or implementations
which do not natively support DHCP and or cannot securely determine
a trusted local DHCP server.
8.2. Class 1 - Compliant
A WPAD implementation which implements only the following discovery
mechanisms and interval schemes is considered class 1 compliant:
DNS A record queries
DHCP INFORM Queries
Network stack change refresh intervals
CFILE expiration refresh intervals
8.3. Class 2 - Maximally compliant
A WPAD implementation which implements only the following discovery
mechanisms and interval schemes is considered class 1 compliant:
DNS A record queries
DHCP INFORM Queries
DNS TXT service: queries
DNS SRV RR queries
SVRLOC Queries
Network stack change refresh intervals
CFILE expiration refresh intervals
To be considered compliant with a given class, an implementation
MUST support the features listed above corresponding to that class.
9. Security Considerations
This document does not address security of the protocols involved.
The WPAD protocol is vulnerable to existing identified weaknesses in
DHCP and DNS. The groups driving those standards, as well as the SLP
protocol standards, are addressing security.
When using DHCP discovery, clients are encouraged to use unicast
DHCP INFORM queries instead of broadcast queries which are more
easily spoofed in insecure networks.
Minimally, it can be said that the WPAD protocol does not create new
security weaknesses.
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
10. Acknowledgements
The authors' work on this specification would be incomplete without
the assistance of many people. Specifically, the authors would like
the express their gratitude to the following people:
Chuck Neerdaels, Inktomi, for providing assistance in the design of
the WPAD protocol as well as for providing reference
implementations.
Arthur Bierer, Darren Mitchell, Sean Edmison, Mario Rodriguez, Danpo
Zhang, and Yaron Goland, Microsoft, for providing implementation
insights as well as testing and deployment.
Ari Luotonen, Netscape, for his role in designing the first web
proxy.
In addition, the authors are grateful for the feedback provided by
the following people:
Jeremy Worley - RealNetworks
Eric Twitchell - United Parcel Service
11. Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1998. All Rights Reserved. This
document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and
will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or
assigns. This document and the information contained herein is
provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
12. References
[1] Moats, R., Hamilton, M., and P. Leach, "Finding Stuff (How to
discover services)", Internet Draft, October 1997.
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
[2] Gulbrandsen, A., and P. Vixie, "A DNS RR for specifying the
location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2052, October 1996
[3] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
March 1997.
[4] Veizades, J., Guttman, E., Perkins, C., and M. Day, "Service
Location Protocol," Internet Draft, October 1997.
[5] Hamilton, M., and R. Wright, "Use of DNS Aliases for Network
Services", RFC 2219, October 1997.
[6] Valloppillil, V., and K. Ross, "Cache Array Routing Protocol",
Internet Draft, October 1997.
[7] Alexander, S., and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[8] Luotonen, A., "Navigator Proxy Auto-Config File Format",
Netscape Corporation,
http://home.netscape.com/eng/mozilla/2.0/relnotes/
demo/proxy-live.html, March 1996.
[9] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities",
RFC 1034, November 1987.
[10] Perkins, C., Guttman, E., and J. Kempf, "Service Templates and
service: Schemes", Internet Draft, December 1997.
[11] A Sample DHCP Implementation for WPAD, Inktomi Corporation,
http://www.inktomi.com/TBD.html, February 1998.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
13. Author Information
Paul Gauthier
Inktomi Corporation
1900 South Norfolk Street Suite 310, San Mateo, CA 94403-1151
Phone: (650) 653-2800
Email: gauthier@inktomi.com
Josh Cohen
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: (425) 703-5812
Email: joshco@microsoft.com
Martin Dunsmuir
RealNetworks, Inc.
1111 3rd Ave, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 674-2237
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol 7/28/99
Email: martind@real.com
Charles Perkins
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
15 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: (650) 786-6464
Email: charles.perkins@Sun.COM
Category: Standards Track Expires: December 1999
Gauthier, Cohen, Dunsmuir, Perkins [Page 18]
