draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02.txt   draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.txt 
Network Working Group R. Fielding Network Working Group R. Fielding
Internet-Draft Day Software Internet-Draft Day Software
Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys
Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul
Expires: May 23, 2007 HP Expires: January 1, 2008 HP
H. Frystyk H. Frystyk
Microsoft Microsoft
L. Masinter L. Masinter
Adobe Systems Adobe Systems
P. Leach P. Leach
Microsoft Microsoft
T. Berners-Lee T. Berners-Lee
W3C/MIT W3C/MIT
Y. Lafon, Ed. Y. Lafon, Ed.
W3C W3C
J. Reschke, Ed. J. Reschke, Ed.
greenbytes greenbytes
November 19, 2006 June 30, 2007
Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02 draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
systems. It is a generic, stateless, protocol which can be used for systems. It is a generic, stateless, protocol which can be used for
many tasks beyond its use for hypertext, such as name servers and many tasks beyond its use for hypertext, such as name servers and
distributed object management systems, through extension of its distributed object management systems, through extension of its
request methods, error codes and headers [RFC2324]. A feature of request methods, error codes and headers [RFC2324]. A feature of
HTTP is the typing and negotiation of data representation, allowing HTTP is the typing and negotiation of data representation, allowing
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
minimal corrections. For now, it is not planned to advance the minimal corrections. For now, it is not planned to advance the
standards level of HTTP, thus - if published - the specification will standards level of HTTP, thus - if published - the specification will
still be a "Proposed Standard" (see [RFC2026]). still be a "Proposed Standard" (see [RFC2026]).
The current plan is to incorporate known errata, and to update the The current plan is to incorporate known errata, and to update the
specification text according to the current IETF publication specification text according to the current IETF publication
guidelines. In particular: guidelines. In particular:
o Incorporate the corrections collected in the RFC2616 errata o Incorporate the corrections collected in the RFC2616 errata
document (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata>) (most of the document (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata>) (most of the
suggested fixes have been applied to draft 01). suggested fixes have been applied to draft 01 [3]).
o Incorporate corrections for newly discovered and agreed-upon o Incorporate corrections for newly discovered and agreed-upon
problems, using the HTTP WG mailing list as forum and problems, using the HTTP WG mailing list as forum and
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/> as <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/> as
issues list. issues list.
o Update references, and re-classify them into "Normative" and o Update references, and re-classify them into "Normative" and
"Informative", based on the prior work done by Jim Gettys in "Informative", based on the prior work done by Jim Gettys in
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00>. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00>.
skipping to change at page 5, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
text in word wrapping, page breaks, list formatting, reference text in word wrapping, page breaks, list formatting, reference
formatting, whitespace usage and appendix numbering. Otherwise, it formatting, whitespace usage and appendix numbering. Otherwise, it
is supposed to contain an accurate copy of the original specification is supposed to contain an accurate copy of the original specification
text. See <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/ text. See <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/
rfc2616bis-00-from-rfc2616.diff.html> for a comparison between both rfc2616bis-00-from-rfc2616.diff.html> for a comparison between both
documents, as generated by "rfcdiff" documents, as generated by "rfcdiff"
(<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/>). (<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/>).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1.4. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar . . . . . . . . . 19 2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1. Augmented BNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1. Augmented BNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2. Basic Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2. Basic Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1. HTTP Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.1. HTTP Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2. Uniform Resource Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2. Uniform Resource Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.1. General Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.1. General Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.2. http URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.2. http URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.3. URI Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.3. URI Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3. Date/Time Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3. Date/Time Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3.1. Full Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.1. Full Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3.2. Delta Seconds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.3.2. Delta Seconds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4. Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.4. Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4.1. Missing Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.4.1. Missing Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5. Content Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.5. Content Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6. Transfer Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.6. Transfer Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.6.1. Chunked Transfer Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.6.1. Chunked Transfer Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.7. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.7. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults . . . . . . . . . 33 3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults . . . . . . . . . 34
3.7.2. Multipart Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.7.2. Multipart Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.8. Product Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.8. Product Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.9. Quality Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.9. Quality Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.10. Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.10. Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.11. Entity Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.11. Entity Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.12. Range Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.12. Range Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4. HTTP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4. HTTP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.1. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.1. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2. Message Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.2. Message Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3. Message Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3. Message Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4. Message Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4.4. Message Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.5. General Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.5. General Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.1. Request-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5.1. Request-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.1.1. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5.1.1. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.1.2. Request-URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.1.2. Request-URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.2. The Resource Identified by a Request . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.2. The Resource Identified by a Request . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.3. Request Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.3. Request Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.1. Status-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.1. Status-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.1.1. Status Code and Reason Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.1.1. Status Code and Reason Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.2. Response Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 6.2. Response Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 7. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.1. Entity Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 7.1. Entity Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.2. Entity Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 7.2. Entity Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.2.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7.2.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.2.2. Entity Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7.2.2. Entity Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8. Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8. Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.1. Persistent Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8.1. Persistent Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8.1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.1.2. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8.1.2. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.1.3. Proxy Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8.1.3. Proxy Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.1.4. Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8.1.4. Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.2. Message Transmission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8.2. Message Transmission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2.1. Persistent Connections and Flow Control . . . . . . 56 8.2.1. Persistent Connections and Flow Control . . . . . . 57
8.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages . . 56 8.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages . . 57
8.2.3. Use of the 100 (Continue) Status . . . . . . . . . . 57 8.2.3. Use of the 100 (Continue) Status . . . . . . . . . . 58
8.2.4. Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes 8.2.4. Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes
Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9. Method Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 9. Method Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.1. Safe and Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 9.1. Safe and Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.1.1. Safe Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 9.1.1. Safe Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.1.2. Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 9.1.2. Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.2. OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.2. OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.3. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 9.3. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.4. HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 9.4. HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.5. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9.5. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9.6. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 9.6. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9.7. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 9.7. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
9.8. TRACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 9.8. TRACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
9.9. CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 9.9. CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.1. Informational 1xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.1. Informational 1xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.1.1. 100 Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.1.1. 100 Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.1.2. 101 Switching Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.1.2. 101 Switching Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.2. Successful 2xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.2. Successful 2xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.1. 200 OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.2.1. 200 OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.2. 201 Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.2.2. 201 Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.3. 202 Accepted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.2.3. 202 Accepted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.4. 203 Non-Authoritative Information . . . . . . . . . 69 10.2.4. 203 Non-Authoritative Information . . . . . . . . . 70
10.2.5. 204 No Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.2.5. 204 No Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10.2.6. 205 Reset Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.2.6. 205 Reset Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10.2.7. 206 Partial Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 10.2.7. 206 Partial Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.3. Redirection 3xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 10.3. Redirection 3xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.3.1. 300 Multiple Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 10.3.1. 300 Multiple Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10.3.2. 301 Moved Permanently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 10.3.2. 301 Moved Permanently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10.3.3. 302 Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 10.3.3. 302 Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10.3.4. 303 See Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 10.3.4. 303 See Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10.3.5. 304 Not Modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 10.3.5. 304 Not Modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
10.3.6. 305 Use Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 10.3.6. 305 Use Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
10.3.7. 306 (Unused) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 10.3.7. 306 (Unused) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10.3.8. 307 Temporary Redirect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 10.3.8. 307 Temporary Redirect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10.4. Client Error 4xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 10.4. Client Error 4xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10.4.1. 400 Bad Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 10.4.1. 400 Bad Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.4.2. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 10.4.2. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.4.3. 402 Payment Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 10.4.3. 402 Payment Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.4.4. 403 Forbidden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 10.4.4. 403 Forbidden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.4.5. 404 Not Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 10.4.5. 404 Not Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.4.6. 405 Method Not Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 10.4.6. 405 Method Not Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
10.4.7. 406 Not Acceptable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 10.4.7. 406 Not Acceptable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
10.4.8. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . 76 10.4.8. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . 77
10.4.9. 408 Request Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10.4.9. 408 Request Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.10. 409 Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10.4.10. 409 Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.11. 410 Gone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10.4.11. 410 Gone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.12. 411 Length Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.4.12. 411 Length Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.4.13. 412 Precondition Failed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.4.13. 412 Precondition Failed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.4.14. 413 Request Entity Too Large . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.4.14. 413 Request Entity Too Large . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.4.15. 414 Request-URI Too Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.4.15. 414 Request-URI Too Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.4.16. 415 Unsupported Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.4.16. 415 Unsupported Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.4.17. 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable . . . . . . . . 78 10.4.17. 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable . . . . . . . . 79
10.4.18. 417 Expectation Failed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 10.4.18. 417 Expectation Failed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
10.5. Server Error 5xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 10.5. Server Error 5xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
10.5.1. 500 Internal Server Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 10.5.1. 500 Internal Server Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
10.5.2. 501 Not Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 10.5.2. 501 Not Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
10.5.3. 502 Bad Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 10.5.3. 502 Bad Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
10.5.4. 503 Service Unavailable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 10.5.4. 503 Service Unavailable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
10.5.5. 504 Gateway Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 10.5.5. 504 Gateway Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
10.5.6. 505 HTTP Version Not Supported . . . . . . . . . . . 80 10.5.6. 505 HTTP Version Not Supported . . . . . . . . . . . 81
11. Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 11. Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
12. Content Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 12. Content Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
12.1. Server-driven Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 12.1. Server-driven Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
12.2. Agent-driven Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 12.2. Agent-driven Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
12.3. Transparent Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 12.3. Transparent Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
13. Caching in HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 13. Caching in HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
13.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 13.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
13.1.1. Cache Correctness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 13.1.1. Cache Correctness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
13.1.2. Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 13.1.2. Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
13.1.3. Cache-control Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 13.1.3. Cache-control Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
13.1.4. Explicit User Agent Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 13.1.4. Explicit User Agent Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
13.1.5. Exceptions to the Rules and Warnings . . . . . . . . 89 13.1.5. Exceptions to the Rules and Warnings . . . . . . . . 90
13.1.6. Client-controlled Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 13.1.6. Client-controlled Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
13.2. Expiration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 13.2. Expiration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
13.2.1. Server-Specified Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 13.2.1. Server-Specified Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
13.2.2. Heuristic Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 13.2.2. Heuristic Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
13.2.3. Age Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 13.2.3. Age Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
13.2.4. Expiration Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 13.2.4. Expiration Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
13.2.5. Disambiguating Expiration Values . . . . . . . . . . 94 13.2.5. Disambiguating Expiration Values . . . . . . . . . . 95
13.2.6. Disambiguating Multiple Responses . . . . . . . . . 95 13.2.6. Disambiguating Multiple Responses . . . . . . . . . 96
13.3. Validation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 13.3. Validation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
13.3.1. Last-Modified Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 13.3.1. Last-Modified Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
13.3.2. Entity Tag Cache Validators . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 13.3.2. Entity Tag Cache Validators . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
13.3.3. Weak and Strong Validators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 13.3.3. Weak and Strong Validators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
13.3.4. Rules for When to Use Entity Tags and 13.3.4. Rules for When to Use Entity Tags and
Last-Modified Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Last-Modified Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
13.3.5. Non-validating Conditionals . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 13.3.5. Non-validating Conditionals . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
13.4. Response Cacheability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 13.4. Response Cacheability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
13.5. Constructing Responses From Caches . . . . . . . . . . . 102 13.5. Constructing Responses From Caches . . . . . . . . . . . 103
13.5.1. End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Headers . . . . . . . . . 102 13.5.1. End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Headers . . . . . . . . . 103
13.5.2. Non-modifiable Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 13.5.2. Non-modifiable Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
13.5.3. Combining Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 13.5.3. Combining Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
13.5.4. Combining Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 13.5.4. Combining Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
13.6. Caching Negotiated Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 13.6. Caching Negotiated Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
13.7. Shared and Non-Shared Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 13.7. Shared and Non-Shared Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
13.8. Errors or Incomplete Response Cache Behavior . . . . . . 107 13.8. Errors or Incomplete Response Cache Behavior . . . . . . 108
13.9. Side Effects of GET and HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 13.9. Side Effects of GET and HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
13.10. Invalidation After Updates or Deletions . . . . . . . . 108 13.10. Invalidation After Updates or Deletions . . . . . . . . 109
13.11. Write-Through Mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 13.11. Write-Through Mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
13.12. Cache Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 13.12. Cache Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
13.13. History Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 13.13. History Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
14. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 14. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
14.1. Accept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 14.1. Accept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
14.2. Accept-Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 14.2. Accept-Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
14.3. Accept-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 14.3. Accept-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
14.4. Accept-Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 14.4. Accept-Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
14.5. Accept-Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 14.5. Accept-Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
14.6. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 14.6. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
14.7. Allow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 14.7. Allow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
14.8. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 14.8. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
14.9. Cache-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 14.9. Cache-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
14.9.1. What is Cacheable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 14.9.1. What is Cacheable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
14.9.2. What May be Stored by Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 14.9.2. What May be Stored by Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
14.9.3. Modifications of the Basic Expiration Mechanism . . 122 14.9.3. Modifications of the Basic Expiration Mechanism . . 123
14.9.4. Cache Revalidation and Reload Controls . . . . . . . 124 14.9.4. Cache Revalidation and Reload Controls . . . . . . . 125
14.9.5. No-Transform Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 14.9.5. No-Transform Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
14.9.6. Cache Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 14.9.6. Cache Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
14.10. Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 14.10. Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
14.11. Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 14.11. Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
14.12. Content-Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 14.12. Content-Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
14.13. Content-Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 14.13. Content-Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
14.14. Content-Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 14.14. Content-Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
14.15. Content-MD5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 14.15. Content-MD5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
14.16. Content-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 14.16. Content-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
14.17. Content-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 14.17. Content-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
14.18. Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 14.18. Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
14.18.1. Clockless Origin Server Operation . . . . . . . . . 136 14.18.1. Clockless Origin Server Operation . . . . . . . . . 137
14.19. ETag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 14.19. ETag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
14.20. Expect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 14.20. Expect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
14.21. Expires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 14.21. Expires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
14.22. From . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 14.22. From . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
14.23. Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 14.23. Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
14.24. If-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 14.24. If-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
14.25. If-Modified-Since . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 14.25. If-Modified-Since . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
14.26. If-None-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 14.26. If-None-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
14.27. If-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 14.27. If-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
14.28. If-Unmodified-Since . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 14.28. If-Unmodified-Since . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
14.29. Last-Modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 14.29. Last-Modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
14.30. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 14.30. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
14.31. Max-Forwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 14.31. Max-Forwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
14.32. Pragma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 14.32. Pragma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
14.33. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 14.33. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
14.34. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 14.34. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
14.35. Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 14.35. Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
14.35.1. Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 14.35.1. Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
14.35.2. Range Retrieval Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 14.35.2. Range Retrieval Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
14.36. Referer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 14.36. Referer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
14.37. Retry-After . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 14.37. Retry-After . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
14.38. Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 14.38. Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
14.39. TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 14.39. TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
14.40. Trailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 14.40. Trailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
14.41. Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 14.41. Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
14.42. Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 14.42. Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
14.43. User-Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 14.43. User-Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
14.44. Vary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 14.44. Vary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
14.45. Via . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 14.45. Via . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
14.46. Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 14.46. Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
14.47. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 14.47. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
15.1. Personal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 15.1. Personal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
15.1.1. Abuse of Server Log Information . . . . . . . . . . 162 15.1.1. Abuse of Server Log Information . . . . . . . . . . 163
15.1.2. Transfer of Sensitive Information . . . . . . . . . 162 15.1.2. Transfer of Sensitive Information . . . . . . . . . 163
15.1.3. Encoding Sensitive Information in URI's . . . . . . 163 15.1.3. Encoding Sensitive Information in URI's . . . . . . 164
15.1.4. Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers . . . . . 164 15.1.4. Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers . . . . . 165
15.2. Attacks Based On File and Path Names . . . . . . . . . . 164 15.2. Attacks Based On File and Path Names . . . . . . . . . . 165
15.3. DNS Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 15.3. DNS Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
15.4. Location Headers and Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 15.4. Location Headers and Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
15.5. Content-Disposition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 15.5. Content-Disposition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . 166 15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . 167
15.7. Proxies and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 15.7. Proxies and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
15.7.1. Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies . . . . . . . . 167 15.7.1. Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies . . . . . . . . 168
16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
16.1. (RFC2616) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 16.1. (RFC2616) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
16.2. (This Document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 16.2. (This Document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
17.1. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 17.1. References (to be classified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and
application/http . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 application/http . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Appendix B. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges . . . . . . 178 Appendix B. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges . . . . . . 179
Appendix C. Tolerant Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Appendix C. Tolerant Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Appendix D. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Appendix D. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045
Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D.1. MIME-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 D.1. MIME-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D.2. Conversion to Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 D.2. Conversion to Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D.3. Conversion of Date Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 D.3. Conversion of Date Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
D.4. Introduction of Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 D.4. Introduction of Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
D.5. No Content-Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 D.5. No Content-Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
D.6. Introduction of Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 183 D.6. Introduction of Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 184
D.7. MHTML and Line Length Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . 183 D.7. MHTML and Line Length Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Appendix E. Additional Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Appendix E. Additional Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
E.1. Content-Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 E.1. Content-Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Appendix F. Compatibility with Previous Versions . . . . . . . . 185 Appendix F. Compatibility with Previous Versions . . . . . . . . 186
F.1. Changes from HTTP/1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 F.1. Changes from HTTP/1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
F.1.1. Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and F.1.1. Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and
Conserve IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Conserve IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
F.2. Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections . . . 186 F.2. Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections . . . 187
F.3. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 F.3. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
F.4. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 F.4. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Appendix G. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix G. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
G.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 G.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
G.2. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 G.2. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
G.3. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 G.3. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
G.4. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor
before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
H.1. rfc2606-compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 H.1. i45-rfc977-reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
H.2. references_style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 H.2. i46-rfc1700_remove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
H.3. media-reg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 H.3. i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation . . . . . . 194
H.4. location-fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 H.4. i49-connection-header-text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
H.5. i48-date-reference-typo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Appendix I. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to Appendix I. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
I.1. rfc2616bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 I.1. rfc2616bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
I.2. unneeded_references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 I.2. unneeded_references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
I.3. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 I.3. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
I.4. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 I.4. i66-iso8859-1-reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
I.5. languagetag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 I.5. abnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
I.6. fragment-combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 I.6. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 I.7. i34-updated-reference-for-uris . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 I.8. i50-misc-typos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . 210 I.9. i65-informative-references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
I.10. i52-sort-1.3-terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
I.11. i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words . . . . . . . 200
I.12. i31-qdtext-bnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
I.13. i62-whitespace-in-quoted-pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
I.14. i58-what-identifies-an-http-resource . . . . . . . . . . 201
I.15. i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
I.16. i67-quoting-charsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
I.17. media-reg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
I.18. languagetag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
I.19. i56-6.1.1-can-be-misread-as-a-complete-list . . . . . . 202
I.20. i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 203
I.21. i59-status-code-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
I.22. i21-put-side-effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
I.23. i54-definition-of-1xx-warn-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.24. i60-13.5.1-and-13.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.25. i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.26. i25-accept-encoding-bnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
I.27. i61-redirection-vs-location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
I.28. fragment-combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
I.29. i55-updating-to-rfc4288 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . 222
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose 1.1. Purpose
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
systems. HTTP has been in use by the World-Wide Web global systems. HTTP has been in use by the World-Wide Web global
information initiative since 1990. The first version of HTTP, information initiative since 1990. The first version of HTTP,
referred to as HTTP/0.9, was a simple protocol for raw data transfer referred to as HTTP/0.9, was a simple protocol for raw data transfer
skipping to change at page 11, line 42 skipping to change at page 12, line 42
purpose of a request [RFC2324]. It builds on the discipline of purpose of a request [RFC2324]. It builds on the discipline of
reference provided by the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) reference provided by the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
[RFC1630], as a location (URL) [RFC1738] or name (URN) [RFC1737], for [RFC1630], as a location (URL) [RFC1738] or name (URN) [RFC1737], for
indicating the resource to which a method is to be applied. Messages indicating the resource to which a method is to be applied. Messages
are passed in a format similar to that used by Internet mail [RFC822] are passed in a format similar to that used by Internet mail [RFC822]
as defined by the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) as defined by the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
[RFC2045]. [RFC2045].
HTTP is also used as a generic protocol for communication between HTTP is also used as a generic protocol for communication between
user agents and proxies/gateways to other Internet systems, including user agents and proxies/gateways to other Internet systems, including
those supported by the SMTP [RFC821], NNTP [RFC977], FTP [RFC959], those supported by the SMTP [RFC821], NNTP [RFC3977], FTP [RFC959],
Gopher [RFC1436], and WAIS [WAIS] protocols. In this way, HTTP Gopher [RFC1436], and WAIS [WAIS] protocols. In this way, HTTP
allows basic hypermedia access to resources available from diverse allows basic hypermedia access to resources available from diverse
applications. applications.
1.2. Requirements 1.2. Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
skipping to change at page 18, line 4 skipping to change at page 19, line 4
subsets of cached data via CD-ROM, and so on. HTTP systems are used subsets of cached data via CD-ROM, and so on. HTTP systems are used
in corporate intranets over high-bandwidth links, and for access via in corporate intranets over high-bandwidth links, and for access via
PDAs with low-power radio links and intermittent connectivity. The PDAs with low-power radio links and intermittent connectivity. The
goal of HTTP/1.1 is to support the wide diversity of configurations goal of HTTP/1.1 is to support the wide diversity of configurations
already deployed while introducing protocol constructs that meet the already deployed while introducing protocol constructs that meet the
needs of those who build web applications that require high needs of those who build web applications that require high
reliability and, failing that, at least reliable indications of reliability and, failing that, at least reliable indications of
failure. failure.
HTTP communication usually takes place over TCP/IP connections. The HTTP communication usually takes place over TCP/IP connections. The
default port is TCP 80 [RFC1700], but other ports can be used. This default port is TCP 80
does not preclude HTTP from being implemented on top of any other (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>), but other ports can
protocol on the Internet, or on other networks. HTTP only presumes a be used. This does not preclude HTTP from being implemented on top
reliable transport; any protocol that provides such guarantees can be of any other protocol on the Internet, or on other networks. HTTP
used; the mapping of the HTTP/1.1 request and response structures only presumes a reliable transport; any protocol that provides such
onto the transport data units of the protocol in question is outside guarantees can be used; the mapping of the HTTP/1.1 request and
the scope of this specification. response structures onto the transport data units of the protocol in
question is outside the scope of this specification.
In HTTP/1.0, most implementations used a new connection for each In HTTP/1.0, most implementations used a new connection for each
request/response exchange. In HTTP/1.1, a connection may be used for request/response exchange. In HTTP/1.1, a connection may be used for
one or more request/response exchanges, although connections may be one or more request/response exchanges, although connections may be
closed for a variety of reasons (see Section 8.1). closed for a variety of reasons (see Section 8.1).
2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar 2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar
2.1. Augmented BNF 2.1. Augmented BNF
skipping to change at page 21, line 45 skipping to change at page 22, line 45
continuation line begins with a space or horizontal tab. All linear continuation line begins with a space or horizontal tab. All linear
white space, including folding, has the same semantics as SP. A white space, including folding, has the same semantics as SP. A
recipient MAY replace any linear white space with a single SP before recipient MAY replace any linear white space with a single SP before
interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream. interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream.
LWS = [CRLF] 1*( SP | HT ) LWS = [CRLF] 1*( SP | HT )
The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and values The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and values
that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser. Words that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser. Words
of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than ISO- of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than ISO-
8859-1 [ISO-8859] only when encoded according to the rules of 8859-1 [ISO-8859-1] only when encoded according to the rules of
[RFC2047]. [RFC2047].
TEXT = <any OCTET except CTLs, TEXT = <any OCTET except CTLs,
but including LWS> but including LWS>
A CRLF is allowed in the definition of TEXT only as part of a header A CRLF is allowed in the definition of TEXT only as part of a header
field continuation. It is expected that the folding LWS will be field continuation. It is expected that the folding LWS will be
replaced with a single SP before interpretation of the TEXT value. replaced with a single SP before interpretation of the TEXT value.
Hexadecimal numeric characters are used in several protocol elements. Hexadecimal numeric characters are used in several protocol elements.
skipping to change at page 26, line 19 skipping to change at page 27, line 19
HTTP applications have historically allowed three different formats HTTP applications have historically allowed three different formats
for the representation of date/time stamps: for the representation of date/time stamps:
Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT ; [RFC822], updated by [RFC1123] Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT ; [RFC822], updated by [RFC1123]
Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 850, obsoleted by [RFC1036] Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 850, obsoleted by [RFC1036]
Sun Nov 6 08:49:37 1994 ; ANSI C's asctime() format Sun Nov 6 08:49:37 1994 ; ANSI C's asctime() format
The first format is preferred as an Internet standard and represents The first format is preferred as an Internet standard and represents
a fixed-length subset of that defined by [RFC1123] (an update to a fixed-length subset of that defined by [RFC1123] (an update to
[RFC822]). The second format is in common use, but is based on the [RFC822]). The second format is in common use, but is based on the
obsolete RFC 850 [RFC1036] date format and lacks a four-digit year. obsolete RFC 1036 date format [RFC1036] and lacks a four-digit year.
HTTP/1.1 clients and servers that parse the date value MUST accept HTTP/1.1 clients and servers that parse the date value MUST accept
all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they MUST all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they MUST
only generate the RFC 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values only generate the RFC 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values
in header fields. See Appendix C for further information. in header fields. See Appendix C for further information.
Note: Recipients of date values are encouraged to be robust in Note: Recipients of date values are encouraged to be robust in
accepting date values that may have been sent by non-HTTP accepting date values that may have been sent by non-HTTP
applications, as is sometimes the case when retrieving or posting applications, as is sometimes the case when retrieving or posting
messages via proxies/gateways to SMTP or NNTP. messages via proxies/gateways to SMTP or NNTP.
skipping to change at page 28, line 15 skipping to change at page 29, line 15
to characters. In particular, use of external profiling information to characters. In particular, use of external profiling information
to determine the exact mapping is not permitted. to determine the exact mapping is not permitted.
Note: This use of the term "character set" is more commonly Note: This use of the term "character set" is more commonly
referred to as a "character encoding." However, since HTTP and referred to as a "character encoding." However, since HTTP and
MIME share the same registry, it is important that the terminology MIME share the same registry, it is important that the terminology
also be shared. also be shared.
HTTP character sets are identified by case-insensitive tokens. The HTTP character sets are identified by case-insensitive tokens. The
complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character Set registry complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character Set registry
[RFC1700]. (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets>).
charset = token charset = token
Although HTTP allows an arbitrary token to be used as a charset Although HTTP allows an arbitrary token to be used as a charset
value, any token that has a predefined value within the IANA value, any token that has a predefined value within the IANA
Character Set registry [RFC1700] MUST represent the character set Character Set registry MUST represent the character set defined by
defined by that registry. Applications SHOULD limit their use of that registry. Applications SHOULD limit their use of character sets
character sets to those defined by the IANA registry. to those defined by the IANA registry.
HTTP uses charset in two contexts: within an Accept-Charset request HTTP uses charset in two contexts: within an Accept-Charset request
header (in which the charset value is an unquoted token) and as the header (in which the charset value is an unquoted token) and as the
value of a parameter in a Content-Type header (within a request or value of a parameter in a Content-Type header (within a request or
response), in which case the parameter value of the charset parameter response), in which case the parameter value of the charset parameter
may be quoted. may be quoted.
Implementors should be aware of IETF character set requirements Implementors should be aware of IETF character set requirements
[RFC2279] [RFC2277]. [RFC2279] [RFC2277].
skipping to change at page 33, line 12 skipping to change at page 34, line 12
attribute and its value. The presence or absence of a parameter attribute and its value. The presence or absence of a parameter
might be significant to the processing of a media-type, depending on might be significant to the processing of a media-type, depending on
its definition within the media type registry. its definition within the media type registry.
Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type
parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications, parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications,
implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are
required by that type/subtype definition. required by that type/subtype definition.
Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number
Authority (IANA [RFC1700]). The media type registration process is Authority (IANA). The media type registration process is outlined in
outlined in [RFC1590]. Use of non-registered media types is [RFC1590]. Use of non-registered media types is discouraged.
discouraged.
3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults 3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults
Internet media types are registered with a canonical form. An Internet media types are registered with a canonical form. An
entity-body transferred via HTTP messages MUST be represented in the entity-body transferred via HTTP messages MUST be represented in the
appropriate canonical form prior to its transmission except for appropriate canonical form prior to its transmission except for
"text" types, as defined in the next paragraph. "text" types, as defined in the next paragraph.
When in canonical form, media subtypes of the "text" type use CRLF as When in canonical form, media subtypes of the "text" type use CRLF as
the text line break. HTTP relaxes this requirement and allows the the text line break. HTTP relaxes this requirement and allows the
skipping to change at page 34, line 38 skipping to change at page 35, line 33
body do not have any significance to HTTP beyond that defined by body do not have any significance to HTTP beyond that defined by
their MIME semantics. their MIME semantics.
In general, an HTTP user agent SHOULD follow the same or similar In general, an HTTP user agent SHOULD follow the same or similar
behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type. behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type.
If an application receives an unrecognized multipart subtype, the If an application receives an unrecognized multipart subtype, the
application MUST treat it as being equivalent to "multipart/mixed". application MUST treat it as being equivalent to "multipart/mixed".
Note: The "multipart/form-data" type has been specifically defined Note: The "multipart/form-data" type has been specifically defined
for carrying form data suitable for processing via the POST for carrying form data suitable for processing via the POST
request method, as described in [RFC1867]. request method, as described in RFC 1867 [RFC1867].
3.8. Product Tokens 3.8. Product Tokens
Product tokens are used to allow communicating applications to Product tokens are used to allow communicating applications to
identify themselves by software name and version. Most fields using identify themselves by software name and version. Most fields using
product tokens also allow sub-products which form a significant part product tokens also allow sub-products which form a significant part
of the application to be listed, separated by white space. By of the application to be listed, separated by white space. By
convention, the products are listed in order of their significance convention, the products are listed in order of their significance
for identifying the application. for identifying the application.
skipping to change at page 53, line 18 skipping to change at page 54, line 18
8.1.1. Purpose 8.1.1. Purpose
Prior to persistent connections, a separate TCP connection was Prior to persistent connections, a separate TCP connection was
established to fetch each URL, increasing the load on HTTP servers established to fetch each URL, increasing the load on HTTP servers
and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and
other associated data often require a client to make multiple other associated data often require a client to make multiple
requests of the same server in a short amount of time. Analysis of requests of the same server in a short amount of time. Analysis of
these performance problems and results from a prototype these performance problems and results from a prototype
implementation are available [Pad1995] [Spero]. Implementation implementation are available [Pad1995] [Spero]. Implementation
experience and measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2068) experience and measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 ([RFC2068])
implementations show good results [Nie1997]. Alternatives have also implementations show good results [Nie1997]. Alternatives have also
been explored, for example, T/TCP [Tou1998]. been explored, for example, T/TCP [Tou1998].
Persistent HTTP connections have a number of advantages: Persistent HTTP connections have a number of advantages:
o By opening and closing fewer TCP connections, CPU time is saved in o By opening and closing fewer TCP connections, CPU time is saved in
routers and hosts (clients, servers, proxies, gateways, tunnels, routers and hosts (clients, servers, proxies, gateways, tunnels,
or caches), and memory used for TCP protocol control blocks can be or caches), and memory used for TCP protocol control blocks can be
saved in hosts. saved in hosts.
skipping to change at page 74, line 28 skipping to change at page 75, line 28
The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI.
Since the redirection MAY be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD Since the redirection MAY be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD
continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response
is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header
field. field.
The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the
response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to
the new URI(s) , since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not the new URI(s), since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand
understand the 307 status. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the the 307 status. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the information
information necessary for a user to repeat the original request on necessary for a user to repeat the original request on the new URI.
the new URI.
If the 307 status code is received in response to a request method If the 307 status code is received in response to a request method
that is known to be "safe", as defined in Section 9.1.1, then the that is known to be "safe", as defined in Section 9.1.1, then the
request MAY be automatically redirected by the user agent without request MAY be automatically redirected by the user agent without
confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent MUST NOT automatically confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent MUST NOT automatically
redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since
this might change the conditions under which the request was issued. this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.
10.4. Client Error 4xx 10.4. Client Error 4xx
skipping to change at page 87, line 28 skipping to change at page 88, line 28
Warnings MAY be used for other purposes, both cache-related and Warnings MAY be used for other purposes, both cache-related and
otherwise. The use of a warning, rather than an error status code, otherwise. The use of a warning, rather than an error status code,
distinguish these responses from true failures. distinguish these responses from true failures.
Warnings are assigned three digit warn-codes. The first digit Warnings are assigned three digit warn-codes. The first digit
indicates whether the Warning MUST or MUST NOT be deleted from a indicates whether the Warning MUST or MUST NOT be deleted from a
stored cache entry after a successful revalidation: stored cache entry after a successful revalidation:
1xx Warnings that describe the freshness or revalidation status of 1xx Warnings that describe the freshness or revalidation status of
the response, and so MUST be deleted after a successful the response, and so MUST be deleted after a successful
revalidation. 1XX warn-codes MAY be generated by a cache only when revalidation. 1xx warn-codes MAY be generated by a cache only when
validating a cached entry. It MUST NOT be generated by clients. validating a cached entry. It MUST NOT be generated by clients.
2xx Warnings that describe some aspect of the entity body or entity 2xx Warnings that describe some aspect of the entity body or entity
headers that is not rectified by a revalidation (for example, a headers that is not rectified by a revalidation (for example, a
lossy compression of the entity bodies) and which MUST NOT be lossy compression of the entity bodies) and which MUST NOT be
deleted after a successful revalidation. deleted after a successful revalidation.
See Section 14.46 for the definitions of the codes themselves. See Section 14.46 for the definitions of the codes themselves.
HTTP/1.0 caches will cache all Warnings in responses, without HTTP/1.0 caches will cache all Warnings in responses, without
skipping to change at page 103, line 29 skipping to change at page 104, line 29
o TE o TE
o Trailer o Trailer
o Transfer-Encoding o Transfer-Encoding
o Upgrade o Upgrade
All other headers defined by HTTP/1.1 are end-to-end headers. All other headers defined by HTTP/1.1 are end-to-end headers.
Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header, Other hop-by-hop headers, if they are introduced either in HTTP/1.1
(Section 14.10) to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later). or later versions of HTTP/1.x, MUST be listed in a Connection header
(Section 14.10).
13.5.2. Non-modifiable Headers 13.5.2. Non-modifiable Headers
Some features of the HTTP/1.1 protocol, such as Digest Some features of the HTTP/1.1 protocol, such as Digest
Authentication, depend on the value of certain end-to-end headers. A Authentication, depend on the value of certain end-to-end headers. A
transparent proxy SHOULD NOT modify an end-to-end header unless the transparent proxy SHOULD NOT modify an end-to-end header unless the
definition of that header requires or specifically allows that. definition of that header requires or specifically allows that.
A transparent proxy MUST NOT modify any of the following fields in a A transparent proxy MUST NOT modify any of the following fields in a
request or response, and it MUST NOT add any of these fields if not request or response, and it MUST NOT add any of these fields if not
skipping to change at page 110, line 32 skipping to change at page 111, line 32
This is not to be construed to prohibit the history mechanism from This is not to be construed to prohibit the history mechanism from
telling the user that a view might be stale. telling the user that a view might be stale.
Note: if history list mechanisms unnecessarily prevent users from Note: if history list mechanisms unnecessarily prevent users from
viewing stale resources, this will tend to force service authors viewing stale resources, this will tend to force service authors
to avoid using HTTP expiration controls and cache controls when to avoid using HTTP expiration controls and cache controls when
they would otherwise like to. Service authors may consider it they would otherwise like to. Service authors may consider it
important that users not be presented with error messages or important that users not be presented with error messages or
warning messages when they use navigation controls (such as BACK) warning messages when they use navigation controls (such as BACK)
to view previously fetched resources. Even though sometimes such to view previously fetched resources. Even though sometimes such
resources ought not to cached, or ought to expire quickly, user resources ought not be cached, or ought to expire quickly, user
interface considerations may force service authors to resort to interface considerations may force service authors to resort to
other means of preventing caching (e.g. "once-only" URLs) in order other means of preventing caching (e.g. "once-only" URLs) in order
not to suffer the effects of improperly functioning history not to suffer the effects of improperly functioning history
mechanisms. mechanisms.
14. Header Field Definitions 14. Header Field Definitions
This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard
HTTP/1.1 header fields. For entity-header fields, both sender and HTTP/1.1 header fields. For entity-header fields, both sender and
recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who
skipping to change at page 129, line 36 skipping to change at page 130, line 36
Content-Encoding: gzip Content-Encoding: gzip
The content-coding is a characteristic of the entity identified by The content-coding is a characteristic of the entity identified by
the Request-URI. Typically, the entity-body is stored with this the Request-URI. Typically, the entity-body is stored with this
encoding and is only decoded before rendering or analogous usage. encoding and is only decoded before rendering or analogous usage.
However, a non-transparent proxy MAY modify the content-coding if the However, a non-transparent proxy MAY modify the content-coding if the
new coding is known to be acceptable to the recipient, unless the new coding is known to be acceptable to the recipient, unless the
"no-transform" cache-control directive is present in the message. "no-transform" cache-control directive is present in the message.
If the content-coding of an entity is not "identity", then the If the content-coding of an entity is not "identity", then the
response MUST include a Content-Encoding entity-header response MUST include a Content-Encoding entity-header that lists the
(Section 14.11) that lists the non-identity content-coding(s) used. non-identity content-coding(s) used.
If the content-coding of an entity in a request message is not If the content-coding of an entity in a request message is not
acceptable to the origin server, the server SHOULD respond with a acceptable to the origin server, the server SHOULD respond with a
status code of 415 (Unsupported Media Type). status code of 415 (Unsupported Media Type).
If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content
codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied. codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied.
Additional information about the encoding parameters MAY be provided Additional information about the encoding parameters MAY be provided
by other entity-header fields not defined by this specification. by other entity-header fields not defined by this specification.
skipping to change at page 134, line 15 skipping to change at page 135, line 15
A server sending a response with status code 416 (Requested range not A server sending a response with status code 416 (Requested range not
satisfiable) SHOULD include a Content-Range field with a byte-range- satisfiable) SHOULD include a Content-Range field with a byte-range-
resp-spec of "*". The instance-length specifies the current length resp-spec of "*". The instance-length specifies the current length
of the selected resource. A response with status code 206 (Partial of the selected resource. A response with status code 206 (Partial
Content) MUST NOT include a Content-Range field with a byte-range- Content) MUST NOT include a Content-Range field with a byte-range-
resp-spec of "*". resp-spec of "*".
Examples of byte-content-range-spec values, assuming that the entity Examples of byte-content-range-spec values, assuming that the entity
contains a total of 1234 bytes: contains a total of 1234 bytes:
. The first 500 bytes: o The first 500 bytes:
bytes 0-499/1234 bytes 0-499/1234
. The second 500 bytes: o The second 500 bytes:
bytes 500-999/1234 bytes 500-999/1234
. All except for the first 500 bytes: o All except for the first 500 bytes:
bytes 500-1233/1234 bytes 500-1233/1234
. The last 500 bytes: o The last 500 bytes:
bytes 734-1233/1234 bytes 734-1233/1234
When an HTTP message includes the content of a single range (for When an HTTP message includes the content of a single range (for
example, a response to a request for a single range, or to a request example, a response to a request for a single range, or to a request
for a set of ranges that overlap without any holes), this content is for a set of ranges that overlap without any holes), this content is
transmitted with a Content-Range header, and a Content-Length header transmitted with a Content-Range header, and a Content-Length header
showing the number of bytes actually transferred. For example, showing the number of bytes actually transferred. For example,
HTTP/1.1 206 Partial content HTTP/1.1 206 Partial content
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
skipping to change at page 135, line 46 skipping to change at page 136, line 49
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4
Further discussion of methods for identifying the media type of an Further discussion of methods for identifying the media type of an
entity is provided in Section 7.2.1. entity is provided in Section 7.2.1.
14.18. Date 14.18. Date
The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which
the message was originated, having the same semantics as orig-date in the message was originated, having the same semantics as orig-date in
RFC 822. The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in RFC 822. The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in
Section 3.3.1; it MUST be sent in [RFC1123]-date format. Section 3.3.1; it MUST be sent in rfc1123-date format.
Date = "Date" ":" HTTP-date Date = "Date" ":" HTTP-date
An example is An example is
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:12:31 GMT Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:12:31 GMT
Origin servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses, Origin servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses,
except in these cases: except in these cases:
1. If the response status code is 100 (Continue) or 101 (Switching 1. If the response status code is 100 (Continue) or 101 (Switching
Protocols), the response MAY include a Date header field, at the Protocols), the response MAY include a Date header field, at the
server's option. server's option.
2. If the response status code conveys a server error, e.g. 500 2. If the response status code conveys a server error, e.g. 500
(Internal Server Error) or 503 (Service Unavailable), and it is (Internal Server Error) or 503 (Service Unavailable), and it is
inconvenient or impossible to generate a valid Date. inconvenient or impossible to generate a valid Date.
skipping to change at page 138, line 25 skipping to change at page 139, line 30
be returned by a cache (either a proxy cache or a user agent cache) be returned by a cache (either a proxy cache or a user agent cache)
unless it is first validated with the origin server (or with an unless it is first validated with the origin server (or with an
intermediate cache that has a fresh copy of the entity). See intermediate cache that has a fresh copy of the entity). See
Section 13.2 for further discussion of the expiration model. Section 13.2 for further discussion of the expiration model.
The presence of an Expires field does not imply that the original The presence of an Expires field does not imply that the original
resource will change or cease to exist at, before, or after that resource will change or cease to exist at, before, or after that
time. time.
The format is an absolute date and time as defined by HTTP-date in The format is an absolute date and time as defined by HTTP-date in
Section 3.3.1; it MUST be in RFC 1123 date format: Section 3.3.1; it MUST be in rfc1123-date format:
Expires = "Expires" ":" HTTP-date Expires = "Expires" ":" HTTP-date
An example of its use is An example of its use is
Expires: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT Expires: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT
Note: if a response includes a Cache-Control field with the max- Note: if a response includes a Cache-Control field with the max-
age directive (see Section 14.9.3), that directive overrides the age directive (see Section 14.9.3), that directive overrides the
Expires field. Expires field.
skipping to change at page 166, line 17 skipping to change at page 167, line 17
[RFC1806], from which the often implemented Content-Disposition (see [RFC1806], from which the often implemented Content-Disposition (see
Appendix E.1) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very serious Appendix E.1) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very serious
security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP
standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are documenting its standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are documenting its
use and risks for implementors. See [RFC2183] (which updates RFC use and risks for implementors. See [RFC2183] (which updates RFC
1806) for details. 1806) for details.
15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients 15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients
Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication
information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1. does not provide a method for a information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1 does not provide a method for a
server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This
is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP. is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP.
Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the
application's security model include but are not limited to: application's security model include but are not limited to:
o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following
which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the
user for credentials. user for credentials.
o Applications which include a session termination indication (such o Applications which include a session termination indication (such
skipping to change at page 169, line 23 skipping to change at page 170, line 23
The Apache Group, Anselm Baird-Smith, author of Jigsaw, and Henrik The Apache Group, Anselm Baird-Smith, author of Jigsaw, and Henrik
Frystyk implemented RFC 2068 early, and we wish to thank them for the Frystyk implemented RFC 2068 early, and we wish to thank them for the
discovery of many of the problems that this document attempts to discovery of many of the problems that this document attempts to
rectify. rectify.
16.2. (This Document) 16.2. (This Document)
This document has benefited greatly from the comments of all those This document has benefited greatly from the comments of all those
participating in the HTTP-WG. In particular, we thank Scott Lawrence participating in the HTTP-WG. In particular, we thank Scott Lawrence
for maintaining the RFC2616 Errata list, and Roy Fielding, Bjoern for maintaining the RFC2616 Errata list, and Mark Baker, Roy
Hoehrmann, Larry Masinter, Howard Melman, Jeff Mogul and Alex Fielding, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Brian Kell, Jamie Lokier, Larry Masinter,
Rousskov for contributions to it. Howard Melman, Alexey Melnikov, Jeff Mogul, Henrik Nordstrom, Alex
Rousskov, Travis Snoozy and Dan Winship for contributions to it.
17. References 17. References
17.1. References 17.1. References (to be classified)
[ISO-8859] [ISO-8859-1]
International Organization for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology - 8-bit single byte coded graphic "Information technology - 8-bit single byte coded graphic
- character sets", 1987-1990. - character sets", 1987-1990.
Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987. Part 2: Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987. Part 2:
Latin alphabet No. 2, ISO-8859-2, 1987. Part 3: Latin Latin alphabet No. 2, ISO-8859-2, 1987. Part 3: Latin
alphabet No. 3, ISO-8859-3, 1988. Part 4: Latin alphabet alphabet No. 3, ISO-8859-3, 1988. Part 4: Latin alphabet
No. 4, ISO-8859-4, 1988. Part 5: Latin/Cyrillic alphabet, No. 4, ISO-8859-4, 1988. Part 5: Latin/Cyrillic alphabet,
ISO-8859-5, 1988. Part 6: Latin/Arabic alphabet, ISO- ISO-8859-5, 1988. Part 6: Latin/Arabic alphabet, ISO-
8859-6, 1987. Part 7: Latin/Greek alphabet, ISO-8859-7, 8859-6, 1987. Part 7: Latin/Greek alphabet, ISO-8859-7,
skipping to change at page 171, line 13 skipping to change at page 172, line 13
RFC 1436, March 1993. RFC 1436, March 1993.
[RFC1590] Postel, J., "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590, [RFC1590] Postel, J., "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590,
March 1994. March 1994.
[RFC1630] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A [RFC1630] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A
Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses
of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web", of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web",
RFC 1630, June 1994. RFC 1630, June 1994.
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
RFC 1700, October 1994.
[RFC1737] Masinter, L. and K. Sollins, "Functional Requirements for [RFC1737] Masinter, L. and K. Sollins, "Functional Requirements for
Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994. Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994.
[RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform [RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform
Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994. Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
[RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of [RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995. Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.
[RFC1806] Troost, R. and S. Dorner, "Communicating Presentation [RFC1806] Troost, R. and S. Dorner, "Communicating Presentation
skipping to change at page 173, line 33 skipping to change at page 174, line 29
[RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, [RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10,
RFC 821, August 1982. RFC 821, August 1982.
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet [RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982. text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[RFC959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", [RFC959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985. STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
[RFC977] Kantor, B. and P. Lapsley, "Network News Transfer
Protocol", RFC 977, February 1986.
[Spero] Spero, S., "Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems", [Spero] Spero, S., "Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems",
<http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdma-release/http-prob.html>. <http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdma-release/http-prob.html>.
[Tou1998] Touch, J., Heidemann, J., and K. Obraczka, "Analysis of [Tou1998] Touch, J., Heidemann, J., and K. Obraczka, "Analysis of
HTTP Performance", ISI Research Report ISI/RR-98-463 HTTP Performance", ISI Research Report ISI/RR-98-463
(original report dated Aug.1996), Aug 1998, (original report dated Aug.1996), Aug 1998,
<http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/http-perf96/>. <http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/http-perf96/>.
[USASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character [USASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
skipping to change at page 175, line 5 skipping to change at page 174, line 52
Wang, R., Sui, J., and M. Grinbaum, "WAIS Interface Wang, R., Sui, J., and M. Grinbaum, "WAIS Interface
Protocol Prototype Functional Specification (v1.5)", Protocol Prototype Functional Specification (v1.5)",
Thinking Machines Corporation , April 1990. Thinking Machines Corporation , April 1990.
17.2. Informative References 17.2. Informative References
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3977] Feather, C., "Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)",
RFC 3977, October 2006.
URIs URIs
[1] <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org> [1] <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
[2] <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe> [2] <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe>
[3] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-01>
Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and application/http Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and application/http
In addition to defining the HTTP/1.1 protocol, this document serves In addition to defining the HTTP/1.1 protocol, this document serves
as the specification for the Internet media type "message/http" and as the specification for the Internet media type "message/http" and
"application/http". The message/http type can be used to enclose a "application/http". The message/http type can be used to enclose a
single HTTP request or response message, provided that it obeys the single HTTP request or response message, provided that it obeys the
MIME restrictions for all "message" types regarding line length and MIME restrictions for all "message" types regarding line length and
encodings. The application/http type can be used to enclose a encodings. The application/http type can be used to enclose a
pipeline of one or more HTTP request or response messages (not pipeline of one or more HTTP request or response messages (not
intermixed). The following is to be registered with IANA [RFC1590]. intermixed). The following is to be registered with IANA [RFC1590].
skipping to change at page 189, line 18 skipping to change at page 190, line 18
(Section 13.1.2, 13.2.4, 13.5.2, 13.5.3, 14.9.3, and 14.46) Warning (Section 13.1.2, 13.2.4, 13.5.2, 13.5.3, 14.9.3, and 14.46) Warning
also needed to be a general header, as PUT or other methods may have also needed to be a general header, as PUT or other methods may have
need for it in requests. need for it in requests.
Transfer-coding had significant problems, particularly with Transfer-coding had significant problems, particularly with
interactions with chunked encoding. The solution is that transfer- interactions with chunked encoding. The solution is that transfer-
codings become as full fledged as content-codings. This involves codings become as full fledged as content-codings. This involves
adding an IANA registry for transfer-codings (separate from content adding an IANA registry for transfer-codings (separate from content
codings), a new header field (TE) and enabling trailer headers in the codings), a new header field (TE) and enabling trailer headers in the
future. Transfer encoding is a major performance benefit, so it was future. Transfer encoding is a major performance benefit, so it was
worth fixing [39]. TE also solves another, obscure, downward worth fixing [Nie1997]. TE also solves another, obscure, downward
interoperability problem that could have occurred due to interactions interoperability problem that could have occurred due to interactions
between authentication trailers, chunked encoding and HTTP/1.0 between authentication trailers, chunked encoding and HTTP/1.0
clients.(Section 3.6, 3.6.1, and 14.39) clients.(Section 3.6, 3.6.1, and 14.39)
The PATCH, LINK, UNLINK methods were defined but not commonly The PATCH, LINK, UNLINK methods were defined but not commonly
implemented in previous versions of this specification. See implemented in previous versions of this specification. See
[RFC2068]. [RFC2068].
The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and
Content-Base header fields were defined in previous versions of this Content-Base header fields were defined in previous versions of this
skipping to change at page 190, line 11 skipping to change at page 191, line 11
Clarify definition of POST. (Section 9.5) Clarify definition of POST. (Section 9.5)
Clarify that it's not ok to use a weak cache validator in a 206 Clarify that it's not ok to use a weak cache validator in a 206
response. (Section 10.2.7) response. (Section 10.2.7)
Failed to consider that there are many other request methods that are Failed to consider that there are many other request methods that are
safe to automatically redirect, and further that the user agent is safe to automatically redirect, and further that the user agent is
able to make that determination based on the request method able to make that determination based on the request method
semantics. (Sections 10.3.2, 10.3.3 and 10.3.8 ) semantics. (Sections 10.3.2, 10.3.3 and 10.3.8 )
Fix misspelled header. (Section 13.5.1) Fix misspelled header and clarify requirements for hop-by-hop headers
introduced in future specifications. (Section 13.5.1)
Clarify denial of service attack avoidance requirement. Clarify denial of service attack avoidance requirement.
(Section 13.10) (Section 13.10)
Clarify exactly when close connection options must be sent. Clarify exactly when close connection options must be sent.
(Section 14.10) (Section 14.10)
Correct syntax of Location header to allow fragment, as referred Correct syntax of Location header to allow fragment, as referred
symbol wasn't what was expected, and add some clarifications as to symbol wasn't what was expected, and add some clarifications as to
when it would not be appropriate. (Section 14.30) when it would not be appropriate. (Section 14.30)
skipping to change at page 192, line 5 skipping to change at page 192, line 49
Resolve issues "location-fragments" (by moving the remaining issue Resolve issues "location-fragments" (by moving the remaining issue
into the new issue "fragment-combination") and "media-reg" (by adding into the new issue "fragment-combination") and "media-reg" (by adding
"rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete" instead). "rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete" instead).
Reopen and close issue "rfc2606-compliance" again (other instances Reopen and close issue "rfc2606-compliance" again (other instances
where found). where found).
Add and resolve issue "references_style". Add and resolve issue "references_style".
G.4. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02
Add issues "i21-put-side-effects", "i34-updated-reference-for-uris",
"i50-misc-typos", "i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date", "i52-sort-1.3-
terminology", "i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2", "i54-definition-of-1xx-
warn-codes", "i55-updating-to-rfc4288", "i56-6.1.1-can-be-misread-as-
a-complete-list", "i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase", "i58-what-
identifies-an-http-resource", "i59-status-code-registry", "i60-
13.5.1-and-13.5.2", "i61-redirection-vs-location", "i62-whitespace-
in-quoted-pair", "i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words" and
"i67-quoting-charsets".
Add and resolve issues "i45-rfc977-reference", "i46-rfc1700_remove",
"i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation", "i48-date-reference-
typo" and "i49-connection-header-text".
Rename "References" to "References (to be classified)".
Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) publication)
Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this
document. document.
H.1. rfc2606-compliance H.1. i45-rfc977-reference
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i42> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i45>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-19): Make sure that domain julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-26): Classify RFC977 (NNTP) as
names in examples use names reserved for that purpose (see RFC2606). informative, and update the reference to RFC3977.
Resolution (2006-11-02): Done. Resolution (2006-10-26): Done.
H.2. references_style H.2. i46-rfc1700_remove
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/ <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i46>
0182.html>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-12): Change references style to julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-12): RFC1700 ("ASSIGNED
symbolic ("[RFC2396]") instead of ("[42]"). NUMBERS") has been obsoleted by RFC3232 ("Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700
is Replaced by an On-line Database").
draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00 just updates the reference, which I
think is a bug.
In fact, RFC2616 refers to RCF1700
(1) for the definition of the default TCP port (Section 1.4),
(2) for a reference to the character set registry (Section 3.4) and
(3) for a reference to the media type registry (Section 3.7).
I propose to remove the reference, and to make the following changes:
(1) Replace reference with in-lined URL of the IANA port registry,
(2) Replace the first reference with the in-lined URL of the IANA
character set registry, and drop the second one, and
(3) Drop the reference, as the next sentence refers to the Media Type
Registration Process anyway.
(see also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2006OctDec/0181.html>
Resolution (2006-11-19): Done. Resolution (2007-03-18): Accepted during the Prague meeting, see
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action21.
H.3. media-reg H.3. i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation
In Section 3.7: In Section 3.3.1:
Type: change Type: edit
<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i47>
derhoermi@gmx.net (2000-09-10): See julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-20): Should say "...obsolete
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/2000SepDec/0013. RFC1036 date format [...]..." instead of "...obsolete RFC 850 [12]
date format...".
See also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2006OctDec/0187.html>.
Resolution (2006-11-14): Done (note that RFC2048 has been obsoleted Resolution (2006-11-20): Done.
now as well; see separate issue rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete).
Note that the prosed resolution in
http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg contains typos both in the
original text ("4288" rather than "1590") and in the proposed
resolution ("Mulitpurpose").
H.4. location-fragments H.4. i49-connection-header-text
In Section 14.30: In Section 13.5.1:
Type: change Type: change
<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#location-fragments> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i49>
fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (1999-08-06): See julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-12-12): "Other hop-by-hop headers
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1999MayAug/0103. MUST be listed in a Connection header, (section 14.10) to be
introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later)." doesn't really make sense.
(See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/
0264.html>)
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-16): Fix BNF and add note about Jeff.Mogul@hp.com (2006-12-12): Proposed rewrite: " Other hop-by-hop
when it's appropriate to use fragments as suggested in headers, if they are introduced either in HTTP/1.1 or later versions
http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#location-fragments. This leaves us of HTTP/1.x, MUST be listed in a Connection header (Section 14.10)."
with the open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where (See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/
there was a fragment with the original URI, e.g.: 0265.html>)
http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1
redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is
'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1
within it? We don't have fragment combination rules._.
Resolution (2006-10-27): Close this issue (with fixes in draft 01), Resolution (2006-12-15): Resolve as proposed by Jeff Mogul in <http:/
and add the new issue fragment-combination to deal with the remaining /lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0265.html>.
issue.
H.5. i48-date-reference-typo
In Section 14.18:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i48>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-20): Should say "rfc1123-date
format [...]" instead of "[...]-date format".
See also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2006OctDec/0186.html>
hno@squid-cache.org (2006-11-29): Better without the [8], making it
an internal reference to the grammar. The rfc1123-date is not a copy
of RFC1123, only a subset thereof.
The relation to RFC 1123 is already well established elsewhere in
3.3.1, including the MUST level requirement on sending the RFC 1123
derived format.
A similar RFC 1123 reference which is better replaced by a rfc1123-
date grammar reference is also seen in 14.21 Last-Modified.
Resolution (2006-11-30): Done.
Appendix I. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to Appendix I. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
publication) publication)
I.1. rfc2616bis I.1. rfc2616bis
Type: edit Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-10): Umbrella issue for changes julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-10): Umbrella issue for changes
with respect to the revision process itself. with respect to the revision process itself.
I.2. unneeded_references I.2. unneeded_references
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/ <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0054>
0054.html>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-19): The reference entries for julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-19): The reference entries for
RFC1866, RFC2069 and RFC2026 are unused. Remove them? RFC1866, RFC2069 and RFC2026 are unused. Remove them?
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-02): See also
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0118 and
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i44.
I.3. edit I.3. edit
Type: edit Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-08): Umbrella issue for julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-08): Umbrella issue for
editorial fixes/enhancements. editorial fixes/enhancements.
I.4. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete I.4. i66-iso8859-1-reference
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i66>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-28): Classify ISO8859 as
normative, and simplify reference to only refer to ISO8859 Part 1
(because that's the only part needed here), and update to the 1998
version.
I.5. abnf
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i36>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-12-03): Update BNF to RFC4234
(plan to be added).
I.6. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete
Type: edit Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-15): Classify RFC2048 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-15): Classify RFC2048
("Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: ("Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four:
Registration Procedures") as informative, update to RFC4288, Registration Procedures") as informative, update to RFC4288,
potentially update the application/http and multipart/byteranges MIME potentially update the application/http and multipart/byteranges MIME
type registration. Also, in Section 3.7 fix first reference to refer type registration. Also, in Section 3.7 fix first reference to refer
to RFC2046 (it's about media types in general, not the registration to RFC2046 (it's about media types in general, not the registration
procedure). procedure).
I.5. languagetag julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-04-20): Separate issue for
updating the registration template: i55-updating-to-rfc4288.
I.7. i34-updated-reference-for-uris
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i34>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-14): Update RFC2396 ("Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax") to RFC3986.
I.8. i50-misc-typos
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i50>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-18): (See http://lists.w3.org/
Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0275.html).
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-06-29): Some of the strictly
editorial issues have been resolves as part of issue "edit".
I.9. i65-informative-references
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i65>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-05-28): The following references
are informative: Luo1998 ("Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web
proxy servers", also update reference to quote the expired Internet
Draft properly). Nie1997 ("Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1,
CSS1, and PNG"). Pad1995 ("Improving HTTP Latency"). RFC821 (SMTP),
also update the reference to RFC2821. RFC822 ("STANDARD FOR THE
FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES") -- but add another instance
as RFC822ABNF for the cases where the reference if for the ABNF part
(these references will later be replaced by references to RFC4234
(see issue abnf)). RFC959 (FTP). RFC1036 ("Standard for Interchange
of USENET Messages"). RFC1123 ("Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Application and Support") -- it is only used as a background
reference for rfc1123-date, which this spec defines itself (note this
disagrees with draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00 which made it
normative). RFC1305 ("Network Time Protocol (Version 3)"). RFC1436
(Gopher). RFC1630 (URI Syntax) -- there'll be a normative reference
to a newer spec. RFC1738 (URL) -- there'll be a normative reference
to a newer spec. RFC1806 ("Communicating Presentation Information in
Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header"). RFC1808
(Relative Uniform Resource Locators). RFC1867 ("Form-based File
Upload in HTML"), also update the reference to RFC2388 ("Returning
Values from Forms: multipart/form-data"). RFC1900 ("Renumbering
Needs Work"). RFC1945 (HTTP/1.0). RFC2026 ("The Internet Standards
Process -- Revision 3"). RFC2049 ("Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples").
RFC2068 (HTTP/1.1). RFC2076 ("Common Internet Message Headers").
RFC2110 (MHTML), also update the reference to RFC2557. RFC2145 ("Use
and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers"). RFC2183
("Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field"). RFC2277 ("IETF Policy on
Character Sets and Languages"). RFC2279 (UTF8), also update the
reference to RFC3629. RFC2324 (HTCPCP/1.0). Spero ("Analysis of
HTTP Performance Problems"). Tou1998 ("Analysis of HTTP
Performance"). WAIS ("WAIS Interface Protocol Prototype Functional
Specification (v1.5)").
derhoermi@gmx.net (2007-05-28): _On RFC1950-1952:_ Understanding
these documents is required in order to understand the coding values
defined for the coding registry established and used by the document;
why would it be appropriate to cite them as informative?
I.10. i52-sort-1.3-terminology
In Section 1.3:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i52>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-21): It's irritating to try and look
up definitions in section 1.3. IMHO, the entries really should be
sorted alphabetically, despite the fact that the terms have
dependencies on one another.
julian.reschke@greenytes.de (2006-06-15): See action item
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action23 and
proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2007AprJun/0350.html.
julian.reschke@greenytes.de (2006-06-15): I personally think we
should not do this change:
(1) Sorting paragraphs makes it very hard to verify the changes; in
essence, a reviewer would either need to trust us, or re-do the
shuffling to control whether it's correct (nothing lost, no change in
the definitions).
(2) In the RFC2616 ordering, things that belong together (such as
"client", "user agent", "server" ...) are close to each other.
(3) Contrary to RFC2616, the text version of new spec will contain an
alphabetical index section anyway (unless it's removed upon
publication :-).
I.11. i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words
In Section 2.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i63>
derhoermi@gmx.net (2007-05-14): (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0050.html).
I.12. i31-qdtext-bnf
In Section 2.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i31>
jamie@shareable.org (2004-03-15): ...I wrote a regular expression
based on the RFC 2616 definition, and that allows "foo\" as a quoted-
string. That's not intended, is it?
I.13. i62-whitespace-in-quoted-pair
In Section 2.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i62>
dan.winship@gmail.com (2007-04-20): (...) RFC 2822 updates RFC 822's
quoted-pair rule to disallow CR, LF, and NUL. We should probably
make the same change.
I.14. i58-what-identifies-an-http-resource
In Section 3.2.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i58>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-01-23): 3.2.2 really doesn't say what
identifies the resource:
"If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The
semantics are that the identified resource is located at the server
listening for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the
Request-URI for the resource is abs_path (Section 5.1.2)."
But it *does* say what part of the HTTP URL becomes the Request-URI,
and that definitively needs to be fixed.
I.15. i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date
In Section 3.3.1:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i51>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-18): On closer inspection, shouldn't
the BNF for that section (14.18) be "rfc1123-date" and not "HTTP-
date"? I mean, why say it's an HTTP-date, but only RFC 1123 form is
allowed (conflicting with the definition of HTTP-date)*? Likewise,
shouldn't we just use the rfc1123-date moniker throughout the
document whenever explicitly referring to only dates in RFC 1123
format?
I.16. i67-quoting-charsets
In Section 3.7:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i67>
maiera@de.ibm.com (2007-05-23): (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0065.html).
I.17. media-reg
In Section 3.7:
Type: change
<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg>
derhoermi@gmx.net (2000-09-10): See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/2000SepDec/0013.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-04-20): See also
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i8.
I.18. languagetag
In Section 3: In Section 3:
Type: change Type: change
<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#languagetag> <http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#languagetag>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-14): See julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-14): See
http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#languagetag. http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#languagetag.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-14): In the meantime RFC3066 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-14): In the meantime RFC3066
has been obsoleted by RFC4646. See also http://lists.w3.org/ has been obsoleted by RFC4646. See also
Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0001.html. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0001.
I.6. fragment-combination julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-15): See also
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i13.
I.19. i56-6.1.1-can-be-misread-as-a-complete-list
In Section 6.1.1:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i56>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-01-11): The second sentence in the
first paragraph can on a quick reading be misread as section 10
contains a complete definiton of all possible status codes, where it
in reality only has the status codes defined by this RFC.
I.20. i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase
In Section 6.1.1:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i57>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-01-11): 6.1.1 is apparently a bit
too vague about how applications should parse and process the
information, making some implementations parse the reason phrase
(probably exact matches on the complete status line, not just status
code) to determine the outcome.
There should be a SHOULD requirement or equivalent that applications
use the status code to determine the status of the response and only
process the Reason Phrase as a comment intended for humans.
It's true that later in the same section there is a reverse MAY
requirement implying this by saying that the phrases in the rfc is
just an example and may be replaced without affecting the protocol,
but apparently it's not sufficient for implementers to understand
that applications should not decide the outcome based on the reason
phrase.
I.21. i59-status-code-registry
In Section 6.1.1:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i59>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-02-18): The IANA status code
registry should be referred to.
I.22. i21-put-side-effects
In Section 9.6:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i21>
mnot@yahoo-inc.com (2006-04-03): (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/ietf-http-wg/2006AprJun/0002.html).
I.23. i54-definition-of-1xx-warn-codes
In Section 13.1.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i54>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-22): See
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i54.
I.24. i60-13.5.1-and-13.5.2
In Section 13.5:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i60>
mnot@yahoo-inc.com (2007-03-30): 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 describe how
proxies should handle headers, even though it's in a section entitled
"Caching in HTTP." People have a hard time finding them. Would it
be helpful to try to separate out the purely intermediary-related
material from section 13 to a more appropriate place (e.g., section
8, or a new section)?
I.25. i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2
In Section 13.5.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i53>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-20): Section 14.7 states:
"A proxy MUST NOT modify the Allow header field even if it does not
understand all the methods specified, since the user agent might have
other means of communicating with the origin server."
However, section 13.5.2 (Non-modifiable Headers) makes no mention of
Allow. This seems like an error, but I'm not entirely sure what the
fix should be -- remove 13.5.2 and push the (not-)modifiable
information in the definition of the respective headers, or to
maintain 13.5.2 in parallel with all of the header definitions, or to
push all the information out of the header definitions into 13.5.2.
The easy fix for now would be to just make a mention of Allow in
13.5.2.
Additionally, Server should also be included.
I.26. i25-accept-encoding-bnf
In Section 14.3:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i25>
abodeman@yahoo.com (2005-06-02): In section 14.3, the definition of
Accept-Encoding is given as follows:
Accept-Encoding = "Accept-Encoding" ":" 1#( codings [ ";" "q" "="
qvalue ] )
This definition implies that there must be at least one non-null
codings. However, just below this definition, one of the examples
given has an empty Accept-Encoding field-value:
Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip
Accept-Encoding:
Accept-Encoding: *
Accept-Encoding: compress;q=0.5, gzip;q=1.0
Accept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0
Furthermore, the fourth rule for testing whether a content-coding is
acceptable mentions the possibility that the field-value may be
empty.
It seems, then, that the definition for Accept-Encoding should be
revised:
Accept-Encoding = "Accept-Encoding" ":" #( codings [ ";" "q" "="
qvalue ] )
I.27. i61-redirection-vs-location
In Section 14.30:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i61>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-04-19): The first sentence could be
understood as if the presence of the "Location" response header
always implies some kind of redirection. See also http://
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0020.html.
I.28. fragment-combination
In Section 14.30: In Section 14.30:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i43> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i43>
fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (1999-08-06): See fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (1999-08-06): See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1999MayAug/0103. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1999MayAug/0103.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-29): Part of this was fixed in julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-29): Part of this was fixed in
draft 01 (see issue location-fragments). This leaves us with the draft 01 (see issue location-fragments). This leaves us with the
open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where there was a open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where there was a
fragment with the original URI, e.g.: fragment with the original URI, e.g.:
http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1 http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1
redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is
'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1 'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1
skipping to change at page 196, line 5 skipping to change at page 206, line 17
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-29): Part of this was fixed in julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-29): Part of this was fixed in
draft 01 (see issue location-fragments). This leaves us with the draft 01 (see issue location-fragments). This leaves us with the
open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where there was a open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where there was a
fragment with the original URI, e.g.: fragment with the original URI, e.g.:
http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1 http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1
redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is
'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1 'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1
within it? We don't have fragment combination rules._. See also within it? We don't have fragment combination rules._. See also
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i43. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i43.
I.29. i55-updating-to-rfc4288
In Section A:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i56>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-01-05): The update from RFC2048 to
RFC4288 requires minor modifications for the media type registrations
for "message/http", "application/http" and "multipart/byteranges".
Index Index
1 1
100 Continue (status code) 67 100 Continue (status code) 68
101 Switching Protocols (status code) 67 101 Switching Protocols (status code) 68
2 2
200 OK (status code) 68 200 OK (status code) 69
201 Created (status code) 68 201 Created (status code) 69
202 Accepted (status code) 68 202 Accepted (status code) 69
203 Non-Authoritative Information (status code) 69 203 Non-Authoritative Information (status code) 70
204 No Content (status code) 69 204 No Content (status code) 70
205 Reset Content (status code) 69 205 Reset Content (status code) 70
206 Partial Content (status code) 70 206 Partial Content (status code) 71
3 3
300 Multiple Choices (status code) 71 300 Multiple Choices (status code) 72
301 Moved Permanently (status code) 71 301 Moved Permanently (status code) 72
302 Found (status code) 72 302 Found (status code) 73
303 See Other (status code) 72 303 See Other (status code) 73
304 Not Modified (status code) 73 304 Not Modified (status code) 74
305 Use Proxy (status code) 73 305 Use Proxy (status code) 74
306 (Unused) (status code) 74 306 (Unused) (status code) 75
307 Temporary Redirect (status code) 74 307 Temporary Redirect (status code) 75
4 4
400 Bad Request (status code) 75 400 Bad Request (status code) 76
401 Unauthorized (status code) 75 401 Unauthorized (status code) 76
402 Payment Required (status code) 75 402 Payment Required (status code) 76
403 Forbidden (status code) 75 403 Forbidden (status code) 76
404 Not Found (status code) 75 404 Not Found (status code) 76
405 Method Not Allowed (status code) 76 405 Method Not Allowed (status code) 77
406 Not Acceptable (status code) 76 406 Not Acceptable (status code) 77
407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 76 407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 77
408 Request Timeout (status code) 77 408 Request Timeout (status code) 78
409 Conflict (status code) 77 409 Conflict (status code) 78
410 Gone (status code) 77 410 Gone (status code) 78
411 Length Required (status code) 78 411 Length Required (status code) 79
412 Precondition Failed (status code) 78 412 Precondition Failed (status code) 79
413 Request Entity Too Large (status code) 78 413 Request Entity Too Large (status code) 79
414 Request-URI Too Long (status code) 78 414 Request-URI Too Long (status code) 79
415 Unsupported Media Type (status code) 78 415 Unsupported Media Type (status code) 79
416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable (status code) 78 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable (status code) 79
417 Expectation Failed (status code) 79 417 Expectation Failed (status code) 80
5 5
500 Internal Server Error (status code) 79 500 Internal Server Error (status code) 80
501 Not Implemented (status code) 79 501 Not Implemented (status code) 80
502 Bad Gateway (status code) 79 502 Bad Gateway (status code) 80
503 Service Unavailable (status code) 80 503 Service Unavailable (status code) 81
504 Gateway Timeout (status code) 80 504 Gateway Timeout (status code) 81
505 HTTP Version Not Supported (status code) 80 505 HTTP Version Not Supported (status code) 81
A A
Accept header 111 Accept header 112
Accept-Charset header 113 Accept-Charset header 114
Accept-Encoding header 113 Accept-Encoding header 114
Accept-Language header 115 Accept-Language header 116
Accept-Ranges header 116 Accept-Ranges header 117
Age header 116 Age header 117
age 15 age 16
Allow header 117 Allow header 118
Alternates header 189 Alternates header 190
Authorization header 117 application/http Media Type 177
Authorization header 118
C C
Cache Directives Cache Directives
max-age 123, 125 max-age 124, 126
max-stale 123 max-stale 124
min-fresh 123 min-fresh 124
must-revalidate 125 must-revalidate 126
no-cache 121 no-cache 122
no-store 121 no-store 122
no-transform 126 no-transform 127
only-if-cached 125 only-if-cached 126
private 120 private 121
proxy-revalidate 126 proxy-revalidate 127
public 120 public 121
s-maxage 122 s-maxage 123
cache 14 cache 15
Cache-Control header 118 Cache-Control header 119
cacheable 14 cacheable 15
client 13 client 14
compress 29 compress 30
CONNECT method 66 CONNECT method 67
Connection header 128 Connection header 129
connection 12 connection 13
content negotiation 13 content negotiation 14
Content-Base header 189 Content-Base header 190
Content-Encoding header 129 Content-Disposition header 185
Content-Language header 129 Content-Encoding header 130
Content-Length header 130 Content-Language header 130
Content-Location header 131 Content-Length header 131
Content-MD5 header 132 Content-Location header 132
Content-Range header 133 Content-MD5 header 133
Content-Type header 135 Content-Range header 134
Content-Version header 189 Content-Type header 136
Content-Version header 190
D D
Date header 135 Date header 136
deflate 29 deflate 30
DELETE method 65 DELETE method 66
Derived-From header 189 Derived-From header 190
downstream 16 downstream 17
E E
entity 12 entity 13
ETag header 137 ETag header 138
Expect header 137 Expect header 138
Expires header 138 Expires header 139
explicit expiration time 15 explicit expiration time 16
F F
first-hand 14 first-hand 15
fresh 15 fresh 16
freshness lifetime 15 freshness lifetime 16
From header 139 From header 140
G G
gateway 14 gateway 15
GET method 62 GET method 63
Grammar Grammar
Accept 111 Accept 112
Accept-Charset 113 Accept-Charset 114
Accept-Encoding 113 Accept-Encoding 114
accept-extension 111 accept-extension 112
Accept-Language 115 Accept-Language 116
accept-params 111 accept-params 112
Accept-Ranges 116 Accept-Ranges 117
acceptable-ranges 116 acceptable-ranges 117
Age 118
age-value 118
Allow 118
ALPHA 22
asctime-date 28
attribute 31
Authorization 119
byte-content-range-spec 134
byte-range-resp-spec 134
byte-range-set 150
byte-range-spec 150
byte-ranges-specifier 150
bytes-unit 37
Cache-Control 120
cache-directive 120
cache-extension 120
cache-request-directive 120
cache-response-directive 120
CHAR 22
charset 29
chunk 32
chunk-data 32
chunk-ext-name 32
chunk-ext-val 32
chunk-extension 32
chunk-size 32
Chunked-Body 32
codings 114
comment 23
Connection 129
connection-token 129
content-coding 30
content-disposition 185
Content-Encoding 130
Content-Language 131
Content-Length 131
Content-Location 132
Content-MD5 133
Content-Range 134
content-range-spec 134
Content-Type 136
CR 22
CRLF 22
ctext 23
CTL 22
Date 136
date1 28
date2 28
date3 28
delta-seconds 28
DIGIT 22
disp-extension-parm 185
disp-extension-token 185
disposition-parm 185
disposition-type 185
entity-body 52
entity-header 52
entity-tag 37
ETag 138
Expect 138
expect-params 138
expectation 138
expectation-extension 138
Expires 139
extension-code 50
extension-header 52
extension-method 44
extension-pragma 148
field-content 40
field-name 40
field-value 40
filename-parm 185
first-byte-pos 150
From 140
general-header 43
generic-message 39
HEX 23
Host 141
HT 22
HTTP-date 28
HTTP-message 39
HTTP-Version 24
http_URL 26
If-Match 141
If-Modified-Since 142
If-None-Match 144
If-Range 145
If-Unmodified-Since 146
instance-length 134
language-range 116
language-tag 36
last-byte-pos 150
last-chunk 32
Last-Modified 146
LF 22
LOALPHA 22
Location 147
LWS 22
Max-Forwards 148
md5-digest 133
media-range 112
media-type 33
message-body 40
message-header 40
Method 44
MIME-Version 182
month 28
OCTET 22
opaque-tag 37
other-range-unit 37
parameter 31
Pragma 148
pragma-directive 148
primary-tag 36
product 35
product-version 35
protocol-name 158
protocol-version 158
Proxy-Authenticate 149
Proxy-Authorization 149
pseudonym 158
qdtext 23
quoted-pair 23
quoted-string 23
qvalue 36
Range 152
range-unit 37
ranges-specifier 150
Reason-Phrase 50
received-by 158
received-protocol 158
Referer 152
Request 44
request-header 47
Request-Line 44
Request-URI 45
Response 48
response-header 51
Retry-After 153
rfc850-date 28
rfc1123-date 28
separators 23
Server 153
SP 22
start-line 39
Status-Code 50
Status-Line 48
subtag 36
subtype 33
suffix-byte-range-spec 151
suffix-length 151
t-codings 154
TE 154
TEXT 22
time 28
token 23
Trailer 155
trailer 32
transfer-coding 31
Transfer-Encoding 155
transfer-extension 31
type 33
UPALPHA 22
Upgrade 156
User-Agent 157
value 31
Vary 157
Via 158
warn-agent 160
warn-code 160
warn-date 160
warn-text 160
Warning 160
warning-value 160
weak 37
weekday 28
wkday 28
WWW-Authenticate 162
gzip 30
H
HEAD method 63
Headers
Accept 112
Accept-Charset 114
Accept-Encoding 114
Accept-Language 116
Accept-Ranges 117
Age 117 Age 117
age-value 117 Allow 118
Allow 117 Alternate 190
ALPHA 21
asctime-date 27
attribute 30
Authorization 118 Authorization 118
byte-content-range-spec 133
byte-range-resp-spec 133
byte-range-set 149
byte-range-spec 149
byte-ranges-specifier 149
bytes-unit 36
Cache-Control 119 Cache-Control 119
cache-directive 119 Connection 129
cache-extension 119 Content-Base 190
cache-request-directive 119 Content-Disposition 185
cache-response-directive 119 Content-Encoding 130
CHAR 21
charset 28
chunk 31
chunk-data 31
chunk-ext-name 31
chunk-ext-val 31
chunk-extension 31
chunk-size 31
Chunked-Body 31
codings 113
comment 22
Connection 128
connection-token 128
content-coding 29
content-disposition 184
Content-Encoding 129
Content-Language 130 Content-Language 130
Content-Length 130 Content-Length 131
Content-Location 131 Content-Location 132
Content-MD5 132 Content-MD5 133
Content-Range 133 Content-Range 134
content-range-spec 133 Content-Type 136
Content-Type 135 Content-Version 190
CR 21 Date 136
CRLF 21 Derived-From 190
ctext 22 ETag 138
CTL 21 Expect 138
Date 135 Expires 139
date1 27 From 140
date2 27 Host 140
date3 27 If-Match 141
delta-seconds 27 If-Modified-Since 142
DIGIT 21 If-None-Match 144
disp-extension-parm 184 If-Range 145
disp-extension-token 184 If-Unmodified-Since 146
disposition-parm 184 Last-Modified 146
disposition-type 184 Link 190
entity-body 51 Location 147
entity-header 51 Max-Forwards 148
entity-tag 36 Pragma 148
ETag 137 Proxy-Authenticate 149
Expect 137 Proxy-Authorization 149
expect-params 137 Public 190
expectation 137
expectation-extension 137
Expires 138
extension-code 49
extension-header 51
extension-method 43
extension-pragma 147
field-content 39
field-name 39
field-value 39
filename-parm 184
first-byte-pos 149
From 139
general-header 42
generic-message 38
HEX 22
Host 139
HT 21
HTTP-date 27
HTTP-message 38
HTTP-Version 23
http_URL 25
If-Match 140
If-Modified-Since 141
If-None-Match 143
If-Range 144
If-Unmodified-Since 145
instance-length 133
language-range 115
language-tag 35
last-byte-pos 149
last-chunk 31
Last-Modified 145
LF 21
LOALPHA 21
Location 146
LWS 21
Max-Forwards 147
md5-digest 132
media-range 111
media-type 32
message-body 39
message-header 39
Method 43
MIME-Version 181
month 27
OCTET 21
opaque-tag 36
other-range-unit 36
parameter 30
Pragma 147
pragma-directive 147
primary-tag 35
product 34
product-version 34
protocol-name 157
protocol-version 157
Proxy-Authenticate 148
Proxy-Authorization 148
pseudonym 157
qdtext 22
quoted-pair 22
quoted-string 22
qvalue 35
Range 150 Range 150
range-unit 36 Referer 152
ranges-specifier 149 Retry-After 153
Reason-Phrase 49 Server 153
received-by 157 TE 154
received-protocol 157 Trailer 155
Referer 151 Transfer-Encoding 155
Request 43 Upgrade 156
request-header 46 URI 190
Request-Line 43 User-Agent 157
Request-URI 44 Vary 157
Response 47 Via 158
response-header 50 Warning 160
Retry-After 152 WWW-Authenticate 162
rfc850-date 27 heuristic expiration time 16
rfc1123-date 27 Host header 140
separators 22
Server 152
SP 21
start-line 38
Status-Code 49
Status-Line 47
subtag 35
subtype 32
suffix-byte-range-spec 150
suffix-length 150
t-codings 153
TE 153
TEXT 21
time 27
token 22
Trailer 154
trailer 31
transfer-coding 30
Transfer-Encoding 154
transfer-extension 30
type 32
UPALPHA 21
Upgrade 155
User-Agent 156
value 30
Vary 156
Via 157
warn-agent 159
warn-code 159
warn-date 159
warn-text 159
Warning 159
warning-value 159
weak 36
weekday 27
wkday 27
WWW-Authenticate 161
gzip 29
H
HEAD method 62
Headers