draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.txt   draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04.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 One Laptop per Child
Expires: January 1, 2008 HP Expires: May 21, 2008 J. Mogul
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
June 30, 2007 November 18, 2007
Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03 draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04
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 49
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 January 1, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.4. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar . . . . . . . . . 20 2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1. Augmented BNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.1. Augmented BNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2. Basic Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.2. Basic Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1. HTTP Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.1. HTTP Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2. Uniform Resource Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2. Uniform Resource Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.1. General Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.1. General Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.2. http URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.2.2. http URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.3. URI Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.2.3. URI Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3. Date/Time Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.3. Date/Time Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.3.1. Full Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.3.1. Full Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.3.2. Delta Seconds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.3.2. Delta Seconds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4. Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.4. Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4.1. Missing Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.4.1. Missing Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.5. Content Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.5. Content Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.6. Transfer Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.6. Transfer Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.6.1. Chunked Transfer Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.6.1. Chunked Transfer Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.7. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.7. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults . . . . . . . . . 34 3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults . . . . . . . . . 35
3.7.2. Multipart Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.7.2. Multipart Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.8. Product Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.8. Product Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.9. Quality Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.9. Quality Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.10. Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.10. Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.11. Entity Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.11. Entity Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.12. Range Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.12. Range Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4. HTTP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4. HTTP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.1. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2. Message Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.2. Message Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3. Message Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4.3. Message Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4. Message Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.4. Message Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.5. General Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4.5. General Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.1. Request-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.1. Request-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.1.1. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.1.1. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.1.2. Request-URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1.2. Request-URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.2. The Resource Identified by a Request . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.2. The Resource Identified by a Request . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.3. Request Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 5.3. Request Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.1. Status-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6.1. Status-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.1.1. Status Code and Reason Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6.1.1. Status Code and Reason Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.2. Response Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 6.2. Response Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.1. Entity Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7.1. Entity Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.2. Entity Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7.2. Entity Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.2.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 7.2.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.2.2. Entity Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 7.2.2. Entity Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8. Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8. Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1. Persistent Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.1. Persistent Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1.2. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.1.2. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1.3. Proxy Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8.1.3. Proxy Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.1.4. Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8.1.4. Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2. Message Transmission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 57 8.2. Message Transmission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 58
8.2.1. Persistent Connections and Flow Control . . . . . . 57 8.2.1. Persistent Connections and Flow Control . . . . . . 58
8.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages . . 57 8.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages . . 58
8.2.3. Use of the 100 (Continue) Status . . . . . . . . . . 58 8.2.3. Use of the 100 (Continue) Status . . . . . . . . . . 59
8.2.4. Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes 8.2.4. Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes
Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9. Method Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9. Method Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.1. Safe and Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.1. Safe and Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.1.1. Safe Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.1.1. Safe Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.1.2. Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.1.2. Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.2. OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 9.2. OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.3. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9.3. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9.4. HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9.4. HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9.5. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 9.5. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9.6. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 9.6. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9.7. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 9.7. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
9.8. TRACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 9.8. TRACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
9.9. CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 9.9. CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.1. Informational 1xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.1. Informational 1xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.1.1. 100 Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.1.1. 100 Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.1.2. 101 Switching Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.1.2. 101 Switching Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.2. Successful 2xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.2. Successful 2xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.1. 200 OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.2.1. 200 OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.2. 201 Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.2.2. 201 Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.3. 202 Accepted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.2.3. 202 Accepted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.4. 203 Non-Authoritative Information . . . . . . . . . 70 10.2.4. 203 Non-Authoritative Information . . . . . . . . . 70
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
15.4. Location Headers and Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 15.4. Location Headers and Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
15.5. Content-Disposition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 15.5. Content-Disposition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . 167 15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . 167
15.7. Proxies and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 15.7. Proxies and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
15.7.1. Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies . . . . . . . . 168 15.7.1. Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies . . . . . . . . 168
16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
16.1. (RFC2616) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 16.1. (RFC2616) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
16.2. (This Document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 16.2. (This Document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
17.1. References (to be classified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 17.1. References (to be classified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 17.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
17.3. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and
application/http . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 application/http . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Appendix B. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges . . . . . . 179 Appendix B. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges . . . . . . 179
Appendix C. Tolerant Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Appendix C. Tolerant Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Appendix D. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Appendix D. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045
Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D.1. MIME-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 D.1. MIME-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D.2. Conversion to Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 D.2. Conversion to Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D.3. Conversion of Date Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 D.3. Conversion of Date Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
D.4. Introduction of Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 D.4. Introduction of Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
skipping to change at page 10, line 33 skipping to change at page 10, line 34
Conserve IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Conserve IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
F.2. Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections . . . 187 F.2. Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections . . . 187
F.3. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 F.3. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
F.4. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 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) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
G.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 G.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
G.2. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 G.2. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
G.3. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 G.3. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
G.4. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 G.4. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
G.5. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor
before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
H.1. i45-rfc977-reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 H.1. unneeded_references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
H.2. i46-rfc1700_remove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 H.2. consistent-reason-phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
H.3. i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation . . . . . . 194 H.3. i66-iso8859-1-reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
H.4. i49-connection-header-text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 H.4. abnf-edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
H.5. i48-date-reference-typo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 H.5. rfc1766_normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
H.6. i86-normative-up-to-date-references . . . . . . . . . . 196
H.7. i68-encoding-references-normative . . . . . . . . . . . 197
H.8. rfc2396_normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
H.9. usascii_normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
H.10. i65-informative-references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
H.11. i31-qdtext-bnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
H.12. i62-whitespace-in-quoted-pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
H.13. i26-import-query-bnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
H.14. i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation . . . . . . 200
H.15. media-reg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
H.16. i84-redundant-cross-references . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
H.17. i87-typo-in-13.2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
H.18. i25-accept-encoding-bnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
H.19. remove-CTE-abbrev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
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) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.1. rfc2616bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 I.1. rfc2616bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.2. unneeded_references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 I.2. i35-split-normative-and-informative-references . . . . . 204
I.3. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 I.3. i40-header-registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.4. i66-iso8859-1-reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 I.4. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.5. abnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 I.5. abnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.6. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 I.6. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
I.7. i34-updated-reference-for-uris . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 I.7. i34-updated-reference-for-uris . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
I.8. i50-misc-typos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 I.8. i50-misc-typos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
I.9. i65-informative-references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 I.9. i52-sort-1.3-terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
I.10. i52-sort-1.3-terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 I.10. i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words . . . . . . . 206
I.11. i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words . . . . . . . 200 I.11. i74-character-encodings-for-headers . . . . . . . . . . 207
I.12. i31-qdtext-bnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 I.12. i64-ws-in-quoted-pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
I.13. i62-whitespace-in-quoted-pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 I.13. i75-rfc2145-normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
I.14. i58-what-identifies-an-http-resource . . . . . . . . . . 201 I.14. i82-rel_path-not-used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
I.15. i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 I.15. i58-what-identifies-an-http-resource . . . . . . . . . . 209
I.16. i67-quoting-charsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 I.16. i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
I.17. media-reg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 I.17. i73-clarification-of-the-term-deflate . . . . . . . . . 210
I.18. languagetag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 I.18. i67-quoting-charsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
I.19. i56-6.1.1-can-be-misread-as-a-complete-list . . . . . . 202 I.19. i20-default-charsets-for-text-media-types . . . . . . . 210
I.20. i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 203 I.20. languagetag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
I.21. i59-status-code-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 I.21. i85-custom-ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
I.22. i21-put-side-effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 I.22. i30-header-lws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
I.23. i54-definition-of-1xx-warn-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 I.23. i77-line-folding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
I.24. i60-13.5.1-and-13.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 I.24. i19-bodies-on-GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
I.25. i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 I.25. i28-connection-closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
I.26. i25-accept-encoding-bnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 I.26. i32-options-asterisk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
I.27. i61-redirection-vs-location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 I.27. i83-options-asterisk-and-proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
I.28. fragment-combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 I.28. i56-6.1.1-can-be-misread-as-a-complete-list . . . . . . 216
I.29. i55-updating-to-rfc4288 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 I.29. i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 I.30. i59-status-code-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 I.31. i72-request-method-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . 222 I.32. i21-put-side-effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
I.33. i27-put-idempotency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
I.34. i79-content-headers-vs-put . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
I.35. i33-trace-security-considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 219
I.36. i69-clarify-requested-variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
I.37. i70-cacheability-of-303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
I.38. i76-deprecate-305-use-proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
I.39. i78-relationship-between-401-authorization-and-www-authe 223
I.40. i24-requiring-allow-in-405-responses . . . . . . . . . . 224
I.41. i81-content-negotiation-for-media-types . . . . . . . . 224
I.42. i54-definition-of-1xx-warn-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
I.43. i29-age-calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
I.44. i71-examples-for-etag-matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
I.45. i60-13.5.1-and-13.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
I.46. i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
I.47. i37-vary-and-non-existant-headers . . . . . . . . . . . 228
I.48. i38-mismatched-vary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
I.49. i39-etag-uniqueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
I.50. i23-no-store-invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
I.51. i80-content-location-is-not-special . . . . . . . . . . 230
I.52. i22-etag-and-other-metadata-in-status-messages . . . . . 231
I.53. i61-redirection-vs-location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
I.54. fragment-combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
I.55. i41-security-considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
I.56. i55-updating-to-rfc4288 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . 248
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 12, line 36 skipping to change at page 13, line 36
This protocol includes more stringent requirements than HTTP/1.0 in This protocol includes more stringent requirements than HTTP/1.0 in
order to ensure reliable implementation of its features. order to ensure reliable implementation of its features.
Practical information systems require more functionality than simple Practical information systems require more functionality than simple
retrieval, including search, front-end update, and annotation. HTTP retrieval, including search, front-end update, and annotation. HTTP
allows an open-ended set of methods and headers that indicate the allows an open-ended set of methods and headers that indicate the
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
as defined by the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [RFC2822] as defined by the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
[RFC2045]. (MIME) [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 [RFC3977], FTP [RFC959], those supported by the SMTP [RFC2821], 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 20, line 11 skipping to change at page 21, line 11
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
All of the mechanisms specified in this document are described in All of the mechanisms specified in this document are described in
both prose and an augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) similar to that both prose and an augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) similar to that
used by [RFC822]. Implementors will need to be familiar with the used by [RFC822ABNF]. Implementors will need to be familiar with the
notation in order to understand this specification. The augmented notation in order to understand this specification. The augmented
BNF includes the following constructs: BNF includes the following constructs:
name = definition name = definition
The name of a rule is simply the name itself (without any The name of a rule is simply the name itself (without any
enclosing "<" and ">") and is separated from its definition by the enclosing "<" and ">") and is separated from its definition by the
equal "=" character. White space is only significant in that equal "=" character. White space is only significant in that
indentation of continuation lines is used to indicate a rule indentation of continuation lines is used to indicate a rule
definition that spans more than one line. Certain basic rules are definition that spans more than one line. Certain basic rules are
skipping to change at page 23, line 36 skipping to change at page 24, line 36
In all other fields, parentheses are considered part of the field In all other fields, parentheses are considered part of the field
value. value.
comment = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")" comment = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")"
ctext = <any TEXT excluding "(" and ")"> ctext = <any TEXT excluding "(" and ")">
A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using
double-quote marks. double-quote marks.
quoted-string = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> ) quoted-string = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> )
qdtext = <any TEXT except <">> qdtext = <any TEXT excluding <"> and "\">
The backslash character ("\") MAY be used as a single-character The backslash character ("\") MAY be used as a single-character
quoting mechanism only within quoted-string and comment constructs. quoting mechanism only within quoted-string and comment constructs.
quoted-pair = "\" CHAR quoted-pair = "\" CHAR
3. Protocol Parameters 3. Protocol Parameters
3.1. HTTP Version 3.1. HTTP Version
skipping to change at page 25, line 34 skipping to change at page 26, line 34
3.2.1. General Syntax 3.2.1. General Syntax
URIs in HTTP can be represented in absolute form or relative to some URIs in HTTP can be represented in absolute form or relative to some
known base URI [RFC1808], depending upon the context of their use. known base URI [RFC1808], depending upon the context of their use.
The two forms are differentiated by the fact that absolute URIs The two forms are differentiated by the fact that absolute URIs
always begin with a scheme name followed by a colon. For definitive always begin with a scheme name followed by a colon. For definitive
information on URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform Resource information on URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics," [RFC2396] (which Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics," [RFC2396] (which
replaces [RFC1738] and [RFC1808]). This specification adopts the replaces [RFC1738] and [RFC1808]). This specification adopts the
definitions of "URI-reference", "absoluteURI", "relativeURI", "port", definitions of "URI-reference", "absoluteURI", "relativeURI", "port",
"host", "abs_path", "rel_path", and "authority" from that "host", "abs_path", "rel_path", "query", and "authority" from that
specification. specification.
The HTTP protocol does not place any a priori limit on the length of The HTTP protocol does not place any a priori limit on the length of
a URI. Servers MUST be able to handle the URI of any resource they a URI. Servers MUST be able to handle the URI of any resource they
serve, and SHOULD be able to handle URIs of unbounded length if they serve, and SHOULD be able to handle URIs of unbounded length if they
provide GET-based forms that could generate such URIs. A server provide GET-based forms that could generate such URIs. A server
SHOULD return 414 (Request-URI Too Long) status if a URI is longer SHOULD return 414 (Request-URI Too Long) status if a URI is longer
than the server can handle (see Section 10.4.15). than the server can handle (see Section 10.4.15).
Note: Servers ought to be cautious about depending on URI lengths Note: Servers ought to be cautious about depending on URI lengths
skipping to change at page 27, line 13 skipping to change at page 28, line 13
http://EXAMPLE.com:/%7esmith/home.html http://EXAMPLE.com:/%7esmith/home.html
3.3. Date/Time Formats 3.3. Date/Time Formats
3.3.1. Full Date 3.3.1. Full Date
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 ; obsolete RFC 850 format
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 other formats are described here only for
obsolete RFC 1036 date format [RFC1036] and lacks a four-digit year. compatibility with obsolete implementations. HTTP/1.1 clients and
HTTP/1.1 clients and servers that parse the date value MUST accept servers that parse the date value MUST accept all three formats (for
all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they MUST compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they MUST only generate the RFC
only generate the RFC 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values in header fields. See
in header fields. See Appendix C for further information. 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.
All HTTP date/time stamps MUST be represented in Greenwich Mean Time All HTTP date/time stamps MUST be represented in Greenwich Mean Time
(GMT), without exception. For the purposes of HTTP, GMT is exactly (GMT), without exception. For the purposes of HTTP, GMT is exactly
equal to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). This is indicated in the equal to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). This is indicated in the
first two formats by the inclusion of "GMT" as the three-letter first two formats by the inclusion of "GMT" as the three-letter
skipping to change at page 29, line 32 skipping to change at page 30, line 32
that registry. Applications SHOULD limit their use of character sets that registry. Applications SHOULD limit their use of 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]. [RFC3629] [RFC2277].
3.4.1. Missing Charset 3.4.1. Missing Charset
Some HTTP/1.0 software has interpreted a Content-Type header without Some HTTP/1.0 software has interpreted a Content-Type header without
charset parameter incorrectly to mean "recipient should guess." charset parameter incorrectly to mean "recipient should guess."
Senders wishing to defeat this behavior MAY include a charset Senders wishing to defeat this behavior MAY include a charset
parameter even when the charset is ISO-8859-1 and SHOULD do so when parameter even when the charset is ISO-8859-1 and SHOULD do so when
it is known that it will not confuse the recipient. it is known that it will not confuse the recipient.
Unfortunately, some older HTTP/1.0 clients did not deal properly with Unfortunately, some older HTTP/1.0 clients did not deal properly with
skipping to change at page 32, line 14 skipping to change at page 33, line 14
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for
transfer-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry contains the transfer-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry contains the
following tokens: "chunked" (Section 3.6.1), "gzip" (Section 3.5), following tokens: "chunked" (Section 3.6.1), "gzip" (Section 3.5),
"compress" (Section 3.5), and "deflate" (Section 3.5). "compress" (Section 3.5), and "deflate" (Section 3.5).
New transfer-coding value tokens SHOULD be registered in the same way New transfer-coding value tokens SHOULD be registered in the same way
as new content-coding value tokens (Section 3.5). as new content-coding value tokens (Section 3.5).
A server which receives an entity-body with a transfer-coding it does A server which receives an entity-body with a transfer-coding it does
not understand SHOULD return 501 (Unimplemented), and close the not understand SHOULD return 501 (Not Implemented), and close the
connection. A server MUST NOT send transfer-codings to an HTTP/1.0 connection. A server MUST NOT send transfer-codings to an HTTP/1.0
client. client.
3.6.1. Chunked Transfer Coding 3.6.1. Chunked Transfer Coding
The chunked encoding modifies the body of a message in order to The chunked encoding modifies the body of a message in order to
transfer it as a series of chunks, each with its own size indicator, transfer it as a series of chunks, each with its own size indicator,
followed by an OPTIONAL trailer containing entity-header fields. followed by an OPTIONAL trailer containing entity-header fields.
This allows dynamically produced content to be transferred along with This allows dynamically produced content to be transferred along with
the information necessary for the recipient to verify that it has the information necessary for the recipient to verify that it has
skipping to change at page 33, line 36 skipping to change at page 34, line 36
An example process for decoding a Chunked-Body is presented in An example process for decoding a Chunked-Body is presented in
Appendix D.6. Appendix D.6.
All HTTP/1.1 applications MUST be able to receive and decode the All HTTP/1.1 applications MUST be able to receive and decode the
"chunked" transfer-coding, and MUST ignore chunk-extension extensions "chunked" transfer-coding, and MUST ignore chunk-extension extensions
they do not understand. they do not understand.
3.7. Media Types 3.7. Media Types
HTTP uses Internet Media Types [RFC1590] in the Content-Type HTTP uses Internet Media Types [RFC2048] in the Content-Type
(Section 14.17) and Accept (Section 14.1) header fields in order to (Section 14.17) and Accept (Section 14.1) header fields in order to
provide open and extensible data typing and type negotiation. provide open and extensible data typing and type negotiation.
media-type = type "/" subtype *( ";" parameter ) media-type = type "/" subtype *( ";" parameter )
type = token type = token
subtype = token subtype = token
Parameters MAY follow the type/subtype in the form of attribute/value Parameters MAY follow the type/subtype in the form of attribute/value
pairs (as defined in Section 3.6). pairs (as defined in Section 3.6).
skipping to change at page 34, line 13 skipping to change at page 35, line 13
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). The media type registration process is outlined in Authority (IANA). The media type registration process is outlined in
[RFC1590]. Use of non-registered media types is discouraged. [RFC2048]. Use of non-registered media types is 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 35, line 33 skipping to change at page 36, 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 RFC 1867 [RFC1867]. request method, as described in [RFC2388].
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 39, line 15 skipping to change at page 40, line 15
4. HTTP Message 4. HTTP Message
4.1. Message Types 4.1. Message Types
HTTP messages consist of requests from client to server and responses HTTP messages consist of requests from client to server and responses
from server to client. from server to client.
HTTP-message = Request | Response ; HTTP/1.1 messages HTTP-message = Request | Response ; HTTP/1.1 messages
Request (Section 5) and Response (Section 6) messages use the generic Request (Section 5) and Response (Section 6) messages use the generic
message format of [RFC822] for transferring entities (the payload of message format of [RFC2822] for transferring entities (the payload of
the message). Both types of message consist of a start-line, zero or the message). Both types of message consist of a start-line, zero or
more header fields (also known as "headers"), an empty line (i.e., a more header fields (also known as "headers"), an empty line (i.e., a
line with nothing preceding the CRLF) indicating the end of the line with nothing preceding the CRLF) indicating the end of the
header fields, and possibly a message-body. header fields, and possibly a message-body.
generic-message = start-line generic-message = start-line
*(message-header CRLF) *(message-header CRLF)
CRLF CRLF
[ message-body ] [ message-body ]
start-line = Request-Line | Status-Line start-line = Request-Line | Status-Line
skipping to change at page 39, line 42 skipping to change at page 40, line 42
Certain buggy HTTP/1.0 client implementations generate extra CRLF's Certain buggy HTTP/1.0 client implementations generate extra CRLF's
after a POST request. To restate what is explicitly forbidden by the after a POST request. To restate what is explicitly forbidden by the
BNF, an HTTP/1.1 client MUST NOT preface or follow a request with an BNF, an HTTP/1.1 client MUST NOT preface or follow a request with an
extra CRLF. extra CRLF.
4.2. Message Headers 4.2. Message Headers
HTTP header fields, which include general-header (Section 4.5), HTTP header fields, which include general-header (Section 4.5),
request-header (Section 5.3), response-header (Section 6.2), and request-header (Section 5.3), response-header (Section 6.2), and
entity-header (Section 7.1) fields, follow the same generic format as entity-header (Section 7.1) fields, follow the same generic format as
that given in Section 3.1 of [RFC822]. Each header field consists of that given in Section 2.1 of [RFC2822]. Each header field consists
a name followed by a colon (":") and the field value. Field names of a name followed by a colon (":") and the field value. Field names
are case-insensitive. The field value MAY be preceded by any amount are case-insensitive. The field value MAY be preceded by any amount
of LWS, though a single SP is preferred. Header fields can be of LWS, though a single SP is preferred. Header fields can be
extended over multiple lines by preceding each extra line with at extended over multiple lines by preceding each extra line with at
least one SP or HT. Applications ought to follow "common form", least one SP or HT. Applications ought to follow "common form",
where one is known or indicated, when generating HTTP constructs, where one is known or indicated, when generating HTTP constructs,
since there might exist some implementations that fail to accept since there might exist some implementations that fail to accept
anything beyond the common forms. anything beyond the common forms.
message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ] message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ]
field-name = token field-name = token
skipping to change at page 41, line 23 skipping to change at page 42, line 23
(Section 5.1.1) does not allow sending an entity-body in requests. A (Section 5.1.1) does not allow sending an entity-body in requests. A
server SHOULD read and forward a message-body on any request; if the server SHOULD read and forward a message-body on any request; if the
request method does not include defined semantics for an entity-body, request method does not include defined semantics for an entity-body,
then the message-body SHOULD be ignored when handling the request. then the message-body SHOULD be ignored when handling the request.
For response messages, whether or not a message-body is included with For response messages, whether or not a message-body is included with
a message is dependent on both the request method and the response a message is dependent on both the request method and the response
status code (Section 6.1.1). All responses to the HEAD request status code (Section 6.1.1). All responses to the HEAD request
method MUST NOT include a message-body, even though the presence of method MUST NOT include a message-body, even though the presence of
entity-header fields might lead one to believe they do. All 1xx entity-header fields might lead one to believe they do. All 1xx
(informational), 204 (no content), and 304 (not modified) responses (informational), 204 (No Content), and 304 (Not Modified) responses
MUST NOT include a message-body. All other responses do include a MUST NOT include a message-body. All other responses do include a
message-body, although it MAY be of zero length. message-body, although it MAY be of zero length.
4.4. Message Length 4.4. Message Length
The transfer-length of a message is the length of the message-body as The transfer-length of a message is the length of the message-body as
it appears in the message; that is, after any transfer-codings have it appears in the message; that is, after any transfer-codings have
been applied. When a message-body is included with a message, the been applied. When a message-body is included with a message, the
transfer-length of that body is determined by one of the following transfer-length of that body is determined by one of the following
(in order of precedence): (in order of precedence):
skipping to change at page 42, line 28 skipping to change at page 43, line 28
5. By the server closing the connection. (Closing the connection 5. By the server closing the connection. (Closing the connection
cannot be used to indicate the end of a request body, since that cannot be used to indicate the end of a request body, since that
would leave no possibility for the server to send back a would leave no possibility for the server to send back a
response.) response.)
For compatibility with HTTP/1.0 applications, HTTP/1.1 requests For compatibility with HTTP/1.0 applications, HTTP/1.1 requests
containing a message-body MUST include a valid Content-Length header containing a message-body MUST include a valid Content-Length header
field unless the server is known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant. If a field unless the server is known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant. If a
request contains a message-body and a Content-Length is not given, request contains a message-body and a Content-Length is not given,
the server SHOULD respond with 400 (bad request) if it cannot the server SHOULD respond with 400 (Bad Request) if it cannot
determine the length of the message, or with 411 (length required) if determine the length of the message, or with 411 (Length Required) if
it wishes to insist on receiving a valid Content-Length. it wishes to insist on receiving a valid Content-Length.
All HTTP/1.1 applications that receive entities MUST accept the All HTTP/1.1 applications that receive entities MUST accept the
"chunked" transfer-coding (Section 3.6), thus allowing this mechanism "chunked" transfer-coding (Section 3.6), thus allowing this mechanism
to be used for messages when the message length cannot be determined to be used for messages when the message length cannot be determined
in advance. in advance.
Messages MUST NOT include both a Content-Length header field and a Messages MUST NOT include both a Content-Length header field and a
transfer-coding. If the message does include a transfer-coding, the transfer-coding. If the message does include a transfer-coding, the
Content-Length MUST be ignored. Content-Length MUST be ignored.
skipping to change at page 64, line 49 skipping to change at page 65, line 49
If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response
SHOULD be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the SHOULD be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the
status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a Location status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a Location
header (see Section 14.30). header (see Section 14.30).
Responses to this method are not cacheable, unless the response Responses to this method are not cacheable, unless the response
includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields. includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields.
However, the 303 (See Other) response can be used to direct the user However, the 303 (See Other) response can be used to direct the user
agent to retrieve a cacheable resource. agent to retrieve a cacheable resource.
POST requests MUST obey the message transmission requirements set out
in Section 8.2.
See Section 15.1.3 for security considerations.
9.6. PUT 9.6. PUT
The PUT method requests that the enclosed entity be stored under the The PUT method requests that the enclosed entity be stored under the
supplied Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers to an already supplied Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers to an already
existing resource, the enclosed entity SHOULD be considered as a existing resource, the enclosed entity SHOULD be considered as a
modified version of the one residing on the origin server. If the modified version of the one residing on the origin server. If the
Request-URI does not point to an existing resource, and that URI is Request-URI does not point to an existing resource, and that URI is
capable of being defined as a new resource by the requesting user capable of being defined as a new resource by the requesting user
agent, the origin server can create the resource with that URI. If a agent, the origin server can create the resource with that URI. If a
new resource is created, the origin server MUST inform the user agent new resource is created, the origin server MUST inform the user agent
skipping to change at page 65, line 51 skipping to change at page 66, line 46
A single resource MAY be identified by many different URIs. For A single resource MAY be identified by many different URIs. For
example, an article might have a URI for identifying "the current example, an article might have a URI for identifying "the current
version" which is separate from the URI identifying each particular version" which is separate from the URI identifying each particular
version. In this case, a PUT request on a general URI might result version. In this case, a PUT request on a general URI might result
in several other URIs being defined by the origin server. in several other URIs being defined by the origin server.
HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an
origin server. origin server.
PUT requests MUST obey the message transmission requirements set out
in Section 8.2.
Unless otherwise specified for a particular entity-header, the Unless otherwise specified for a particular entity-header, the
entity-headers in the PUT request SHOULD be applied to the resource entity-headers in the PUT request SHOULD be applied to the resource
created or modified by the PUT. created or modified by the PUT.
9.7. DELETE 9.7. DELETE
The DELETE method requests that the origin server delete the resource The DELETE method requests that the origin server delete the resource
identified by the Request-URI. This method MAY be overridden by identified by the Request-URI. This method MAY be overridden by
human intervention (or other means) on the origin server. The client human intervention (or other means) on the origin server. The client
cannot be guaranteed that the operation has been carried out, even if cannot be guaranteed that the operation has been carried out, even if
skipping to change at page 71, line 42 skipping to change at page 71, line 42
If the 206 response is the result of an If-Range request, the If the 206 response is the result of an If-Range request, the
response SHOULD NOT include other entity-headers. Otherwise, the response SHOULD NOT include other entity-headers. Otherwise, the
response MUST include all of the entity-headers that would have been response MUST include all of the entity-headers that would have been
returned with a 200 (OK) response to the same request. returned with a 200 (OK) response to the same request.
A cache MUST NOT combine a 206 response with other previously cached A cache MUST NOT combine a 206 response with other previously cached
content if the ETag or Last-Modified headers do not match exactly, content if the ETag or Last-Modified headers do not match exactly,
see 13.5.4. see 13.5.4.
A cache that does not support the Range and Content-Range headers A cache that does not support the Range and Content-Range headers
MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial) responses. MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial Content) responses.
10.3. Redirection 3xx 10.3. Redirection 3xx
This class of status code indicates that further action needs to be This class of status code indicates that further action needs to be
taken by the user agent in order to fulfill the request. The action taken by the user agent in order to fulfill the request. The action
required MAY be carried out by the user agent without interaction required MAY be carried out by the user agent without interaction
with the user if and only if the method used in the second request is with the user if and only if the method used in the second request is
GET or HEAD. A client SHOULD detect infinite redirection loops, GET or HEAD. A client SHOULD detect infinite redirection loops,
since such loops generate network traffic for each redirection. since such loops generate network traffic for each redirection.
skipping to change at page 87, line 39 skipping to change at page 87, line 39
the origin server so specifies, it is the freshness requirement the origin server so specifies, it is the freshness requirement
of the origin server alone. If a stored response is not "fresh of the origin server alone. If a stored response is not "fresh
enough" by the most restrictive freshness requirement of both the enough" by the most restrictive freshness requirement of both the
client and the origin server, in carefully considered client and the origin server, in carefully considered
circumstances the cache MAY still return the response with the circumstances the cache MAY still return the response with the
appropriate Warning header (see Section 13.1.5 and 14.46), unless appropriate Warning header (see Section 13.1.5 and 14.46), unless
such a response is prohibited (e.g., by a "no-store" cache- such a response is prohibited (e.g., by a "no-store" cache-
directive, or by a "no-cache" cache-request-directive; see directive, or by a "no-cache" cache-request-directive; see
Section 14.9). Section 14.9).
3. It is an appropriate 304 (Not Modified), 305 (Proxy Redirect), or 3. It is an appropriate 304 (Not Modified), 305 (Use Proxy), or
error (4xx or 5xx) response message. error (4xx or 5xx) response message.
If the cache can not communicate with the origin server, then a If the cache can not communicate with the origin server, then a
correct cache SHOULD respond as above if the response can be correct cache SHOULD respond as above if the response can be
correctly served from the cache; if not it MUST return an error or correctly served from the cache; if not it MUST return an error or
warning indicating that there was a communication failure. warning indicating that there was a communication failure.
If a cache receives a response (either an entire response, or a 304 If a cache receives a response (either an entire response, or a 304
(Not Modified) response) that it would normally forward to the (Not Modified) response) that it would normally forward to the
requesting client, and the received response is no longer fresh, the requesting client, and the received response is no longer fresh, the
skipping to change at page 92, line 6 skipping to change at page 92, line 6
and history mechanisms. and history mechanisms.
13.2.2. Heuristic Expiration 13.2.2. Heuristic Expiration
Since origin servers do not always provide explicit expiration times, Since origin servers do not always provide explicit expiration times,
HTTP caches typically assign heuristic expiration times, employing HTTP caches typically assign heuristic expiration times, employing
algorithms that use other header values (such as the Last-Modified algorithms that use other header values (such as the Last-Modified
time) to estimate a plausible expiration time. The HTTP/1.1 time) to estimate a plausible expiration time. The HTTP/1.1
specification does not provide specific algorithms, but does impose specification does not provide specific algorithms, but does impose
worst-case constraints on their results. Since heuristic expiration worst-case constraints on their results. Since heuristic expiration
times might compromise semantic transparency, they ought to used times might compromise semantic transparency, they ought to be used
cautiously, and we encourage origin servers to provide explicit cautiously, and we encourage origin servers to provide explicit
expiration times as much as possible. expiration times as much as possible.
13.2.3. Age Calculations 13.2.3. Age Calculations
In order to know if a cached entry is fresh, a cache needs to know if In order to know if a cached entry is fresh, a cache needs to know if
its age exceeds its freshness lifetime. We discuss how to calculate its age exceeds its freshness lifetime. We discuss how to calculate
the latter in Section 13.2.4; this section describes how to calculate the latter in Section 13.2.4; this section describes how to calculate
the age of a response or cache entry. the age of a response or cache entry.
skipping to change at page 113, line 13 skipping to change at page 113, line 13
The example The example
Accept: audio/*; q=0.2, audio/basic Accept: audio/*; q=0.2, audio/basic
SHOULD be interpreted as "I prefer audio/basic, but send me any audio SHOULD be interpreted as "I prefer audio/basic, but send me any audio
type if it is the best available after an 80% mark-down in quality." type if it is the best available after an 80% mark-down in quality."
If no Accept header field is present, then it is assumed that the If no Accept header field is present, then it is assumed that the
client accepts all media types. If an Accept header field is client accepts all media types. If an Accept header field is
present, and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable present, and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable
according to the combined Accept field value, then the server SHOULD according to the combined Accept field value, then the server SHOULD
send a 406 (not acceptable) response. send a 406 (Not Acceptable) response.
A more elaborate example is A more elaborate example is
Accept: text/plain; q=0.5, text/html, Accept: text/plain; q=0.5, text/html,
text/x-dvi; q=0.8, text/x-c text/x-dvi; q=0.8, text/x-c
Verbally, this would be interpreted as "text/html and text/x-c are Verbally, this would be interpreted as "text/html and text/x-c are
the preferred media types, but if they do not exist, then send the the preferred media types, but if they do not exist, then send the
text/x-dvi entity, and if that does not exist, send the text/plain text/x-dvi entity, and if that does not exist, send the text/plain
entity." entity."
skipping to change at page 114, line 40 skipping to change at page 114, line 40
matches every character set (including ISO-8859-1) which is not matches every character set (including ISO-8859-1) which is not
mentioned elsewhere in the Accept-Charset field. If no "*" is mentioned elsewhere in the Accept-Charset field. If no "*" is
present in an Accept-Charset field, then all character sets not present in an Accept-Charset field, then all character sets not
explicitly mentioned get a quality value of 0, except for ISO-8859-1, explicitly mentioned get a quality value of 0, except for ISO-8859-1,
which gets a quality value of 1 if not explicitly mentioned. which gets a quality value of 1 if not explicitly mentioned.
If no Accept-Charset header is present, the default is that any If no Accept-Charset header is present, the default is that any
character set is acceptable. If an Accept-Charset header is present, character set is acceptable. If an Accept-Charset header is present,
and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable
according to the Accept-Charset header, then the server SHOULD send according to the Accept-Charset header, then the server SHOULD send
an error response with the 406 (not acceptable) status code, though an error response with the 406 (Not Acceptable) status code, though
the sending of an unacceptable response is also allowed. the sending of an unacceptable response is also allowed.
14.3. Accept-Encoding 14.3. Accept-Encoding
The Accept-Encoding request-header field is similar to Accept, but The Accept-Encoding request-header field is similar to Accept, but
restricts the content-codings (Section 3.5) that are acceptable in restricts the content-codings (Section 3.5) that are acceptable in
the response. the response.
Accept-Encoding = "Accept-Encoding" ":" Accept-Encoding = "Accept-Encoding" ":"
1#( codings [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] ) #( codings [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
codings = ( content-coding | "*" ) codings = ( content-coding | "*" )
Examples of its use are: Examples of its use are:
Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip
Accept-Encoding: Accept-Encoding:
Accept-Encoding: * Accept-Encoding: *
Accept-Encoding: compress;q=0.5, gzip;q=1.0 Accept-Encoding: compress;q=0.5, gzip;q=1.0
Accept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0 Accept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0
A server tests whether a content-coding is acceptable, according to A server tests whether a content-coding is acceptable, according to
skipping to change at page 135, line 37 skipping to change at page 135, line 37
o 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
Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
Content-Range: bytes 21010-47021/47022 Content-Range: bytes 21010-47021/47022
Content-Length: 26012 Content-Length: 26012
Content-Type: image/gif Content-Type: image/gif
When an HTTP message includes the content of multiple ranges (for When an HTTP message includes the content of multiple ranges (for
example, a response to a request for multiple non-overlapping example, a response to a request for multiple non-overlapping
ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message. The multipart ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message. The multipart
media type used for this purpose is "multipart/byteranges" as defined media type used for this purpose is "multipart/byteranges" as defined
skipping to change at page 136, line 48 skipping to change at page 136, line 48
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 [RFC2822]. 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:
skipping to change at page 139, line 14 skipping to change at page 139, line 14
The Expect mechanism is hop-by-hop: that is, an HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST The Expect mechanism is hop-by-hop: that is, an HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST
return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a request return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a request
with an expectation that it cannot meet. However, the Expect with an expectation that it cannot meet. However, the Expect
request-header itself is end-to-end; it MUST be forwarded if the request-header itself is end-to-end; it MUST be forwarded if the
request is forwarded. request is forwarded.
Many older HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 applications do not understand the Many older HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 applications do not understand the
Expect header. Expect header.
See Section 8.2.3 for the use of the 100 (continue) status. See Section 8.2.3 for the use of the 100 (Continue) status.
14.21. Expires 14.21. Expires
The Expires entity-header field gives the date/time after which the The Expires entity-header field gives the date/time after which the
response is considered stale. A stale cache entry may not normally response is considered stale. A stale cache entry may not normally
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.
skipping to change at page 140, line 16 skipping to change at page 140, line 16
The presence of an Expires header field with a date value of some The presence of an Expires header field with a date value of some
time in the future on a response that otherwise would by default be time in the future on a response that otherwise would by default be
non-cacheable indicates that the response is cacheable, unless non-cacheable indicates that the response is cacheable, unless
indicated otherwise by a Cache-Control header field (Section 14.9). indicated otherwise by a Cache-Control header field (Section 14.9).
14.22. From 14.22. From
The From request-header field, if given, SHOULD contain an Internet The From request-header field, if given, SHOULD contain an Internet
e-mail address for the human user who controls the requesting user e-mail address for the human user who controls the requesting user
agent. The address SHOULD be machine-usable, as defined by "mailbox" agent. The address SHOULD be machine-usable, as defined by "mailbox"
in [RFC822] as updated by [RFC1123]: in Section 3.4 of [RFC2822]:
From = "From" ":" mailbox From = "From" ":" mailbox
An example is: An example is:
From: webmaster@w3.org From: webmaster@w3.org
This header field MAY be used for logging purposes and as a means for This header field MAY be used for logging purposes and as a means for
identifying the source of invalid or unwanted requests. It SHOULD identifying the source of invalid or unwanted requests. It SHOULD
NOT be used as an insecure form of access protection. The NOT be used as an insecure form of access protection. The
skipping to change at page 142, line 43 skipping to change at page 142, line 43
The result of a request having both an If-Match header field and The result of a request having both an If-Match header field and
either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since header fields is either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since header fields is
undefined by this specification. undefined by this specification.
14.25. If-Modified-Since 14.25. If-Modified-Since
The If-Modified-Since request-header field is used with a method to The If-Modified-Since request-header field is used with a method to
make it conditional: if the requested variant has not been modified make it conditional: if the requested variant has not been modified
since the time specified in this field, an entity will not be since the time specified in this field, an entity will not be
returned from the server; instead, a 304 (not modified) response will returned from the server; instead, a 304 (Not Modified) response will
be returned without any message-body. be returned without any message-body.
If-Modified-Since = "If-Modified-Since" ":" HTTP-date If-Modified-Since = "If-Modified-Since" ":" HTTP-date
An example of the field is: An example of the field is:
If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header and no Range header A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header and no Range header
requests that the identified entity be transferred only if it has requests that the identified entity be transferred only if it has
been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header. been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header.
skipping to change at page 146, line 4 skipping to change at page 146, line 4
If the client has no entity tag for an entity, but does have a Last- If the client has no entity tag for an entity, but does have a Last-
Modified date, it MAY use that date in an If-Range header. (The Modified date, it MAY use that date in an If-Range header. (The
server can distinguish between a valid HTTP-date and any form of server can distinguish between a valid HTTP-date and any form of
entity-tag by examining no more than two characters.) The If-Range entity-tag by examining no more than two characters.) The If-Range
header SHOULD only be used together with a Range header, and MUST be header SHOULD only be used together with a Range header, and MUST be
ignored if the request does not include a Range header, or if the ignored if the request does not include a Range header, or if the
server does not support the sub-range operation. server does not support the sub-range operation.
If the entity tag given in the If-Range header matches the current If the entity tag given in the If-Range header matches the current
entity tag for the entity, then the server SHOULD provide the entity tag for the entity, then the server SHOULD provide the
specified sub-range of the entity using a 206 (Partial content) specified sub-range of the entity using a 206 (Partial Content)
response. If the entity tag does not match, then the server SHOULD response. If the entity tag does not match, then the server SHOULD
return the entire entity using a 200 (OK) response. return the entire entity using a 200 (OK) response.
14.28. If-Unmodified-Since 14.28. If-Unmodified-Since
The If-Unmodified-Since request-header field is used with a method to The If-Unmodified-Since request-header field is used with a method to
make it conditional. If the requested resource has not been modified make it conditional. If the requested resource has not been modified
since the time specified in this field, the server SHOULD perform the since the time specified in this field, the server SHOULD perform the
requested operation as if the If-Unmodified-Since header were not requested operation as if the If-Unmodified-Since header were not
present. present.
skipping to change at page 158, line 37 skipping to change at page 158, line 37
client), play a role in the selection of the response representation. client), play a role in the selection of the response representation.
The "*" value MUST NOT be generated by a proxy server; it may only be The "*" value MUST NOT be generated by a proxy server; it may only be
generated by an origin server. generated by an origin server.
14.45. Via 14.45. Via
The Via general-header field MUST be used by gateways and proxies to The Via general-header field MUST be used by gateways and proxies to
indicate the intermediate protocols and recipients between the user indicate the intermediate protocols and recipients between the user
agent and the server on requests, and between the origin server and agent and the server on requests, and between the origin server and
the client on responses. It is analogous to the "Received" field of the client on responses. It is analogous to the "Received" field of
[RFC822] and is intended to be used for tracking message forwards, [RFC2822] and is intended to be used for tracking message forwards,
avoiding request loops, and identifying the protocol capabilities of avoiding request loops, and identifying the protocol capabilities of
all senders along the request/response chain. all senders along the request/response chain.
Via = "Via" ":" 1#( received-protocol received-by [ comment ] ) Via = "Via" ":" 1#( received-protocol received-by [ comment ] )
received-protocol = [ protocol-name "/" ] protocol-version received-protocol = [ protocol-name "/" ] protocol-version
protocol-name = token protocol-name = token
protocol-version = token protocol-version = token
received-by = ( host [ ":" port ] ) | pseudonym received-by = ( host [ ":" port ] ) | pseudonym
pseudonym = token pseudonym = token
skipping to change at page 169, line 10 skipping to change at page 169, line 10
15.7.1. Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies 15.7.1. Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies
They exist. They are hard to defend against. Research continues. They exist. They are hard to defend against. Research continues.
Beware. Beware.
16. Acknowledgments 16. Acknowledgments
16.1. (RFC2616) 16.1. (RFC2616)
This specification makes heavy use of the augmented BNF and generic This specification makes heavy use of the augmented BNF and generic
constructs defined by David H. Crocker for [RFC822]. Similarly, it constructs defined by David H. Crocker for [RFC822ABNF]. Similarly,
reuses many of the definitions provided by Nathaniel Borenstein and it reuses many of the definitions provided by Nathaniel Borenstein
Ned Freed for MIME [RFC2045]. We hope that their inclusion in this and Ned Freed for MIME [RFC2045]. We hope that their inclusion in
specification will help reduce past confusion over the relationship this specification will help reduce past confusion over the
between HTTP and Internet mail message formats. relationship between HTTP and Internet mail message formats.
The HTTP protocol has evolved considerably over the years. It has The HTTP protocol has evolved considerably over the years. It has
benefited from a large and active developer community--the many benefited from a large and active developer community--the many
people who have participated on the www-talk mailing list--and it is people who have participated on the www-talk mailing list--and it is
that community which has been most responsible for the success of that community which has been most responsible for the success of
HTTP and of the World-Wide Web in general. Marc Andreessen, Robert HTTP and of the World-Wide Web in general. Marc Andreessen, Robert
Cailliau, Daniel W. Connolly, Bob Denny, John Franks, Jean-Francois Cailliau, Daniel W. Connolly, Bob Denny, John Franks, Jean-Francois
Groff, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Hakon W. Lie, Ari Luotonen, Rob Groff, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Hakon W. Lie, Ari Luotonen, Rob
McCool, Lou Montulli, Dave Raggett, Tony Sanders, and Marc McCool, Lou Montulli, Dave Raggett, Tony Sanders, and Marc
VanHeyningen deserve special recognition for their efforts in VanHeyningen deserve special recognition for their efforts in
skipping to change at page 170, 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 Mark Baker, Roy for maintaining the RFC2616 Errata list, and Mark Baker, David Booth,
Fielding, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Brian Kell, Jamie Lokier, Larry Masinter, Adrien de Croy, Martin Duerst, Roy Fielding, Hugo Haas, Bjoern
Howard Melman, Alexey Melnikov, Jeff Mogul, Henrik Nordstrom, Alex Hoehrmann, Brian Kell, Jamie Lokier, Paul Marquess, Larry Masinter,
Rousskov, Travis Snoozy and Dan Winship for contributions to it. Howard Melman, Alexey Melnikov, Jeff Mogul, Henrik Nordstrom, Joe
Orton, Alex Rousskov, Travis Snoozy and Dan Winship for further
contributions.
17. References 17. References
17.1. References (to be classified) 17.1. References (to be classified)
[RFC1737] Masinter, L. and K. Sollins, "Functional Requirements for
Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994.
[RFC2048] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.
17.2. Normative References
[ISO-8859-1] [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 -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1", ISO/
IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.
Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987. Part 2: [RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
Latin alphabet No. 2, ISO-8859-2, 1987. Part 3: Latin Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.
alphabet No. 3, ISO-8859-3, 1988. Part 4: Latin alphabet
No. 4, ISO-8859-4, 1988. Part 5: Latin/Cyrillic alphabet, [RFC1864] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "The Content-MD5 Header Field",
ISO-8859-5, 1988. Part 6: Latin/Arabic alphabet, ISO- RFC 1864, October 1995.
8859-6, 1987. Part 7: Latin/Greek alphabet, ISO-8859-7,
1987. Part 8: Latin/Hebrew alphabet, ISO-8859-8, 1988. [RFC1950] Deutsch, L. and J-L. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format
Part 9: Latin alphabet No. 5, ISO-8859-9, 1990. Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996.
RFC1950 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less
stable than this specification. On the other hand, this
downward reference was present since [RFC2068] (published
in 1997), therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in
practice.
[RFC1951] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification
version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996.
RFC1951 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less
stable than this specification. On the other hand, this
downward reference was present since [RFC2068] (published
in 1997), therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in
practice.
[RFC1952] Deutsch, P., Gailly, J-L., Adler, M., Deutsch, L., and G.
Randers-Pehrson, "GZIP file format specification version
4.3", RFC 1952, May 1996.
RFC1952 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less
stable than this specification. On the other hand, this
downward reference was present since [RFC2068] (published
in 1997), therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in
practice.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996.
[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
RFC 2047, November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396,
August 1998.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
[RFC822ABNF]
Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[USASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.
17.3. Informative References
[Luo1998] Luotonen, A., "Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web [Luo1998] Luotonen, A., "Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web
proxy servers", Work in Progress. proxy servers", draft-luotonen-web-proxy-tunneling-01
(work in progress), August 1998.
[Nie1997] Nielsen, H., Gettys, J., Prud'hommeaux, E., Lie, H., and [Nie1997] Nielsen, H., Gettys, J., Prud'hommeaux, E., Lie, H., and
C. Lilley, "Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, C. Lilley, "Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1,
and PNG", Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '97, Cannes France , and PNG", Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '97, Cannes France ,
Sep 1997. Sep 1997.
[Pad1995] Padmanabhan, V. and J. Mogul, "Improving HTTP Latency", [Pad1995] Padmanabhan, V. and J. Mogul, "Improving HTTP Latency",
Computer Networks and ISDN Systems v. 28, pp. 25-35, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems v. 28, pp. 25-35,
Dec 1995. Dec 1995.
Slightly revised version of paper in Proc. 2nd Slightly revised version of paper in Proc. 2nd
International WWW Conference '94: Mosaic and the Web, Oct. International WWW Conference '94: Mosaic and the Web, Oct.
1994, which is available at <http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/ 1994, which is available at <http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/
IT94/Proceedings/DDay/mogul/HTTPLatency.html>. IT94/Proceedings/DDay/mogul/HTTPLatency.html>.
[RFC1036] Horton, M. and R. Adams, "Standard for interchange of
USENET messages", RFC 1036, December 1987.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[RFC1305] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) [RFC1305] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, March 1992. Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, March 1992.
[RFC1436] Anklesaria, F., McCahill, M., Lindner, P., Johnson, D., [RFC1436] Anklesaria, F., McCahill, M., Lindner, P., Johnson, D.,
Torrey, D., and B. Alberti, "The Internet Gopher Protocol Torrey, D., and B. Alberti, "The Internet Gopher Protocol
(a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)", (a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)",
RFC 1436, March 1993. RFC 1436, March 1993.
[RFC1590] Postel, J., "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590,
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.
[RFC1737] Masinter, L. and K. Sollins, "Functional Requirements for
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
Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.
[RFC1806] Troost, R. and S. Dorner, "Communicating Presentation [RFC1806] Troost, R. and S. Dorner, "Communicating Presentation
Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition
Header", RFC 1806, June 1995. Header", RFC 1806, June 1995.
[RFC1808] Fielding, R., "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", [RFC1808] Fielding, R., "Relative Uniform Resource Locators",
RFC 1808, June 1995. RFC 1808, June 1995.
[RFC1864] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "The Content-MD5 Header Field",
RFC 1864, October 1995.
[RFC1866] Berners-Lee, T. and D. Connolly, "Hypertext Markup
Language - 2.0", RFC 1866, November 1995.
[RFC1867] Masinter, L. and E. Nebel, "Form-based File Upload in
HTML", RFC 1867, November 1995.
[RFC1900] Carpenter, B. and Y. Rekhter, "Renumbering Needs Work", [RFC1900] Carpenter, B. and Y. Rekhter, "Renumbering Needs Work",
RFC 1900, February 1996. RFC 1900, February 1996.
[RFC1945] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Nielsen, "Hypertext [RFC1945] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Nielsen, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996.
[RFC1950] Deutsch, L. and J-L. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format
Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996.
[RFC1951] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification
version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996.
[RFC1952] Deutsch, P., Gailly, J-L., Adler, M., Deutsch, L., and G.
Randers-Pehrson, "GZIP file format specification version
4.3", RFC 1952, May 1996.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996.
[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
RFC 2047, November 1996.
[RFC2049] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail [RFC2049] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996. Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996.
[RFC2068] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., and T. [RFC2068] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., and T.
Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
RFC 2068, January 1997. RFC 2068, January 1997.
[RFC2069] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Leach, P.,
Luotonen, A., Sink, E., and L. Stewart, "An Extension to
HTTP : Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2069,
January 1997.
[RFC2076] Palme, J., "Common Internet Message Headers", RFC 2076, [RFC2076] Palme, J., "Common Internet Message Headers", RFC 2076,
February 1997. February 1997.
[RFC2110] Palme, J. and A. Hopmann, "MIME E-mail Encapsulation of
Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", RFC 2110,
March 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2145] Mogul, J., Fielding, R., Gettys, J., and H. Nielsen, "Use [RFC2145] Mogul, J., Fielding, R., Gettys, J., and H. Nielsen, "Use
and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers", RFC 2145, and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers", RFC 2145,
May 1997. May 1997.
[RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating [RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997. Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997.
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998. Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
[RFC2324] Masinter, L., "Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol [RFC2324] Masinter, L., "Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol
(HTCPCP/1.0)", RFC 2324, April 1998. (HTCPCP/1.0)", RFC 2324, April 1998.
[RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC2388] Masinter, L., "Returning Values from Forms: multipart/
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, form-data", RFC 2388, August 1998.
August 1998.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., [RFC2557] Palme, F., Hopmann, A., Shelness, N., and E. Stefferud,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP "MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", (MHTML)", RFC 2557, March 1999.
RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
RFC 821, August 1982. Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", RFC 3629, STD 63, November 2003.
[RFC3977] Feather, C., "Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)",
RFC 3977, October 2006.
[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.
[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", USC/ISI ISI/RR-98-463, Dec 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 (Original report dated Aug. 1996)
Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.
[WAIS] Davis, F., Kahle, B., Morris, H., Salem, J., Shen, T., [WAIS] Davis, F., Kahle, B., Morris, H., Salem, J., Shen, T.,
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
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
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> [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 [RFC2048].
Media Type name: message Media Type name: message
Media subtype name: http Media subtype name: http
Required parameters: none Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: version, msgtype Optional parameters: version, msgtype
version: The HTTP-Version number of the enclosed message (e.g., version: The HTTP-Version number of the enclosed message (e.g.,
skipping to change at page 182, line 8 skipping to change at page 182, line 8
local time zone MUST NOT influence the calculation or comparison local time zone MUST NOT influence the calculation or comparison
of an age or expiration time. of an age or expiration time.
o If an HTTP header incorrectly carries a date value with a time o If an HTTP header incorrectly carries a date value with a time
zone other than GMT, it MUST be converted into GMT using the most zone other than GMT, it MUST be converted into GMT using the most
conservative possible conversion. conservative possible conversion.
Appendix D. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities Appendix D. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities
HTTP/1.1 uses many of the constructs defined for Internet Mail HTTP/1.1 uses many of the constructs defined for Internet Mail
([RFC822]) and the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME ([RFC2822]) and the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME
[RFC2045]) to allow entities to be transmitted in an open variety of [RFC2045]) to allow entities to be transmitted in an open variety of
representations and with extensible mechanisms. However, RFC 2045 representations and with extensible mechanisms. However, RFC 2045
discusses mail, and HTTP has a few features that are different from discusses mail, and HTTP has a few features that are different from
those described in RFC 2045. These differences were carefully chosen those described in RFC 2045. These differences were carefully chosen
to optimize performance over binary connections, to allow greater to optimize performance over binary connections, to allow greater
freedom in the use of new media types, to make date comparisons freedom in the use of new media types, to make date comparisons
easier, and to acknowledge the practice of some early HTTP servers easier, and to acknowledge the practice of some early HTTP servers
and clients. and clients.
This appendix describes specific areas where HTTP differs from RFC This appendix describes specific areas where HTTP differs from RFC
skipping to change at page 183, line 41 skipping to change at page 183, line 41
media type, proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant media type, proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant
protocols MUST either change the value of the Content-Type header protocols MUST either change the value of the Content-Type header
field or decode the entity-body before forwarding the message. (Some field or decode the entity-body before forwarding the message. (Some
experimental applications of Content-Type for Internet mail have used experimental applications of Content-Type for Internet mail have used
a media-type parameter of ";conversions=<content-coding>" to perform a media-type parameter of ";conversions=<content-coding>" to perform
a function equivalent to Content-Encoding. However, this parameter a function equivalent to Content-Encoding. However, this parameter
is not part of RFC 2045). is not part of RFC 2045).
D.5. No Content-Transfer-Encoding D.5. No Content-Transfer-Encoding
HTTP does not use the Content-Transfer-Encoding (CTE) field of RFC HTTP does not use the Content-Transfer-Encoding field of RFC 2045.
2045. Proxies and gateways from MIME-compliant protocols to HTTP Proxies and gateways from MIME-compliant protocols to HTTP MUST
MUST remove any CTE encoding prior to delivering the response message remove any Content-Transfer-Encoding prior to delivering the response
to an HTTP client. message to an HTTP client.
Proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols are Proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols are
responsible for ensuring that the message is in the correct format responsible for ensuring that the message is in the correct format
and encoding for safe transport on that protocol, where "safe and encoding for safe transport on that protocol, where "safe
transport" is defined by the limitations of the protocol being used. transport" is defined by the limitations of the protocol being used.
Such a proxy or gateway SHOULD label the data with an appropriate Such a proxy or gateway SHOULD label the data with an appropriate
Content-Transfer-Encoding if doing so will improve the likelihood of Content-Transfer-Encoding if doing so will improve the likelihood of
safe transport over the destination protocol. safe transport over the destination protocol.
D.6. Introduction of Transfer-Encoding D.6. Introduction of Transfer-Encoding
skipping to change at page 184, line 32 skipping to change at page 184, line 32
read entity-header read entity-header
while (entity-header not empty) { while (entity-header not empty) {
append entity-header to existing header fields append entity-header to existing header fields
read entity-header read entity-header
} }
Content-Length := length Content-Length := length
Remove "chunked" from Transfer-Encoding Remove "chunked" from Transfer-Encoding
D.7. MHTML and Line Length Limitations D.7. MHTML and Line Length Limitations
HTTP implementations which share code with MHTML [RFC2110] HTTP implementations which share code with MHTML [RFC2557]
implementations need to be aware of MIME line length limitations. implementations need to be aware of MIME line length limitations.
Since HTTP does not have this limitation, HTTP does not fold long Since HTTP does not have this limitation, HTTP does not fold long
lines. MHTML messages being transported by HTTP follow all lines. MHTML messages being transported by HTTP follow all
conventions of MHTML, including line length limitations and folding, conventions of MHTML, including line length limitations and folding,
canonicalization, etc., since HTTP transports all message-bodies as canonicalization, etc., since HTTP transports all message-bodies as
payload (see Section 3.7.2) and does not interpret the content or any payload (see Section 3.7.2) and does not interpret the content or any
MIME header lines that might be contained therein. MIME header lines that might be contained therein.
Appendix E. Additional Features Appendix E. Additional Features
skipping to change at page 188, line 20 skipping to change at page 188, line 20
Clarified which error code should be used for inbound server failures Clarified which error code should be used for inbound server failures
(e.g. DNS failures). (Section 10.5.5). (e.g. DNS failures). (Section 10.5.5).
CREATE had a race that required an Etag be sent when a resource is CREATE had a race that required an Etag be sent when a resource is
first created. (Section 10.2.2). first created. (Section 10.2.2).
Content-Base was deleted from the specification: it was not Content-Base was deleted from the specification: it was not
implemented widely, and there is no simple, safe way to introduce it implemented widely, and there is no simple, safe way to introduce it
without a robust extension mechanism. In addition, it is used in a without a robust extension mechanism. In addition, it is used in a
similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML [RFC2110]. similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML [RFC2557].
Transfer-coding and message lengths all interact in ways that Transfer-coding and message lengths all interact in ways that
required fixing exactly when chunked encoding is used (to allow for required fixing exactly when chunked encoding is used (to allow for
transfer encoding that may not be self delimiting); it was important transfer encoding that may not be self delimiting); it was important
to straighten out exactly how message lengths are computed. to straighten out exactly how message lengths are computed.
(Sections 3.6, 4.4, 7.2.2, 13.5.2, 14.13, 14.16) (Sections 3.6, 4.4, 7.2.2, 13.5.2, 14.13, 14.16)
A content-coding of "identity" was introduced, to solve problems A content-coding of "identity" was introduced, to solve problems
discovered in caching. (Section 3.5) discovered in caching. (Section 3.5)
skipping to change at page 190, line 33 skipping to change at page 190, line 33
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
specification, but not commonly implemented. See [RFC2068]. specification, but not commonly implemented. See [RFC2068].
F.4. Changes from RFC 2616 F.4. Changes from RFC 2616
Fix bug in BNF allowing backslash characters in qdtext production.
(Section 2.2)
Clarify that HTTP-Version is case sensitive. (Section 3.1) Clarify that HTTP-Version is case sensitive. (Section 3.1)
Eliminate overlooked reference to "unsafe" characters. Eliminate overlooked reference to "unsafe" characters.
(Section 3.2.3) (Section 3.2.3)
Clarify contexts that charset is used in. (Section 3.4) Clarify contexts that charset is used in. (Section 3.4)
Remove reference to non-existant identity transfer-coding value Remove reference to non-existant identity transfer-coding value
tokens. (Sections 3.6, 4.4 and D.5) tokens. (Sections 3.6, 4.4 and D.5)
skipping to change at page 191, line 17 skipping to change at page 191, line 20
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 and clarify requirements for hop-by-hop headers Fix misspelled header and clarify requirements for hop-by-hop headers
introduced in future specifications. (Section 13.5.1) 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)
Fix bug in BNF disallowing empty Accept-Encoding headers.
(Section 14.3)
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)
In the description of the Server header, the Via field was described In the description of the Server header, the Via field was described
as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated correctly in the as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated correctly in the
description of the Via header, Section 14.45. (Section 14.38) description of the Via header, Section 14.45. (Section 14.38)
skipping to change at page 194, line 5 skipping to change at page 193, line 18
13.5.1-and-13.5.2", "i61-redirection-vs-location", "i62-whitespace- 13.5.1-and-13.5.2", "i61-redirection-vs-location", "i62-whitespace-
in-quoted-pair", "i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words" and in-quoted-pair", "i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words" and
"i67-quoting-charsets". "i67-quoting-charsets".
Add and resolve issues "i45-rfc977-reference", "i46-rfc1700_remove", Add and resolve issues "i45-rfc977-reference", "i46-rfc1700_remove",
"i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation", "i48-date-reference- "i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation", "i48-date-reference-
typo" and "i49-connection-header-text". typo" and "i49-connection-header-text".
Rename "References" to "References (to be classified)". Rename "References" to "References (to be classified)".
G.5. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03
Add issues "i19-bodies-on-GET", "i20-default-charsets-for-text-media-
types", "i22-etag-and-other-metadata-in-status-messages", "i23-no-
store-invalidation", "i24-requiring-allow-in-405-responses", "i27-
put-idempotency", "i28-connection-closing", "i29-age-calculation",
"i30-header-lws", "i32-options-asterisk", "i33-trace-security-
considerations", "i35-split-normative-and-informative-references",
"i37-vary-and-non-existant-headers", "i38-mismatched-vary", "i39-
etag-uniqueness", "i40-header-registration", "i41-security-
considerations", "i64-ws-in-quoted-pair", "i69-clarify-requested-
variant", "i70-cacheability-of-303", "i71-examples-for-etag-
matching", "i72-request-method-registry", "i73-clarification-of-the-
term-deflate", "i74-character-encodings-for-headers", "i75-rfc2145-
normative", "i76-deprecate-305-use-proxy", "i77-line-folding", "i78-
relationship-between-401-authorization-and-www-authenticate", "i79-
content-headers-vs-put", "i80-content-location-is-not-special", "i81-
content-negotiation-for-media-types", "i82-rel_path-not-used" and
"i83-options-asterisk-and-proxies" and "i85-custom-ranges".
Reopen and close issue "i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-
explanation".
Resolve issues "unneeded_references" and "i62-whitespace-in-quoted-
pair" (as duplicate of "i64-ws-in-quoted-pair").
Add and resolve issues "abnf-edit", "consistent-reason-phrases",
"i25-accept-encoding-bnf", "i26-import-query-bnf", "i31-qdtext-bnf",
"i65-informative-references", "i66-iso8859-1-reference", "i68-
encoding-references-normative", "i84-redundant-cross-references",
"i86-normative-up-to-date-references", "i87-typo-in-13.2.2", "media-
reg" (which wasn't resolved by drafts -02 and -03, after all),
"remove-CTE-abbrev", "rfc1766_normative", "rfc2396_normative" and
"usascii_normative".
Add new section "Normative References" (the old "References (to be
classified)" section will be removed once all references are re-
classified).
Update contact information for Jim Gettys.
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. i45-rfc977-reference H.1. unneeded_references
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i45> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0054>,
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i44>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-26): Classify RFC977 (NNTP) as julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-19): The reference entries for
informative, and update the reference to RFC3977. RFC1866, RFC2069 and RFC2026 are unused. Remove them?
Resolution (2006-10-26): Done. julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-02): See also
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0118>.
H.2. i46-rfc1700_remove Resolution (2006-10-24): Remove references to RFC1866 and RFC2069 for
now. Keep RFC2026 for now; it's referenced from Editorial note.
H.2. consistent-reason-phrases
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i46> <http://www.w3.org/mid/472E16C5.8000703@gmx.de>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-12): RFC1700 ("ASSIGNED julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-11-04): Use consistent status
NUMBERS") has been obsoleted by RFC3232 ("Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 reason phrases.
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 (2007-03-18): Accepted during the Prague meeting, see Resolution (2007-11-15): Done.
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action21.
H.3. i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation H.3. 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.
Resolution (2006-10-28): Done.
H.4. abnf-edit
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/mid/4739C417.2040203@gmx.de>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-11-13): Fix minor editorial issues
with BNF causing problems with ABNF parsers, such as (1) inconsistent
indentation and (2) missing whitespace.
Resolution (2007-11-15): Done.
H.5. rfc1766_normative
Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-15): Classify RFC1766 ("Tags
for the Identification of Languages") as normative (update to RFC4646
in a separate step, see issue languagetag).
Resolution (2006-11-15): Done.
H.6. i86-normative-up-to-date-references
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i86>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-12): Classify RFC1864 ("The
Content-MD5 Header Field") as normative. Note that note this
disagrees with draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00 which made it
informative.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-14): Classify RFC2045
("Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of
Internet Message Bodies") as normative.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-12): Classify RFC2046
("Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media
Types") as normative.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-12): Classify RFC2047 ("MIME
(Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header
Extensions for Non-ASCII Text") as normative.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-27): Classify RFC2119 (Key
words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels) as normative.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-27): Classify RFC2617 (HTTP
Authentication) as normative.
Resolution (2007-10-12): Done.
H.7. i68-encoding-references-normative
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i68>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-05-28): Classify RFC1950 (ZLIB),
RFC1951 (DEFLATE) and RFC1952 (GZIP) as normative (note this
disagrees with draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00 which made it
informative).
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-06-16): RFC4897 requires us to add
notes to the references explaining why the downref was made (see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4897#section-3.1>).
Resolution (2007-06-18): Done.
H.8. rfc2396_normative
Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-13): Classify RFC2396 ("Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax") as normative (update to
RFC3986 in a separate step, see i34-updated-reference-for-uris).
Resolution (2006-11-13): Done.
H.9. usascii_normative
Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-27): Classify USASCII as
normative.
Resolution (2006-10-27): Done.
H.10. 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?
Resolution (2007-06-12): Done (with the exceptions noted by Bjoern
Hoehrmann).
H.11. 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?
Resolution (2007-06-18): Resolved as per
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action13.
H.12. 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.
Resolution (2007-10-07): Closed as duplicate of i64-ws-in-quoted-
pair.
H.13. i26-import-query-bnf
In Section 3.2.2:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i26>
abodeman@yahoo.com (2005-05-23):
In section 3.2.2, http_URL is defined as follows:
"http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query
]]" -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616.html#section-3.2.2
However, RFC 2616 does not contain a rule called "query". I assume
this is meant to be the same "query" that is defined in RFC 2396,
since section 3.2.1 incorporates "URI-reference", "absoluteURI",
"relativeURI", "port", "host", "abs_path", "rel_path", and
"authority" from that specification (but "query" is missing from this
list).
Resolution (2007-10-06): Add "query" to the list of definitions
adopted from RCF2396 (note that RFC2396 has been obsoleted by
RFC3986, but this is a separate issue).
H.14. i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation
In Section 3.3.1: In Section 3.3.1:
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i47> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i47>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-20): Should say "...obsolete julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-20): Should say "...obsolete
RFC1036 date format [...]..." instead of "...obsolete RFC 850 [12] RFC1036 date format [...]..." instead of "...obsolete RFC 850 [12]
date format...". date format...".
See also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ See also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2006OctDec/0187.html>. 2006OctDec/0187.html>.
Resolution (2006-11-20): Done. fielding@gbiv.com (2007-11-02):
H.4. i49-connection-header-text The proposed resolution to this issue (in draft 03) is incorrect
because RFC1036 doesn't define the date format in question. This was
an error introduced in the 2616 editing cycle. It should be fixed by
removing reference to 1036, as described below:
In Section 13.5.1: <del>RFC 850, obsoleted by RFC 1036</del><ins>obsolete RFC 850
format</ins>
<del>The second format is in common use, but is based on the obsolete
RFC 850 [RFC1036] date format and lacks a four-digit year.</del><ins>
The other formats are described here only for compatibility with
obsolete implementations.</ins>
Resolution (2007-11-03): Resolved as proposed by Roy.
H.15. media-reg
In Section 3.7:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i49> <http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg>,
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i8>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-12-12): "Other hop-by-hop headers derhoermi@gmx.net (2000-09-10): See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
MUST be listed in a Connection header, (section 14.10) to be Public/ietf-http-wg-old/2000SepDec/0013>.
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>)
Jeff.Mogul@hp.com (2006-12-12): Proposed rewrite: " Other hop-by-hop Resolution (2006-11-14): Done (note that RFC2048 has been obsoleted
headers, if they are introduced either in HTTP/1.1 or later versions now as well; see separate issue rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete).
of HTTP/1.x, MUST be listed in a Connection header (Section 14.10)." Note that the prosed resolution in
(See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/ http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg contains typos both in the
0265.html>) original text ("4288" rather than "1590") and in the proposed
resolution ("Mulitpurpose").
Resolution (2006-12-15): Resolve as proposed by Jeff Mogul in <http:/ H.16. i84-redundant-cross-references
/lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0265.html>.
H.5. i48-date-reference-typo In Section 9.5:
In Section 14.18: Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i84>
fielding@gbiv.com (2007-09-28):
RFC 2616 sections 9.5 (POST) and 9.6 (PUT) have the following useless
waste of bits
"POST requests MUST obey the message transmission requirements set
out in section 8.2.
See section 15.1.3 for security considerations." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.5
and
"PUT requests MUST obey the message transmission requirements set
out in section 8.2." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.6
respectively. They can be safely deleted without changing HTTP.
Section 8.2 is not specific to PUT and POST. Likewise, a content-
free forward pointer to just one of the many subsections on security
consideration is a total waste of brain cells.
Those are just two examples of what can only be described as a
spaghetti style of content-free cross-references within the spec that
make it very hard to read. They should be removed in general at the
editors' discretion.
Resolution (2007-09-29): Remove text as proposed.
H.17. i87-typo-in-13.2.2
In Section 13.2.2:
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i48> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i87>
fielding@gbiv.com (2007-09-07):
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-20): Should say "rfc1123-date This typo is still in the current draft.
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. s/ought to used/ought to be used/;
Resolution (2007-09-08): Fixed.
H.18. 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 ] )
Resolution (2007-03-18): Accepted during the Prague meeting, see
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action09.
H.19. remove-CTE-abbrev
In Section D.5:
Type: edit
<file:///C:/projects/w3c/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/
index.html#i16>
fielding@gbiv.com (2007-11-02): ...there is absolutely no reason to
abbreviate the field name when it is only used twice in the entire
document...
Resolution (2007-11-15): 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. i35-split-normative-and-informative-references
Type: edit Type: change
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0054> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i35>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-19): The reference entries for References are now required to be split into "Normative" and
RFC1866, RFC2069 and RFC2026 are unused. Remove them? "Informative".
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-02): See also julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-10-12): See related issues: i65-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0118 and informative-references, i68-encoding-references-normative, i75-
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i44. rfc2145-normative, rfc1737_informative_and_obsolete,
rfc1766_normative, i86-normative-up-to-date-references,
rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete, rfc2396_normative, rfc2616bis,
rfc2822_normative, unneeded_references, uri_vs_request_uri and
usascii_normative.
I.3. edit I.3. i40-header-registration
Type: edit Type: change
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-08): Umbrella issue for <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i40>
editorial fixes/enhancements.
I.4. i66-iso8859-1-reference A revision of RFC2616 should mention BCP 90 (Registration Procedures
for Message Header Fields) and should take over as the authoritative
reference for the headers it contains.
Type: change I.4. edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i66> Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-28): Classify ISO8859 as julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-08): Umbrella issue for
normative, and simplify reference to only refer to ISO8859 Part 1 editorial fixes/enhancements.
(because that's the only part needed here), and update to the 1998
version.
I.5. abnf I.5. abnf
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i36> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i36>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-12-03): Update BNF to RFC4234 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-12-03): Update BNF to RFC4234
(plan to be added). (plan to be added).
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-07-24): See
<http://www.w3.org/mid/45FBAB8C.6010809@gmx.de> for a to-do list.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-11-13): See
<http://www.w3.org/mid/4739C417.2040203@gmx.de> for a summary of
issues with the current ABNF.
I.6. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete 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
skipping to change at page 198, line 36 skipping to change at page 205, line 46
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-14): Update RFC2396 ("Uniform julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-14): Update RFC2396 ("Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax") to RFC3986. Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax") to RFC3986.
I.8. i50-misc-typos I.8. i50-misc-typos
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i50> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i50>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-18): (See http://lists.w3.org/ a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-18): (See <http://lists.w3.org/
Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0275.html). Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0275.html>).
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-06-29): Some of the strictly julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-06-29): Some of the strictly
editorial issues have been resolves as part of issue "edit". editorial issues have been resolves as part of issue "edit".
I.9. i65-informative-references I.9. i52-sort-1.3-terminology
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: In Section 1.3:
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i52> <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 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 up definitions in section 1.3. IMHO, the entries really should be
sorted alphabetically, despite the fact that the terms have sorted alphabetically, despite the fact that the terms have
dependencies on one another. dependencies on one another.
julian.reschke@greenytes.de (2006-06-15): See action item julian.reschke@greenytes.de (2006-06-15): See action item
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action23 and <http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action23> and
proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ proposal in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2007AprJun/0350.html. 2007AprJun/0350.html>.
julian.reschke@greenytes.de (2006-06-15):
I personally think we should not do this change:
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 (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 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 shuffling to control whether it's correct (nothing lost, no change in
the definitions). the definitions).
(2) In the RFC2616 ordering, things that belong together (such as (2) In the RFC2616 ordering, things that belong together (such as
"client", "user agent", "server" ...) are close to each other. "client", "user agent", "server" ...) are close to each other.
(3) Contrary to RFC2616, the text version of new spec will contain an (3) Contrary to RFC2616, the text version of new spec will contain an
alphabetical index section anyway (unless it's removed upon alphabetical index section anyway (unless it's removed upon
publication :-). publication :-).
I.11. i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words I.10. i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words
In Section 2.2: In Section 2.2:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i63> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i63>
derhoermi@gmx.net (2007-05-14): (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/ derhoermi@gmx.net (2007-05-14): (See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0050.html). Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0050.html>).
I.12. i31-qdtext-bnf I.11. i74-character-encodings-for-headers
In Section 2.2: In Section 2.2:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i31> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i74>
jamie@shareable.org (2004-03-15): ...I wrote a regular expression duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp (2007-07-10): RFC 2616 prescribes that headers
based on the RFC 2616 definition, and that allows "foo\" as a quoted- containing non-ASCII have to use either iso-8859-1 or RFC 2047. This
string. That's not intended, is it? is unnecessarily complex and not necessarily followed. At the least,
new extensions should be allowed to specify that UTF-8 is used.
I.13. i62-whitespace-in-quoted-pair I.12. i64-ws-in-quoted-pair
In Section 2.2: In Section 2.2:
Type: change 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 <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i64>
quoted-pair rule to disallow CR, LF, and NUL. We should probably
make the same change.
I.14. i58-what-identifies-an-http-resource dan.winship@gmail.com (2007-04-20):
I think quoted-pair is broken too. Merging your fix into RFC2616
gives:
quoted-string = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> )
qdtext = <any TEXT excluding '"' and '\'>
quoted-pair = "\" CHAR
CHAR = <any US-ASCII character (octets 0 - 127)>
but that means you can do this:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Warning: "Don't misparse \
this: it's really a single header!"
(if the receiving implementation follows the recommendations in 19.3
you need to escape the LF instead of the CR, but it's otherwise the
same.)
RFC 2822 updates RFC 822's quoted-pair rule to disallow CR, LF, and
NUL. We should probably make the same change.
I.13. i75-rfc2145-normative
In Section 3.1:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i75>
Jeff.Mogul@hp.com (2007-06-07): http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2145.txt:
There are references from RFC2616, section 3.1, to this document.
Perhaps these should be marked as normative; certainly, a proxy
implemention that violates RFC2145 is non-compliant in any reasonable
sense of the word.
I.14. i82-rel_path-not-used
In Section 3.2.1:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i82>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-10-07):
RFC2616 changed the ABNF for http_URL so that it doesn't use rel_path
(as defined in RFC2396) anymore.
However, that definition is still "adopted" in:
"URIs in HTTP can be represented in absolute form or relative to
some known base URI [11], depending upon the context of their use.
The two forms are differentiated by the fact that absolute URIs
always begin with a scheme name followed by a colon. For
definitive information on URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics," RFC
2396 [42] (which replaces RFCs 1738 [4] and RFC 1808 [11]). This
specification adopts the definitions of "URI-reference",
"absoluteURI", "relativeURI", "port", "host","abs_path",
"rel_path", and "authority" from that specification." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.1
...and used in:
"We note one exception to this rule: since some applications have
traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those
containing a "?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with
significant side effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such
URIs as fresh unless the server provides an explicit expiration
time. This specifically means that responses from HTTP/1.0
servers for such URIs SHOULD NOT be taken from a cache. See
Section 9.1.1 for related information." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-13.9
Proposal:
1) get rid of the mention in 3.2.1, and
2) in 13.9 paragraph 2, replace "...query URLs (those containing a
"?" in the rel_path part)..." by "...URLs containing a query part..."
I.15. i58-what-identifies-an-http-resource
In Section 3.2.2: In Section 3.2.2:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i58> <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 julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-01-23):
identifies the resource:
3.2.2 really doesn't say what identifies the resource:
"If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The "If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The
semantics are that the identified resource is located at the server semantics are that the identified resource is located at the
listening for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the server listening for TCP connections on that port of that host,
Request-URI for the resource is abs_path (Section 5.1.2)." 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, -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.2
But it _does_ say what part of the HTTP URL becomes the Request-URI,
and that definitively needs to be fixed. and that definitively needs to be fixed.
I.15. i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date I.16. i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date
In Section 3.3.1: In Section 3.3.1:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i51> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i51>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-18): On closer inspection, shouldn't 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- 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 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, allowed (conflicting with the definition of HTTP-date)*? Likewise,
shouldn't we just use the rfc1123-date moniker throughout the shouldn't we just use the rfc1123-date moniker throughout the
document whenever explicitly referring to only dates in RFC 1123 document whenever explicitly referring to only dates in RFC 1123
format? format?
I.16. i67-quoting-charsets I.17. i73-clarification-of-the-term-deflate
In Section 3.5:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i73>
paul_marquess@yahoo.co.uk (2007-08-07):
There is ambiguity in that definition because of the inconsistent use
of the term "deflate". This has resulted in a long standing
confusion about how to implement "deflate" encoding.
There was a time a few years back when most of the high profile
browser and some http server implementations incorrectly implemented
http "deflate" encoding using RFC 1951 without the RFC 1950 wrapper.
Admittedly most, if not all, of the incorrect implementations have
now been fixed, but the fix applied recognises the reality that there
are incorrect implementations of "deflate" out in the wild. All
browsers now seem to be able to cope with "deflate" in both its
RFC1950 or RFC1951 incarnations.
So I suggest there are two issues that need to be addressed
1. The definition of "deflate" needs to be rewritten to remove the
ambiguity.
2. Document the reality that there are incorrect implementations,
and recommend that anyone writing a "deflate" decoder should cope
with both forms.
I.18. i67-quoting-charsets
In Section 3.7: In Section 3.7:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i67> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i67>
maiera@de.ibm.com (2007-05-23): (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/ maiera@de.ibm.com (2007-05-23): (See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0065.html). Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0065.html>).
I.17. media-reg I.19. i20-default-charsets-for-text-media-types
In Section 3.7: In Section 3.7.1:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i20>
<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg> mnot@yahoo-inc.com (2006-05-01):
derhoermi@gmx.net (2000-09-10): See 2616 Section 3.7.1 states;
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/2000SepDec/0013.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-04-20): See also "When no explicit charset parameter is provided by the sender,
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i8. media subtypes of the "text" type are defined to have a default
charset value of "ISO-8859-1" when received via HTTP." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.7.1
I.18. languagetag However, many, if not all, of the text/* media types define their own
defaults; text/plain (RFC2046), for example, defaults to ASCII, as
does text/xml (RFC3023).
How do these format-specific defaults interact with HTTP's default?
Is HTTP really overriding them?
I'm far from the first to be confused by this text, and I'm sure it's
been asked before, but I haven't been able to find a definitive
answer. If errata are still being considered, perhaps removing/
modifying this line would be a good start...
duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp (2007-10-05):
Here is another issue that apparently hasn't yet been listed. The
HTTP spec, in section 3.7.1, currently claims that for subtypes of
the media type "text", there is a default of iso-8859-1.
In actual practice, this is, at best, wishful thinking. It may also
pretty much look like it's actually true if you are in Western Europe
or in the Americas, but it doesn't apply world-wide. There are tons
of Web sites in Asia (and Asia is home to more than half of the
World's population) that have no charset, and that are not in iso-
8859-1. And browsers in these regions don't expect pages to be iso-
8859-1.
...
So the text below should be changed to say that data in all character
sets SHOULD be labeled, and move the default to historic. Some
adequate adjustments should also be made to Section 3.4.1. I'll
gladly help with word-smithing.
I.20. 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>,
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i13>
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 has been obsoleted by RFC4646. See also
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0001. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0001>.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-15): See also I.21. i85-custom-ranges
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 3.12:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i85>
kornel@geekhood.net (2007-08-25):
The RFC 2616 seems to suggest such possibility in 3.12 Range Units:
there's a "other-range-unit" defined.
However definition of Content-Range uses "ranges-specifier" and Range
uses "content-range-spec", which both seem to allow only byte ranges.
In such case, is there any use for "other-range-unit" in Accept-
Ranges?
LMM@acm.org (2007-08-31):
What I remember was that I pushed for custom ranges and that there
was a lot of push-back from people who thought it was too much
complexity.
I think the idea 'sort of' got into the spec, but not fully fleshed
out.
I agree that it belongs in the issue list, to either clarify how to
use custom ranges (with a range unit registry, for example) or else
to remove the feature.
I.22. i30-header-lws
In Section 4.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i30>
jamie@shareable.org (2004-03-15): _See
<http://www.w3.org/mid/20040315183116.GC9731@mail.shareable.org>_.
I.23. i77-line-folding
In Section 4.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i77>
fielding@gbiv.com (2007-01-19):
...I think the spec should reflect the standard, not be artificially
restricted by adherence to past revisions of itself. By standard, I
mean the measure expected by all of the implementations that are
exchanging legitimate communication via HTTP. AFAIK, there are no
servers or clients that send legitimate messages with anything other
than
Field-name: field-value
so it is time for the spec to reflect that fact. My only caveat is
that there should be an exception for the message/http media type,
such that messages received via SMTP shall allow line folding.
...
...MUST NOT send such LWS is fine, including when a message is
forwarded, but forbidding a server from processing such a message is
not going to happen because it would make all implementations non-
compliant.
Servers should be configurable in regards to robust or restricted
parsing behavior, and nothing we say can improve the "security" of
broken software that was deployed years ago. Software that correctly
parses according to the RFC is not subject to those perceived
security issues.
I.24. i19-bodies-on-GET
In Section 4.3:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i19>
Jeff.Mogul@hp.com (2006-06-22): (See <http://www.w3.org/mid/
200606221739.k5MHd3PA013395@pobox-pa.hpl.hp.com>).
I.25. i28-connection-closing
In Section 4.4:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i28>
joe@manyfish.co.uk (2005-02-26): The phrase "unless the message is
terminated by closing the connection" in Section 4.4 is unnecessary.
Section 3.6 uses the same phrase; it is a little confusing. In 4.4
you could almost read it to mean that presence of "Connection: close"
would mean that a T-E header should be ignored, which is presumably
not the intent (and certainly not the practice).
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-10-06): Discussed during the Prague
meeting, see
<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action01>.
I.26. i32-options-asterisk
In Section 5.1.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i32>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2003-11-24): I'd like to see a clarification
about what clients can expect upon OPTIONS *. In particular, can
they expect to find out about *any* method name supported on that
server? I'm asking because this doesn't seem to be the case for at
least two major server bases, being:
- Apache (for instance, additional method names supported by mod_dav
aren't listed) and
- generic Java servlet engines (servlet API does not support
delegation of requests against "*" to all installed web
applications).
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-10-08):
Quote Roy Fielding:
"...Allow only applies to URIs, not *..." -- http://
mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/
200710.mbox/%3c24EE5E9D-9FBB-4530-9735-33BD768FC633@gbiv.com%3e
I.27. i83-options-asterisk-and-proxies
In Section 5.1.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i83>
hno@squid-cache.org (2007-10-01): _Text about proxying OPTIONS *
contained in RFC2068 was lost in RCF2616._
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-10-03):
The lost text says:
"If a proxy receives a request without any path in the Request-URI
and the method specified is capable of supporting the asterisk
form of request, then the last proxy on the request chain MUST
forward the request with "*" as the final Request-URI. For
example, the request
OPTIONS http://www.ics.uci.edu:8001 HTTP/1.1
would be forwarded by the proxy as
OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
Host: www.ics.uci.edu:8001
after connecting to port 8001 of host "www.ics.uci.edu"." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-5.1.2
hno@squid-cache.org (2007-10-04):
...
There is one slight problem with the above and it's " and the method
specified is capable of supporting the asterisk form of request".
This requires the proxy to know about each such method, and with HTTP
being extensible it's not fully possible. In RFC2616 only OPTIONS
meets this criteria.
Is there a possibility for other methods than OPTIONS which may make
sense on a global resource-less context? I think not. If this is
complemented with a restriction that the special request-URI "*" may
only be used in OPTIONS requests then it's fine. Interoperability of
extension methods using "*" will be tricky at best..
...
I.28. i56-6.1.1-can-be-misread-as-a-complete-list
In Section 6.1.1: In Section 6.1.1:
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i56> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i56>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-01-11): The second sentence in the henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-01-11): The second sentence in the
first paragraph can on a quick reading be misread as section 10 first paragraph can on a quick reading be misread as section 10
contains a complete definiton of all possible status codes, where it contains a complete definiton of all possible status codes, where it
in reality only has the status codes defined by this RFC. in reality only has the status codes defined by this RFC.
I.20. i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase I.29. i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase
In Section 6.1.1: In Section 6.1.1:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i57> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i57>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-01-11): 6.1.1 is apparently a bit henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-01-11):
too vague about how applications should parse and process the
information, making some implementations parse the reason phrase 6.1.1 is apparently a bit too vague about how applications should
(probably exact matches on the complete status line, not just status parse and process the information, making some implementations parse
code) to determine the outcome. 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 There should be a SHOULD requirement or equivalent that applications
use the status code to determine the status of the response and only use the status code to determine the status of the response and only
process the Reason Phrase as a comment intended for humans. process the Reason Phrase as a comment intended for humans.
It's true that later in the same section there is a reverse MAY 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 requirement implying this by saying that the phrases in the rfc is
just an example and may be replaced without affecting the protocol, just an example and may be replaced without affecting the protocol,
but apparently it's not sufficient for implementers to understand but apparently it's not sufficient for implementers to understand
that applications should not decide the outcome based on the reason that applications should not decide the outcome based on the reason
phrase. phrase.
I.21. i59-status-code-registry I.30. i59-status-code-registry
In Section 6.1.1: In Section 6.1.1:
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i59> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i59>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-02-18): The IANA status code henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-02-18): The IANA status code
registry should be referred to. registry should be referred to.
I.22. i21-put-side-effects I.31. i72-request-method-registry
In Section 9:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i72>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-08-06): I see a need for an official
HTTP request method registry to be established, preferably maintained
by IANA.
I.32. i21-put-side-effects
In Section 9.6: In Section 9.6:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i21> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i21>
mnot@yahoo-inc.com (2006-04-03): (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/ mnot@yahoo-inc.com (2006-04-03):
Public/ietf-http-wg/2006AprJun/0002.html).
I.23. i54-definition-of-1xx-warn-codes 2616 specifically allows PUT to have side effects;
"A single resource MAY be identified by many different URIs. For
example, an article might have a URI for identifying "the current
version" which is separate from the URI identifying each
particular version. In this case, a PUT request on a general URI
might result in several other URIs being defined by the origin
server.
HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an
origin server." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616.html#section-9.6
and it also says (in the context of PUT)
"If a new resource is created, the origin server MUST inform the
user agent via the 201 (Created) response." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616.html#section-9.6
So, if I PUT something to /foo, and it has the side effect if
creating /foo;2006-04-03, is the response required to be a 201
Created?
I.e., read literally, the above requirement requires a 201 Created
when PUT results in *any* resource being created -- even as a side
effect.
This is IMO unnecessarily constraining, and should be relaxed; e.g.,
changed to something like
_"If a new resource is created at the Request-URI, the origin server
MUST inform the user agent via the 201 (Created) response."_
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-10-06): Discussed during the Prague
meeting, see
<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action06>:
_Combine to make second sentence dependent upon the first: "If the
Request-URI does not point to an existing resource, and that URI is
capable of being defined as a new resource by the requesting user
agent, the origin server can create the resource with that URI. If a
new resource is created, the origin server MUST inform the user agent
via the 201 (Created) response."_
I.33. i27-put-idempotency
In Section 9.6:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i27>
mnot@yahoo-inc.com (2005-03-16): It _appears_ that RFC3253 changes
the idempotency of PUT; is this allowed? RFC3253 doesn't update or
obsolete 2616...
I can see a situation where a 3253-naive client decides to retry a
timed-out PUT (after all, it's idempotent) and gets some side effects
it didn't bargain for. Not a _huge_ problem that happens every day,
but it's a bit worrisome.
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-10-06): Discussed during the Prague
meeting, see
<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action10>:
_"Loosen definition of Idempotency as per Roy."_ -- See
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/7387>: _Just
ignore the definition of idempotent in RFC 2616. Anything specified
in HTTP that defines how the server shall implement the semantics of
an interface method is wrong, by definition. What matters is the
effect on the interface as expected by the client, not what actually
happens on the server to implement that effect._
I.34. i79-content-headers-vs-put
In Section 9.6:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i79>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-07-25): It's not clear to me what
Content-* headers are? All headers starting with the character
sequence "Content-"? Just those defined in RFC2616?
I.35. i33-trace-security-considerations
In Section 9.8:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i33>
rousskov@measurement-factory.com (2003-02-14):
There is an HTTP-related security violation approach found/researched
by White Hat Security:
PR: <http://www.whitehatsec.com/press_releases/WH-PR-20030120.txt>
Details:
<http://www.betanews.com/whitehat/WH-WhitePaper_XST_ebook.pdf>
I bet many of you have seen the related advisories/PR. For those who
have not, here is the gist:
"Modern browsers usually do not allow scripts embedded in HTML to
access cookies and authentication information exchanged between
HTTP client and server. However, a script can get access to that
info by sending a simple HTTP TRACE request to the originating
(innocent) server. The user agent will auto-include current
authentication info in such request. The server will echo all the
authentication information back, for script to read and [mis]use.
Apparently, sending an HTTP request is possible via many scripting
methods like ActiveX. See the URL above for details."
With numerous XSS (cross-site-scripting) vulnerabilities in user
agents, this seems like a real and nasty problem. TRACE method
support is optional per RFC 2616, but many popular servers support
it. White Hat Security advises server administrators to disable
support for TRACE.
What is your opinion? Should TRACE be supported by default? Is it a
good idea to mention this "exposure" vulnerability in HTTP errata or
elsewhere?
I.36. i69-clarify-requested-variant
In Section 10.2.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i69>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-07-13): The spec uses the term "requested
variant" in several places (10.2.2 201 Created, 10.2.5 204 No
Content, 14.19 ETag, 14.25 If-Modified-Since, 14.28 If-Unmodified-
Since). It's quite clear what it means in the context of HEAD/GET,
somewhat clear for PUT, but not clear at all for other methods. We
really need to clarify this, potentially choosing a different term.
fielding@gbiv.com (2007-08-06):
...Think of variant as the target of a request once URI+Vary-fields
is taken into account. It is the resource-as-subdivided-by-
negotiation, which was the original definition before it got mixed up
in committee. Now, if we add the notion of a method that acts by
indirection (PROPFIND), then we merely add that notion to the
definition in general.
_variant_
_The ultimate target resource of a request after indirections caused
by content negotiation (varying by request fields) and method
association (e.g., PROPFIND) have been taken into account. Some
variant resources may also be identified directly by their own URI,
which may be indicated by a Content-Location in the response._
I.37. i70-cacheability-of-303
In Section 10.3.4:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i70>
fielding@gbiv.com (2007-07-12):
On the cacheability requirement: ... I have no idea why the
specification says that. Cache-control can be used to override it.
"A response received with any other status code MUST NOT be
returned in a reply to a subsequent request unless there are
Cache-Control directives or another header(s) that explicitly
allow it. For example, these include the following: an Expires
header (section 14.21); a "max-age", "must-revalidate", "proxy-
revalidate", "public" or "private" Cache-Control directive
(section 14.9)." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-13.4
It looks like the contradiction was added to RFC 2616 when somebody
decided to convert the commentary on its use with POST into a fixed
requirement on all 303 responses. It is just a bug in the spec.
fielding@gbiv.com (2007-07-13):
My suggestion is to change the entire section to:
10.3.4. 303 See Other
The server directs the user agent to a different resource, indicated
by a URI in the Location header field, that provides an indirect
response to the original request. The user agent MAY perform a GET
request on the URI in the Location field in order to obtain a
representation corresponding to the response, be redirected again, or
end with an error status. The Location URI is not a substitute
reference for the originally requested resource.
The 303 status is generally applicable to any HTTP method. It is
primarily used to allow the output of a POST action to redirect the
user agent to a selected resource, since doing so provides the
information corresponding to the POST response in a form that can be
separately identified, bookmarked, and cached independent of the
original request.
A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the requested resource
does not have a representation of its own that can be transferred by
the server over HTTP. The Location URI indicates a resource that is
descriptive of the requested resource such that the follow-on
representation may be useful without implying that that it adequately
represents the previously requested resource. Note that answers to
the questions of what can be represented, what representations are
adequate, and what might be a useful description are outside the
scope of HTTP and thus entirely determined by the resource owner(s).
A 303 response SHOULD NOT be cached unless it is indicated as
cacheable by Cache-Control or Expires header fields. Except for
responses to a HEAD request, the entity of a 303 response SHOULD
contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the Location URI.
dbooth@hp.com (2007-07-03): ... s/The Location URI indicates/The
Location URI SHOULD indicate/ ...
dbooth@hp.com (2007-10-04):
...My thinking was that the owner of the URI originally requested may
not be the same as the owner of the redirect URI, and hence the first
owner might not have control over whether the resource at the
redirect URI really *is* "descriptive of the requested resource",
even though it is thought to be.
BTW, I do notice one other thing. I suggest changing the following
sentence:
"A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the requested
resource does not have a representation of its own that can be
transferred by the server over HTTP."
to:
"A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the requested
resource does not have a representation of its own, available from
the request URI, that can be transferred by the server over HTTP."
The reason is that if the same resource were requested via a
different URI, it might indeed provide a representation of its own
(if it were an information resource). The original text would have
prevented 303 URIs from identifying information resources, rather
than permitting them to identify any kind of resource.
fielding@gbiv.com (2007-10-16):
...
In which case it would be redirected via a 301, 302, or 307. 303 only
redirects to different resources, which means the requested resource
for the 303 response is different from the target resource, even if
that difference can't be measured in bits. Even if they aren't, in
fact, different, the client is being told by the server that they
should be interpreted as different, and that makes it fact as far as
HTTP's interface is concerned.
There is no information resource in HTTP, for the same reason that
there is no spoon in the Matrix.
I.38. i76-deprecate-305-use-proxy
In Section 10.3.6:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i76>
adrien@qbik.com (2007-06-15):
I can't find any browser that supports this.
* IE 6 silently fails (shows blank page, does not attempt connection
to proxy).
* FF 2 silently fails (shows blank page, does not attempt connection
to proxy).
* Opera displays message "The server tried to redirect Opera to the
alternative proxy "http://xxxxxxxx". For security reasons this is no
longer supported."
So looks like the main browsers (haven't tried Safari) have de facto
deprecated it.
Is it an optional code to handle? RFC2616 is extremely sparse in its
description of the status code.
I.39. i78-relationship-between-401-authorization-and-www-authenticate
In Section 10.4.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i78>
hugo@yahoo-inc.com (2007-07-25): Are these mechanisms exclusive?
I.e., can they only be used together, or can a cookie-based
authentication scheme (for example) use 401? (full message at <http:/
/www.w3.org/mid/5A4607FB-6F74-4C7F-BF60-37E0EFEC97DF@yahoo-inc.com>)
I.40. i24-requiring-allow-in-405-responses
In Section 10.4.6:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i24>
fielding@gbiv.com (2005-06-23):
In RFC 2616, 10.4.6 405 Method Not Allowed:
"The method specified in the Request-Line is not allowed for the
resource identified by the Request-URI. The response MUST include
an Allow header containing a list of valid methods for the
requested resource." --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-10.4.6
which has the effect of requiring that a server advertise all methods
to a resource. In some cases, method implementation is implemented
across several (extensible) parts of a server and thus not known. In
other cases, it may not be prudent to tell an unauthenticated client
all of the methods that might be available to other clients.
I think the above should be modified to s/MUST/MAY/; does anyone here
know of a reason not to make that change?
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-10-06): Discussed during the Prague
meeting, see
<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action08>.
I.41. i81-content-negotiation-for-media-types
In Section 12:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i81>
lmm@acm.org (2006-04-11):
HTTP content negotiation was one of those "nice in theory" protocol
additions that, in practice, didn't work out. The original theory of
content negotiation was worked out when the idea of the web was that
browsers would support a handful of media types (text, html, a couple
of image types), and so it might be reasonable to send an 'accept:'
header listing all of the types supported. But in practice as the
web evolved, browsers would support hundreds of types of all
varieties, and even automatically locate readers for content-types,
so it wasn't practical to send an 'accept:' header for all of the
types.
So content negotiation in practice doesn't use accept: headers except
in limited circumstances; for the most part, the sites send some kind
of 'active content' or content that autoselects for itself what else
to download; e.g., a HTML page which contains Javascript code to
detect the client's capabilities and figure out which other URLs to
load. The most common kind of content negotiation uses the 'user
agent' identification header, or some other 'x-...' extension headers
to detect browser versions, among other things, to identify buggy
implementations or proprietary extensions.
I think we should deprecate HTTP content negotiation, if only to make
it clear to people reading the spec that it doesn't really work that
way in practice.
Many people seem to use HTTP content negotiation as a motivation for
adding 'version' parameters to MIME types or registering new MIME
types, with the hopes that the MIME types or parameters would be
useful in HTTP content negotiation, and we should warn them that it
isn't really productive to do so. That's why it might be useful
advice to add to the guidelines for registering MIME types, should
those ever be updated.
rjgodoy@hotmail.com (2007-11-03): _See
http://www.w3.org/mid/BAY118-DAV15B52BB86A84968870D8E0AD8E0@phx.gbl_.
lmm@acm.org (2007-11-03):
Clearly "deprecate" was hyperbole. (I can say that since I raised
the issue in the first place.) However, Accept headers have a
limited domain of applicability, e.g., when the client has a limited
repertoire of types that it is actually willing to accept, and this
is generally not true on typical desktop web browsers (maybe some
phones might have such a limitation).
The point about changing the 406 requirement so that it matches
reality should also be added to the issue.
I.42. i54-definition-of-1xx-warn-codes
In Section 13.1.2: In Section 13.1.2:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i54> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i54>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-22): See a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-22): See
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i54. <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i54>.
I.24. i60-13.5.1-and-13.5.2 I.43. i29-age-calculation
In Section 13.2.3:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i29>
rousskov@measurement-factory.com (2002-08-30):
RFC 2616 says:
"Because the request that resulted in the returned Age value must
have been initiated prior to that Age value's generation, we can
correct for delays imposed by the network by recording the time at
which the request was initiated. Then, when an Age value is
received, it MUST be interpreted relative to the time the request
was initiated. So, we compute
corrected_initial_age = corrected_received_age + (now -
request_time)" --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-13.2.3
I suspect the formula does not match the true intent of the RFC
authors. I believe that corrected_initial_age formula counts server-
to-client delays twice. It does that because the
corrected_received_age component already accounts for one server-to-
client delay. Here is an annotated definition from the RFC:
corrected_received_age = max(
now - date_value, # trust the clock (includes server-to-client delay!)
age_value) # all-HTTP/1.1 paths (no server-to-client delay)
I think it is possible to fix the corrected_initial_age formula to
match the intent (note this is the *initial* not *received* age):
corrected_initial_age = max(
now - date_value, # trust the clock (includes delays)
age_value + now - request_time) # trust Age, add network delays
There is no need for corrected_received_age.
Moreover, it looks ALL the formulas computing current_age go away
with the above new corrected_initial_age definition as long as "now"
is still defined as "the current time" (i.e., the time when
current_age is calculated):
current_age = corrected_initial_age
So, we end up with a single formula for all cases and all times:
current_age = max(now - date_value, age_value + now - request_time) = = now - min(date_value, request_time - age_value)
It even has a clear physical meaning -- the min() part is the
conservative estimate of object creation time.
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-10-06): Discussed during the Prague
meeting, see
<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action11>.
I.44. i71-examples-for-etag-matching
In Section 13.3.3:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i71>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-12-02): Add examples for weak and
strong matching.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-06-07): Backed out example,
because it's controversial. We need to answer the question: "Are
there circumstances where a server will weakly match the etags "1"
and W/"1"?
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-07-17): Re-added example table for
further discussion.
I.45. i60-13.5.1-and-13.5.2
In Section 13.5: In Section 13.5:
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i60> <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 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 proxies should handle headers, even though it's in a section entitled
"Caching in HTTP." People have a hard time finding them. Would it "Caching in HTTP." People have a hard time finding them. Would it
be helpful to try to separate out the purely intermediary-related be helpful to try to separate out the purely intermediary-related
material from section 13 to a more appropriate place (e.g., section material from section 13 to a more appropriate place (e.g., section
8, or a new section)? 8, or a new section)?
I.25. i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2 I.46. i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2
In Section 13.5.2: In Section 13.5.2:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i53> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i53>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-20): Section 14.7 states: 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 "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 understand all the methods specified, since the user agent might have
other means of communicating with the origin server." other means of communicating with the origin server."
However, section 13.5.2 (Non-modifiable Headers) makes no mention of 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 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 fix should be -- remove 13.5.2 and push the (not-)modifiable
information in the definition of the respective headers, or to information in the definition of the respective headers, or to
maintain 13.5.2 in parallel with all of the header definitions, 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. 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 The easy fix for now would be to just make a mention of Allow in
13.5.2. 13.5.2.
Additionally, Server should also be included. Additionally, Server should also be included.
I.26. i25-accept-encoding-bnf I.47. i37-vary-and-non-existant-headers
In Section 14.3: In Section 13.6:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i37>
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i25> jamie@shareable.org (2004-02-23): (See
<http://www.w3.org/mid/20040223204041.GA32719@mail.shareable.org>).
abodeman@yahoo.com (2005-06-02): In section 14.3, the definition of I.48. i38-mismatched-vary
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 13.6:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i38>
hno@squid-cache.org (2006-10-20):
When one cached variant has one Vary header, and then another variant
is received with a different Vary header. Lets say the first has
Vary: Accept-Language
and the second
Vary: Accept-Encoding
what is the appropriate behaviour for a cache?
I.49. i39-etag-uniqueness
In Section 13.6:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i39>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2006-10-19): From experience I think it's
also worthwhile to further stress the importance of ETag uniqueness
among variants of a URI. Very few implementations get this part
correct. In fact most major web servers have issues here...
Some even strongly believe that entities with different Content-
Encoding is the same entity, arguing that since most encoding (at
least the standardized ones) can be converted to the same identity
encoding so they are in fact the same entity and should have the same
strong ETag.
I.50. i23-no-store-invalidation
In Section 14.9.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i23>
rousskov@measurement-factory.com (2005-07-26): Responses to HTTP
requests with "Cache-control: no-store" are not cachable. Recently,
we came across a cache that does not cache responses to no-store
requests but also does not invalidate an older cached entity with the
same URL. When future requests stop using no-store, the old cached
entity is served.
For example, the following happens in our test case:
1. Client requests an entity A without using no-store.
2. Cache proxies the transaction and caches the response (entity A).
3. Client requests the same entity A using "Cache-control: no-
store".
4. Cache proxies the transaction and does NOT cache the response.
5. Client requests the same entity A again, without using no-store.
6. Cache serves the "old" entity A cached in step #2 above.
Does the cache violate the intent of RFC 2616 in step #6? If yes,
should that intent be made explicit (I cannot find any explicit rules
prohibiting the above behavior)?
If no, should the cache check that response in step #4 does not
indicate that cached entity A is stale? I cannot find explicit rules
requiring that, but we do have similar rules about 304 and HEAD
responses invalidating older cached entities.
I.51. i80-content-location-is-not-special
In Section 14.14:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i80>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-07-31):
The definition of Content-Location ends with:
""The meaning of the Content-Location header in PUT or POST
requests is undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those
cases." " -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.14
This was added in RFC2616 (does not appear in RFC2068).
I have no problem allowing servers to ignore it. However:
1) It seems that the meaning of Content-Location is universal for
messages that carry an entity; I'm not sure what's the point in
claiming that meaning does not apply to PUT or POST.
2) Also: every time a limited set of methods is mentioned somewhere
it feels like problematic spec writing. What makes PUT or POST so
special in comparison to other methods? Maybe that they are the only
methods in RFC2616 that carry request entity bodies? In which case
the statement should be rephrased accordingly...
I.52. i22-etag-and-other-metadata-in-status-messages
In Section 14.19:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i22>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2006-08-09): (See proposal at <http://
greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-reschke-http-etag-on-write>).
I.53. i61-redirection-vs-location
In Section 14.30: In Section 14.30:
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i61> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i61>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-04-19): The first sentence could be julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-04-19): The first sentence could be
understood as if the presence of the "Location" response header understood as if the presence of the "Location" response header
always implies some kind of redirection. See also http:// always implies some kind of redirection. See also <http://
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0020.html. lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0020.html>.
I.28. fragment-combination I.54. 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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1999MayAug/0103. fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (1999-08-06): See <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
open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where there was a <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i6>). This
fragment with the original URI, e.g.: leaves us with the open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case
where there was a 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._.
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i43.
I.29. i55-updating-to-rfc4288 I.55. i41-security-considerations
In Section 15:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i41>
What work needs to be done to the Security Considerations section of
RFC2616 to allow publication of a revision? E.g., does HTTP need to
specify a Mandatory To Implement mechanism?
I.56. i55-updating-to-rfc4288
In Section A: In Section A:
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i56> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i55>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-01-05): The update from RFC2048 to julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-01-05): The update from RFC2048 to
RFC4288 requires minor modifications for the media type registrations RFC4288 requires minor modifications for the media type registrations
for "message/http", "application/http" and "multipart/byteranges". for "message/http", "application/http" and "multipart/byteranges".
Index Index
1 1
100 Continue (status code) 68 100 Continue (status code) 68
101 Switching Protocols (status code) 68 101 Switching Protocols (status code) 68
110 Response is stale (warn code) 161
111 Revalidation failed (warn code) 161
112 Disconnected operation (warn code) 161
113 Heuristic expiration (warn code) 161
199 Miscellaneous warning (warn code) 161
2 2
200 OK (status code) 69 200 OK (status code) 69
201 Created (status code) 69 201 Created (status code) 69
202 Accepted (status code) 69 202 Accepted (status code) 69
203 Non-Authoritative Information (status code) 70 203 Non-Authoritative Information (status code) 70
204 No Content (status code) 70 204 No Content (status code) 70
205 Reset Content (status code) 70 205 Reset Content (status code) 70
206 Partial Content (status code) 71 206 Partial Content (status code) 71
214 Transformation applied (warn code) 162
299 Miscellaneous persistent warning (warn code) 162
3 3
300 Multiple Choices (status code) 72 300 Multiple Choices (status code) 72
301 Moved Permanently (status code) 72 301 Moved Permanently (status code) 72
302 Found (status code) 73 302 Found (status code) 73
303 See Other (status code) 73 303 See Other (status code) 73
304 Not Modified (status code) 74 304 Not Modified (status code) 74
305 Use Proxy (status code) 74 305 Use Proxy (status code) 74
306 (Unused) (status code) 75 306 (Unused) (status code) 75
307 Temporary Redirect (status code) 75 307 Temporary Redirect (status code) 75
skipping to change at page 208, line 16 skipping to change at page 234, line 23
504 Gateway Timeout (status code) 81 504 Gateway Timeout (status code) 81
505 HTTP Version Not Supported (status code) 81 505 HTTP Version Not Supported (status code) 81
A A
Accept header 112 Accept header 112
Accept-Charset header 114 Accept-Charset header 114
Accept-Encoding header 114 Accept-Encoding header 114
Accept-Language header 116 Accept-Language header 116
Accept-Ranges header 117 Accept-Ranges header 117
Age header 117 Age header 117
age 16 age 17
Allow header 118 Allow header 118
Alternates header 190 Alternates header 190
application/http Media Type 177 application/http Media Type 177
Authorization header 118 Authorization header 118
C C
Cache Directives Cache Directives
max-age 124, 126 max-age 124, 126
max-stale 124 max-stale 124
min-fresh 124 min-fresh 124
must-revalidate 126 must-revalidate 126
no-cache 122 no-cache 122
no-store 122 no-store 122
no-transform 127 no-transform 127
only-if-cached 126 only-if-cached 126
private 121 private 121
proxy-revalidate 127 proxy-revalidate 127
public 121 public 121
s-maxage 123 s-maxage 123
cache 15 cache 16
Cache-Control header 119 Cache-Control header 119
cacheable 15 cacheable 16
client 14 client 15
compress 30 compress (content coding) 31
CONNECT method 67 CONNECT method 67
Connection header 129 Connection header 129
connection 13 connection 14
content negotiation 14 Content Codings 31
compress 31
deflate 31
gzip 31
identity 31
content negotiation 15
Content-Base header 190 Content-Base header 190
Content-Disposition header 185 Content-Disposition header 185
Content-Encoding header 130 Content-Encoding header 130
Content-Language header 130 Content-Language header 130
Content-Length header 131 Content-Length header 131
Content-Location header 132 Content-Location header 132
Content-MD5 header 133 Content-MD5 header 133
Content-Range header 134 Content-Range header 134
Content-Type header 136 Content-Type header 136
Content-Version header 190 Content-Version header 190
D D
Date header 136 Date header 136
deflate 30 deflate (content coding) 31
DELETE method 66 DELETE method 67
Derived-From header 190 Derived-From header 190
downstream 17 downstream 18
E E
entity 13 entity 14
ETag header 138 ETag header 138
Expect header 138 Expect header 138
Expires header 139 Expires header 139
explicit expiration time 16 explicit expiration time 17
F F
first-hand 15 first-hand 16
fresh 16 fresh 17
freshness lifetime 16 freshness lifetime 17
From header 140 From header 140
G G
gateway 15 gateway 16
GET method 63 GET method 64
Grammar Grammar
Accept 112 Accept 112
Accept-Charset 114 Accept-Charset 114
Accept-Encoding 114 Accept-Encoding 114
accept-extension 112 accept-extension 112
Accept-Language 116 Accept-Language 116
accept-params 112 accept-params 112
Accept-Ranges 117 Accept-Ranges 117
acceptable-ranges 117 acceptable-ranges 117
Age 118 Age 118
age-value 118 age-value 118
Allow 118 Allow 118
ALPHA 22 ALPHA 23
asctime-date 28 asctime-date 29
attribute 31 attribute 32
Authorization 119 Authorization 119
byte-content-range-spec 134 byte-content-range-spec 134
byte-range-resp-spec 134 byte-range-resp-spec 134
byte-range-set 150 byte-range-set 150
byte-range-spec 150 byte-range-spec 150
byte-ranges-specifier 150 byte-ranges-specifier 150
bytes-unit 37 bytes-unit 38
Cache-Control 120 Cache-Control 120
cache-directive 120 cache-directive 120
cache-extension 120 cache-extension 120
cache-request-directive 120 cache-request-directive 120
cache-response-directive 120 cache-response-directive 120
CHAR 22 CHAR 23
charset 29 charset 30
chunk 32 chunk 33
chunk-data 32 chunk-data 33
chunk-ext-name 32 chunk-ext-name 33
chunk-ext-val 32 chunk-ext-val 33
chunk-extension 32 chunk-extension 33
chunk-size 32 chunk-size 33
Chunked-Body 32 Chunked-Body 33
codings 114 codings 114
comment 23 comment 24
Connection 129 Connection 129
connection-token 129 connection-token 129
content-coding 30 content-coding 31
content-disposition 185 content-disposition 185
Content-Encoding 130 Content-Encoding 130
Content-Language 131 Content-Language 131
Content-Length 131 Content-Length 131
Content-Location 132 Content-Location 132
Content-MD5 133 Content-MD5 133
Content-Range 134 Content-Range 134
content-range-spec 134 content-range-spec 134
Content-Type 136 Content-Type 136
CR 22 CR 23
CRLF 22 CRLF 23
ctext 23 ctext 24
CTL 22 CTL 23
Date 136 Date 136
date1 28 date1 29
date2 28 date2 29
date3 28 date3 29
delta-seconds 28 delta-seconds 29
DIGIT 22 DIGIT 23
disp-extension-parm 185 disp-extension-parm 185
disp-extension-token 185 disp-extension-token 185
disposition-parm 185 disposition-parm 185
disposition-type 185 disposition-type 185
entity-body 52 entity-body 53
entity-header 52 entity-header 53
entity-tag 37 entity-tag 38
ETag 138 ETag 138
Expect 138 Expect 138
expect-params 138 expect-params 138
expectation 138 expectation 138
expectation-extension 138 expectation-extension 138
Expires 139 Expires 139
extension-code 50 extension-code 51
extension-header 52 extension-header 53
extension-method 44 extension-method 45
extension-pragma 148 extension-pragma 148
field-content 40 field-content 41
field-name 40 field-name 41
field-value 40 field-value 41
filename-parm 185 filename-parm 185
first-byte-pos 150 first-byte-pos 150
From 140 From 140
general-header 43 general-header 44
generic-message 39 generic-message 40
HEX 23 HEX 24
Host 141 Host 141
HT 22 HT 23
HTTP-date 28 HTTP-date 29
HTTP-message 39 HTTP-message 40
HTTP-Version 24 HTTP-Version 25
http_URL 26 http_URL 27
If-Match 141 If-Match 141
If-Modified-Since 142 If-Modified-Since 142
If-None-Match 144 If-None-Match 144
If-Range 145 If-Range 145
If-Unmodified-Since 146 If-Unmodified-Since 146
instance-length 134 instance-length 134
language-range 116 language-range 116
language-tag 36 language-tag 37
last-byte-pos 150 last-byte-pos 150
last-chunk 32 last-chunk 33
Last-Modified 146 Last-Modified 146
LF 22 LF 23
LOALPHA 22 LOALPHA 23
Location 147 Location 147
LWS 22 LWS 23
Max-Forwards 148 Max-Forwards 148
md5-digest 133 md5-digest 133
media-range 112 media-range 112
media-type 33 media-type 34
message-body 40 message-body 41
message-header 40 message-header 41
Method 44 Method 45
MIME-Version 182 MIME-Version 182
month 28 month 29
OCTET 22 OCTET 23
opaque-tag 37 opaque-tag 38
other-range-unit 37 other-range-unit 38
parameter 31 parameter 32
Pragma 148 Pragma 148
pragma-directive 148 pragma-directive 148
primary-tag 36 primary-tag 37
product 35 product 36
product-version 35 product-version 36
protocol-name 158 protocol-name 158
protocol-version 158 protocol-version 158
Proxy-Authenticate 149 Proxy-Authenticate 149
Proxy-Authorization 149 Proxy-Authorization 149
pseudonym 158 pseudonym 158
qdtext 23 qdtext 24
quoted-pair 23 quoted-pair 24
quoted-string 23 quoted-string 24
qvalue 36 qvalue 37
Range 152 Range 152
range-unit 37 range-unit 38
ranges-specifier 150 ranges-specifier 150
Reason-Phrase 50 Reason-Phrase 51
received-by 158 received-by 158
received-protocol 158 received-protocol 158
Referer 152 Referer 152
Request 44 Request 45
request-header 47 request-header 48
Request-Line 44 Request-Line 45
Request-URI 45 Request-URI 46
Response 48 Response 49
response-header 51 response-header 52
Retry-After 153 Retry-After 153
rfc850-date 28 rfc850-date 29
rfc1123-date 28 rfc1123-date 29
separators 23 separators 24
Server 153 Server 153
SP 22 SP 23
start-line 39 start-line 40
Status-Code 50 Status-Code 51
Status-Line 48 Status-Line 49
subtag 36 subtag 37
subtype 33 subtype 34
suffix-byte-range-spec 151 suffix-byte-range-spec 151
suffix-length 151 suffix-length 151
t-codings 154 t-codings 154
TE 154 TE 154
TEXT 22 TEXT 23
time 28 time 29
token 23 token 24
Trailer 155 Trailer 155
trailer 32 trailer 33
transfer-coding 31 transfer-coding 32
Transfer-Encoding 155 Transfer-Encoding 155
transfer-extension 31 transfer-extension 32
type 33 type 34
UPALPHA 22 UPALPHA 23
Upgrade 156 Upgrade 156
User-Agent 157 User-Agent 157
value 31 value 32
Vary 157 Vary 157
Via 158 Via 158
warn-agent 160 warn-agent 160
warn-code 160 warn-code 160
warn-date 160 warn-date 160
warn-text 160 warn-text 160
Warning 160 Warning 160
warning-value 160 warning-value 160
weak 37 weak 38
weekday 28 weekday 29
wkday 28 wkday 29
WWW-Authenticate 162 WWW-Authenticate 162
gzip 30 gzip (content coding) 31
H H
HEAD method 63 HEAD method 64
Headers Headers
Accept 112 Accept 112
Accept-Charset 114 Accept-Charset 114
Accept-Encoding 114 Accept-Encoding 114
Accept-Language 116 Accept-Language 116
Accept-Ranges 117 Accept-Ranges 117
Age 117 Age 117
Allow 118 Allow 118
Alternate 190 Alternate 190
Authorization 118 Authorization 118
skipping to change at page 214, line 38 skipping to change at page 240, line 50
TE 154 TE 154
Trailer 155 Trailer 155
Transfer-Encoding 155 Transfer-Encoding 155
Upgrade 156 Upgrade 156
URI 190 URI 190
User-Agent 157 User-Agent 157
Vary 157 Vary 157
Via 158 Via 158
Warning 160 Warning 160
WWW-Authenticate 162 WWW-Authenticate 162
heuristic expiration time 16 heuristic expiration time 17
Host header 140 Host header 140
I I
identity 30 identity (content coding) 31
If-Match header 141 If-Match header 141
If-Modified-Since header 142 If-Modified-Since header 142
If-None-Match header 144 If-None-Match header 144
If-Range header 145 If-Range header 145
If-Unmodified-Since header 146 If-Unmodified-Since header 146
inbound 17 inbound 18
L L
Last-Modified header 146 Last-Modified header 146
Link header 190 Link header 190
LINK method 190 LINK method 190
Location header 147 Location header 147
M M
max-age max-age
Cache Directive 124, 126 Cache Directive 124, 126
Max-Forwards header 148 Max-Forwards header 148
max-stale max-stale
Cache Directive 124 Cache Directive 124
Media Type Media Type
application/http 177 application/http 177
message/http 177 message/http 177
multipart/byteranges 179 multipart/byteranges 179
multipart/x-byteranges 180 multipart/x-byteranges 180
message 13 message 14
message/http Media Type 177 message/http Media Type 177
Methods Methods
CONNECT 67 CONNECT 67
DELETE 66 DELETE 67
GET 63 GET 64
HEAD 63 HEAD 64
LINK 190 LINK 190
OPTIONS 62 OPTIONS 63
PATCH 190 PATCH 190
POST 64 POST 65
PUT 65 PUT 65
TRACE 66 TRACE 67
UNLINK 190 UNLINK 190
min-fresh min-fresh
Cache Directive 124 Cache Directive 124
multipart/byteranges Media Type 179 multipart/byteranges Media Type 179
multipart/x-byteranges Media Type 180 multipart/x-byteranges Media Type 180
must-revalidate must-revalidate
Cache Directive 126 Cache Directive 126
N N
no-cache no-cache
Cache Directive 122 Cache Directive 122
no-store no-store
Cache Directive 122 Cache Directive 122
no-transform no-transform
Cache Directive 127 Cache Directive 127
O O
only-if-cached only-if-cached
Cache Directive 126 Cache Directive 126
OPTIONS method 62 OPTIONS method 63
origin server 14 origin server 15
outbound 17 outbound 18
P P
PATCH method 190 PATCH method 190
POST method 64 POST method 65
Pragma header 148 Pragma header 148
private private
Cache Directive 121 Cache Directive 121
proxy 14 proxy 15
Proxy-Authenticate header 149 Proxy-Authenticate header 149
Proxy-Authorization header 149 Proxy-Authorization header 149
proxy-revalidate proxy-revalidate
Cache Directive 127 Cache Directive 127
Public header 190 Public header 190
public public
Cache Directive 121 Cache Directive 121
PUT method 65 PUT method 65
R R
Range header 150 Range header 150
Referer header 152 Referer header 152
representation 13 representation 14
request 13 request 14
resource 13 resource 14
response 13 response 14
Retry-After header 153 Retry-After header 153
S S
s-maxage s-maxage
Cache Directive 123 Cache Directive 123
semantically transparent 16 semantically transparent 17
Server header 153 Server header 153
server 14 server 15
stale 16 stale 17
Status Codes Status Codes
100 Continue 68 100 Continue 68
101 Switching Protocols 68 101 Switching Protocols 68
200 OK 69 200 OK 69
201 Created 69 201 Created 69
202 Accepted 69 202 Accepted 69
203 Non-Authoritative Information 70 203 Non-Authoritative Information 70
204 No Content 70 204 No Content 70
205 Reset Content 70 205 Reset Content 70
206 Partial Content 71 206 Partial Content 71
skipping to change at page 217, line 36 skipping to change at page 243, line 47
417 Expectation Failed 80 417 Expectation Failed 80
500 Internal Server Error 80 500 Internal Server Error 80
501 Not Implemented 80 501 Not Implemented 80
502 Bad Gateway 80 502 Bad Gateway 80
503 Service Unavailable 81 503 Service Unavailable 81
504 Gateway Timeout 81 504 Gateway Timeout 81
505 HTTP Version Not Supported 81 505 HTTP Version Not Supported 81
T T
TE header 154 TE header 154
TRACE method 66 TRACE method 67
Trailer header 155 Trailer header 155
Transfer-Encoding header 155 Transfer-Encoding header 155
tunnel 15 tunnel 16
U U
UNLINK method 190 UNLINK method 190
Upgrade header 156 Upgrade header 156
upstream 17 upstream 18
URI header 190 URI header 190
user agent 14 user agent 15
User-Agent header 157 User-Agent header 157
V V
validator 16 validator 17
variant 14 variant 15
Vary header 157 Vary header 157
Via header 158 Via header 158
W W
Warn Codes
110 Response is stale 161
111 Revalidation failed 161
112 Disconnected operation 161
113 Heuristic expiration 161
199 Miscellaneous warning 161
214 Transformation applied 162
299 Miscellaneous persistent warning 162
Warning header 160 Warning header 160
WWW-Authenticate header 162 WWW-Authenticate header 162
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Roy T. Fielding Roy T. Fielding
Day Software Day Software
23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 215 23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 215
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660
USA USA
Phone: +1-949-706-5300 Phone: +1-949-706-5300
Fax: +1-949-706-5305 Fax: +1-949-706-5305
Email: fielding@gbiv.com Email: fielding@gbiv.com
URI: http://roy.gbiv.com/ URI: http://roy.gbiv.com/
James Gettys Jim Gettys
Hewlett-Packard Company One Laptop per Child
HP Labs, Cambridge Research Laboratory 1 Cambridge Center, 10th floor
One Cambridge Center Cambridge, MA 02142
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA USA
Email: Jim.Gettys@hp.com URI: http://www.laptop.org/
Jeffrey C. Mogul Jeffrey C. Mogul
Hewlett-Packard Company Hewlett-Packard Company
HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group
1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177 1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177
Palo Alto, CA 94304 Palo Alto, CA 94304
USA USA
Email: JeffMogul@acm.org Email: JeffMogul@acm.org
 End of changes. 233 change blocks. 
640 lines changed or deleted 1932 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/