draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02.txt   draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.txt 
Network Working Group R. Fielding Network Working Group R. Fielding
Internet-Draft Day Software Internet-Draft Day Software
Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys
Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul
Expires: May 23, 2007 HP Expires: January 1, 2008 HP
H. Frystyk H. Frystyk
Microsoft Microsoft
L. Masinter L. Masinter
Adobe Systems Adobe Systems
P. Leach P. Leach
Microsoft Microsoft
T. Berners-Lee T. Berners-Lee
W3C/MIT W3C/MIT
Y. Lafon, Ed. Y. Lafon, Ed.
W3C W3C
J. Reschke, Ed. J. Reschke, Ed.
greenbytes greenbytes
November 19, 2006 June 30, 2007
Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02 draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2008.
Abstract Abstract
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
systems. It is a generic, stateless, protocol which can be used for systems. It is a generic, stateless, protocol which can be used for
many tasks beyond its use for hypertext, such as name servers and many tasks beyond its use for hypertext, such as name servers and
distributed object management systems, through extension of its distributed object management systems, through extension of its
request methods, error codes and headers [RFC2324]. A feature of request methods, error codes and headers [RFC2324]. A feature of
HTTP is the typing and negotiation of data representation, allowing HTTP is the typing and negotiation of data representation, allowing
skipping to change at page 3, line 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 27
minimal corrections. For now, it is not planned to advance the minimal corrections. For now, it is not planned to advance the
standards level of HTTP, thus - if published - the specification will standards level of HTTP, thus - if published - the specification will
still be a "Proposed Standard" (see [RFC2026]). still be a "Proposed Standard" (see [RFC2026]).
The current plan is to incorporate known errata, and to update the The current plan is to incorporate known errata, and to update the
specification text according to the current IETF publication specification text according to the current IETF publication
guidelines. In particular: guidelines. In particular:
o Incorporate the corrections collected in the RFC2616 errata o Incorporate the corrections collected in the RFC2616 errata
document (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata>) (most of the document (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata>) (most of the
suggested fixes have been applied to draft 01). suggested fixes have been applied to draft 01 [3]).
o Incorporate corrections for newly discovered and agreed-upon o Incorporate corrections for newly discovered and agreed-upon
problems, using the HTTP WG mailing list as forum and problems, using the HTTP WG mailing list as forum and
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/> as <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/> as
issues list. issues list.
o Update references, and re-classify them into "Normative" and o Update references, and re-classify them into "Normative" and
"Informative", based on the prior work done by Jim Gettys in "Informative", based on the prior work done by Jim Gettys in
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00>. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00>.
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.4. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar . . . . . . . . . 18 2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1. Augmented BNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1. Augmented BNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2. Basic Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2. Basic Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1. HTTP Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.1. HTTP Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2. Uniform Resource Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2. Uniform Resource Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.1. General Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1. General Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.2. http URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.2. http URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.3. URI Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.3. URI Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3. Date/Time Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3. Date/Time Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3.1. Full Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3.1. Full Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3.2. Delta Seconds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.2. Delta Seconds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4. Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4. Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.1. Missing Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.4.1. Missing Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5. Content Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.5. Content Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6. Transfer Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.6. Transfer Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6.1. Chunked Transfer Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.6.1. Chunked Transfer Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.7. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.7. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults . . . . . . . . . 32 3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults . . . . . . . . . 33
3.7.2. Multipart Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.7.2. Multipart Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.8. Product Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.8. Product Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.9. Quality Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.9. Quality Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.10. Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.10. Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.11. Entity Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.11. Entity Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.12. Range Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.12. Range Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4. HTTP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4. HTTP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.1. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.1. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2. Message Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.2. Message Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3. Message Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.3. Message Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4. Message Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.4. Message Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.5. General Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4.5. General Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1. Request-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5.1. Request-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1.1. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5.1.1. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1.2. Request-URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5.1.2. Request-URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.2. The Resource Identified by a Request . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.2. The Resource Identified by a Request . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.3. Request Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.3. Request Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1. Status-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6.1. Status-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1.1. Status Code and Reason Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6.1.1. Status Code and Reason Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.2. Response Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 6.2. Response Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 7. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.1. Entity Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 7.1. Entity Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.2. Entity Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 7.2. Entity Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.2.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 7.2.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.2.2. Entity Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 7.2.2. Entity Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8. Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 8. Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.1. Persistent Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 8.1. Persistent Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 8.1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.1.2. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 8.1.2. Overall Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.1.3. Proxy Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.1.3. Proxy Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1.4. Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.1.4. Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.2. Message Transmission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8.2. Message Transmission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.2.1. Persistent Connections and Flow Control . . . . . . 55 8.2.1. Persistent Connections and Flow Control . . . . . . 56
8.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages . . 55 8.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages . . 56
8.2.3. Use of the 100 (Continue) Status . . . . . . . . . . 56 8.2.3. Use of the 100 (Continue) Status . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2.4. Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes 8.2.4. Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes
Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
9. Method Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9. Method Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9.1. Safe and Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9.1. Safe and Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9.1.1. Safe Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9.1.1. Safe Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9.1.2. Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9.1.2. Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9.2. OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 9.2. OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.3. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.3. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.4. HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.4. HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.5. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 9.5. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.6. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9.6. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9.7. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 9.7. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9.8. TRACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 9.8. TRACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9.9. CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 9.9. CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
10. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 10. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.1. Informational 1xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 10.1. Informational 1xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.1.1. 100 Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 10.1.1. 100 Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.1.2. 101 Switching Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 10.1.2. 101 Switching Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.2. Successful 2xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.2. Successful 2xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.2.1. 200 OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.2.1. 200 OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.2.2. 201 Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.2.2. 201 Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.2.3. 202 Accepted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.2.3. 202 Accepted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.2.4. 203 Non-Authoritative Information . . . . . . . . . 68 10.2.4. 203 Non-Authoritative Information . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.5. 204 No Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.2.5. 204 No Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.6. 205 Reset Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.2.6. 205 Reset Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.2.7. 206 Partial Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.2.7. 206 Partial Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10.3. Redirection 3xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10.3. Redirection 3xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10.3.1. 300 Multiple Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 10.3.1. 300 Multiple Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.3.2. 301 Moved Permanently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 10.3.2. 301 Moved Permanently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.3.3. 302 Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 10.3.3. 302 Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10.3.4. 303 See Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 10.3.4. 303 See Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10.3.5. 304 Not Modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 10.3.5. 304 Not Modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10.3.6. 305 Use Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 10.3.6. 305 Use Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10.3.7. 306 (Unused) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 10.3.7. 306 (Unused) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
10.3.8. 307 Temporary Redirect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 10.3.8. 307 Temporary Redirect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
10.4. Client Error 4xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 10.4. Client Error 4xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
10.4.1. 400 Bad Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 10.4.1. 400 Bad Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10.4.2. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 10.4.2. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10.4.3. 402 Payment Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 10.4.3. 402 Payment Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10.4.4. 403 Forbidden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 10.4.4. 403 Forbidden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10.4.5. 404 Not Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 10.4.5. 404 Not Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10.4.6. 405 Method Not Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 10.4.6. 405 Method Not Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.4.7. 406 Not Acceptable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 10.4.7. 406 Not Acceptable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.4.8. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . 75 10.4.8. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . 76
10.4.9. 408 Request Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 10.4.9. 408 Request Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
10.4.10. 409 Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 10.4.10. 409 Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
10.4.11. 410 Gone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 10.4.11. 410 Gone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
10.4.12. 411 Length Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10.4.12. 411 Length Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.13. 412 Precondition Failed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10.4.13. 412 Precondition Failed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.14. 413 Request Entity Too Large . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10.4.14. 413 Request Entity Too Large . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.15. 414 Request-URI Too Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10.4.15. 414 Request-URI Too Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.16. 415 Unsupported Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10.4.16. 415 Unsupported Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.17. 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable . . . . . . . . 77 10.4.17. 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable . . . . . . . . 78
10.4.18. 417 Expectation Failed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.4.18. 417 Expectation Failed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.5. Server Error 5xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.5. Server Error 5xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.5.1. 500 Internal Server Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.5.1. 500 Internal Server Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.5.2. 501 Not Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.5.2. 501 Not Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.5.3. 502 Bad Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 10.5.3. 502 Bad Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
10.5.4. 503 Service Unavailable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 10.5.4. 503 Service Unavailable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
10.5.5. 504 Gateway Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 10.5.5. 504 Gateway Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
10.5.6. 505 HTTP Version Not Supported . . . . . . . . . . . 79 10.5.6. 505 HTTP Version Not Supported . . . . . . . . . . . 80
11. Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 11. Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
12. Content Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 12. Content Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
12.1. Server-driven Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 12.1. Server-driven Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
12.2. Agent-driven Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 12.2. Agent-driven Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
12.3. Transparent Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 12.3. Transparent Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
13. Caching in HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 13. Caching in HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
13.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 13.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
13.1.1. Cache Correctness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 13.1.1. Cache Correctness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
13.1.2. Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 13.1.2. Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
13.1.3. Cache-control Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 13.1.3. Cache-control Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
13.1.4. Explicit User Agent Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 13.1.4. Explicit User Agent Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
13.1.5. Exceptions to the Rules and Warnings . . . . . . . . 88 13.1.5. Exceptions to the Rules and Warnings . . . . . . . . 89
13.1.6. Client-controlled Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 13.1.6. Client-controlled Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
13.2. Expiration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 13.2. Expiration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
13.2.1. Server-Specified Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 13.2.1. Server-Specified Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
13.2.2. Heuristic Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 13.2.2. Heuristic Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
13.2.3. Age Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 13.2.3. Age Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
13.2.4. Expiration Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 13.2.4. Expiration Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
13.2.5. Disambiguating Expiration Values . . . . . . . . . . 93 13.2.5. Disambiguating Expiration Values . . . . . . . . . . 94
13.2.6. Disambiguating Multiple Responses . . . . . . . . . 94 13.2.6. Disambiguating Multiple Responses . . . . . . . . . 95
13.3. Validation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 13.3. Validation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
13.3.1. Last-Modified Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 13.3.1. Last-Modified Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
13.3.2. Entity Tag Cache Validators . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 13.3.2. Entity Tag Cache Validators . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
13.3.3. Weak and Strong Validators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 13.3.3. Weak and Strong Validators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
13.3.4. Rules for When to Use Entity Tags and 13.3.4. Rules for When to Use Entity Tags and
Last-Modified Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Last-Modified Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
13.3.5. Non-validating Conditionals . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 13.3.5. Non-validating Conditionals . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
13.4. Response Cacheability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 13.4. Response Cacheability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
13.5. Constructing Responses From Caches . . . . . . . . . . . 101 13.5. Constructing Responses From Caches . . . . . . . . . . . 102
13.5.1. End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Headers . . . . . . . . . 101 13.5.1. End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Headers . . . . . . . . . 102
13.5.2. Non-modifiable Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 13.5.2. Non-modifiable Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
13.5.3. Combining Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 13.5.3. Combining Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
13.5.4. Combining Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 13.5.4. Combining Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
13.6. Caching Negotiated Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 13.6. Caching Negotiated Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
13.7. Shared and Non-Shared Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 13.7. Shared and Non-Shared Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
13.8. Errors or Incomplete Response Cache Behavior . . . . . . 106 13.8. Errors or Incomplete Response Cache Behavior . . . . . . 107
13.9. Side Effects of GET and HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 13.9. Side Effects of GET and HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
13.10. Invalidation After Updates or Deletions . . . . . . . . 107 13.10. Invalidation After Updates or Deletions . . . . . . . . 108
13.11. Write-Through Mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 13.11. Write-Through Mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
13.12. Cache Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 13.12. Cache Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
13.13. History Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 13.13. History Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
14. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 14. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
14.1. Accept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 14.1. Accept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
14.2. Accept-Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 14.2. Accept-Charset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
14.3. Accept-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 14.3. Accept-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
14.4. Accept-Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 14.4. Accept-Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
14.5. Accept-Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 14.5. Accept-Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
14.6. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 14.6. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
14.7. Allow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 14.7. Allow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
14.8. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 14.8. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
14.9. Cache-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 14.9. Cache-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
14.9.1. What is Cacheable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 14.9.1. What is Cacheable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
14.9.2. What May be Stored by Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 14.9.2. What May be Stored by Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
14.9.3. Modifications of the Basic Expiration Mechanism . . 121 14.9.3. Modifications of the Basic Expiration Mechanism . . 122
14.9.4. Cache Revalidation and Reload Controls . . . . . . . 123 14.9.4. Cache Revalidation and Reload Controls . . . . . . . 124
14.9.5. No-Transform Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 14.9.5. No-Transform Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
14.9.6. Cache Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 14.9.6. Cache Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
14.10. Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 14.10. Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
14.11. Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 14.11. Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
14.12. Content-Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 14.12. Content-Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
14.13. Content-Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 14.13. Content-Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
14.14. Content-Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 14.14. Content-Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
14.15. Content-MD5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 14.15. Content-MD5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
14.16. Content-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 14.16. Content-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
14.17. Content-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 14.17. Content-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
14.18. Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 14.18. Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
14.18.1. Clockless Origin Server Operation . . . . . . . . . 135 14.18.1. Clockless Origin Server Operation . . . . . . . . . 136
14.19. ETag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 14.19. ETag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
14.20. Expect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 14.20. Expect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
14.21. Expires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 14.21. Expires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
14.22. From . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 14.22. From . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
14.23. Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 14.23. Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
14.24. If-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 14.24. If-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
14.25. If-Modified-Since . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 14.25. If-Modified-Since . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
14.26. If-None-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 14.26. If-None-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
14.27. If-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 14.27. If-Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
14.28. If-Unmodified-Since . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 14.28. If-Unmodified-Since . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
14.29. Last-Modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 14.29. Last-Modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
14.30. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 14.30. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
14.31. Max-Forwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 14.31. Max-Forwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
14.32. Pragma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 14.32. Pragma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
14.33. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 14.33. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
14.34. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 14.34. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
14.35. Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 14.35. Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
14.35.1. Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 14.35.1. Byte Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
14.35.2. Range Retrieval Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 14.35.2. Range Retrieval Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
14.36. Referer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 14.36. Referer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
14.37. Retry-After . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 14.37. Retry-After . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
14.38. Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 14.38. Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
14.39. TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 14.39. TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
14.40. Trailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 14.40. Trailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
14.41. Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 14.41. Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
14.42. Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 14.42. Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
14.43. User-Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 14.43. User-Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
14.44. Vary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 14.44. Vary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
14.45. Via . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 14.45. Via . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
14.46. Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 14.46. Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
14.47. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 14.47. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
15.1. Personal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 15.1. Personal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
15.1.1. Abuse of Server Log Information . . . . . . . . . . 161 15.1.1. Abuse of Server Log Information . . . . . . . . . . 162
15.1.2. Transfer of Sensitive Information . . . . . . . . . 161 15.1.2. Transfer of Sensitive Information . . . . . . . . . 162
15.1.3. Encoding Sensitive Information in URI's . . . . . . 162 15.1.3. Encoding Sensitive Information in URI's . . . . . . 163
15.1.4. Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers . . . . . 163 15.1.4. Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers . . . . . 164
15.2. Attacks Based On File and Path Names . . . . . . . . . . 163 15.2. Attacks Based On File and Path Names . . . . . . . . . . 164
15.3. DNS Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 15.3. DNS Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
15.4. Location Headers and Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 15.4. Location Headers and Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
15.5. Content-Disposition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 15.5. Content-Disposition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . 165 15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . 166
15.7. Proxies and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 15.7. Proxies and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
15.7.1. Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies . . . . . . . . 166 15.7.1. Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies . . . . . . . . 167
16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
16.1. (RFC2616) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 16.1. (RFC2616) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
16.2. (This Document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 16.2. (This Document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
17.1. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 17.1. References (to be classified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and
application/http . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 application/http . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Appendix B. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges . . . . . . 177 Appendix B. Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges . . . . . . 178
Appendix C. Tolerant Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Appendix C. Tolerant Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Appendix D. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Appendix D. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045
Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
D.1. MIME-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 D.1. MIME-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
D.2. Conversion to Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 D.2. Conversion to Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
D.3. Conversion of Date Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 D.3. Conversion of Date Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D.4. Introduction of Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 D.4. Introduction of Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D.5. No Content-Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 D.5. No Content-Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D.6. Introduction of Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 182 D.6. Introduction of Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 183
D.7. MHTML and Line Length Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . 182 D.7. MHTML and Line Length Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Appendix E. Additional Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Appendix E. Additional Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
E.1. Content-Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 E.1. Content-Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Appendix F. Compatibility with Previous Versions . . . . . . . . 184 Appendix F. Compatibility with Previous Versions . . . . . . . . 185
F.1. Changes from HTTP/1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 F.1. Changes from HTTP/1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
F.1.1. Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and F.1.1. Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and
Conserve IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Conserve IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
F.2. Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections . . . 185 F.2. Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections . . . 186
F.3. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 F.3. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
F.4. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 F.4. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Appendix G. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix G. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
G.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 G.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
G.2. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 G.2. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
G.3. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 G.3. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
G.4. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor
before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
H.1. rfc2606-compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 H.1. i45-rfc977-reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
H.2. references_style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 H.2. i46-rfc1700_remove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
H.3. media-reg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 H.3. i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation . . . . . . 193
H.4. location-fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 H.4. i49-connection-header-text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
H.5. i48-date-reference-typo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
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) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
I.1. rfc2616bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 I.1. rfc2616bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
I.2. unneeded_references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 I.2. unneeded_references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
I.3. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 I.3. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
I.4. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 I.4. i66-iso8859-1-reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
I.5. languagetag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 I.5. abnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
I.6. fragment-combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 I.6. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 I.7. i34-updated-reference-for-uris . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 I.8. i50-misc-typos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . 209 I.9. i65-informative-references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
I.10. i52-sort-1.3-terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
I.11. i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words . . . . . . . 199
I.12. i31-qdtext-bnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
I.13. i62-whitespace-in-quoted-pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
I.14. i58-what-identifies-an-http-resource . . . . . . . . . . 200
I.15. i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
I.16. i67-quoting-charsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
I.17. media-reg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
I.18. languagetag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
I.19. i56-6.1.1-can-be-misread-as-a-complete-list . . . . . . 201
I.20. i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase . . . . . . . . . . . 202
I.21. i59-status-code-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
I.22. i21-put-side-effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
I.23. i54-definition-of-1xx-warn-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
I.24. i60-13.5.1-and-13.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
I.25. i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
I.26. i25-accept-encoding-bnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.27. i61-redirection-vs-location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.28. fragment-combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
I.29. i55-updating-to-rfc4288 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . 221
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 10, line 42 skipping to change at page 11, line 42
purpose of a request [RFC2324]. It builds on the discipline of purpose of a request [RFC2324]. It builds on the discipline of
reference provided by the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) reference provided by the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
[RFC1630], as a location (URL) [RFC1738] or name (URN) [RFC1737], for [RFC1630], as a location (URL) [RFC1738] or name (URN) [RFC1737], for
indicating the resource to which a method is to be applied. Messages indicating the resource to which a method is to be applied. Messages
are passed in a format similar to that used by Internet mail [RFC822] are passed in a format similar to that used by Internet mail [RFC822]
as defined by the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) as defined by the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
[RFC2045]. [RFC2045].
HTTP is also used as a generic protocol for communication between HTTP is also used as a generic protocol for communication between
user agents and proxies/gateways to other Internet systems, including user agents and proxies/gateways to other Internet systems, including
those supported by the SMTP [RFC821], NNTP [RFC977], FTP [RFC959], those supported by the SMTP [RFC821], NNTP [RFC3977], FTP [RFC959],
Gopher [RFC1436], and WAIS [WAIS] protocols. In this way, HTTP Gopher [RFC1436], and WAIS [WAIS] protocols. In this way, HTTP
allows basic hypermedia access to resources available from diverse allows basic hypermedia access to resources available from diverse
applications. applications.
1.2. Requirements 1.2. Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
skipping to change at page 17, line 4 skipping to change at page 18, line 4
subsets of cached data via CD-ROM, and so on. HTTP systems are used subsets of cached data via CD-ROM, and so on. HTTP systems are used
in corporate intranets over high-bandwidth links, and for access via in corporate intranets over high-bandwidth links, and for access via
PDAs with low-power radio links and intermittent connectivity. The PDAs with low-power radio links and intermittent connectivity. The
goal of HTTP/1.1 is to support the wide diversity of configurations goal of HTTP/1.1 is to support the wide diversity of configurations
already deployed while introducing protocol constructs that meet the already deployed while introducing protocol constructs that meet the
needs of those who build web applications that require high needs of those who build web applications that require high
reliability and, failing that, at least reliable indications of reliability and, failing that, at least reliable indications of
failure. failure.
HTTP communication usually takes place over TCP/IP connections. The HTTP communication usually takes place over TCP/IP connections. The
default port is TCP 80 [RFC1700], but other ports can be used. This default port is TCP 80
does not preclude HTTP from being implemented on top of any other (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>), but other ports can
protocol on the Internet, or on other networks. HTTP only presumes a be used. This does not preclude HTTP from being implemented on top
reliable transport; any protocol that provides such guarantees can be of any other protocol on the Internet, or on other networks. HTTP
used; the mapping of the HTTP/1.1 request and response structures only presumes a reliable transport; any protocol that provides such
onto the transport data units of the protocol in question is outside guarantees can be used; the mapping of the HTTP/1.1 request and
the scope of this specification. response structures onto the transport data units of the protocol in
question is outside the scope of this specification.
In HTTP/1.0, most implementations used a new connection for each In HTTP/1.0, most implementations used a new connection for each
request/response exchange. In HTTP/1.1, a connection may be used for request/response exchange. In HTTP/1.1, a connection may be used for
one or more request/response exchanges, although connections may be one or more request/response exchanges, although connections may be
closed for a variety of reasons (see Section 8.1). closed for a variety of reasons (see Section 8.1).
2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar 2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar
2.1. Augmented BNF 2.1. Augmented BNF
skipping to change at page 20, line 45 skipping to change at page 21, line 45
continuation line begins with a space or horizontal tab. All linear continuation line begins with a space or horizontal tab. All linear
white space, including folding, has the same semantics as SP. A white space, including folding, has the same semantics as SP. A
recipient MAY replace any linear white space with a single SP before recipient MAY replace any linear white space with a single SP before
interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream. interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream.
LWS = [CRLF] 1*( SP | HT ) LWS = [CRLF] 1*( SP | HT )
The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and values The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and values
that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser. Words that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser. Words
of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than ISO- of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than ISO-
8859-1 [ISO-8859] only when encoded according to the rules of 8859-1 [ISO-8859-1] only when encoded according to the rules of
[RFC2047]. [RFC2047].
TEXT = <any OCTET except CTLs, TEXT = <any OCTET except CTLs,
but including LWS> but including LWS>
A CRLF is allowed in the definition of TEXT only as part of a header A CRLF is allowed in the definition of TEXT only as part of a header
field continuation. It is expected that the folding LWS will be field continuation. It is expected that the folding LWS will be
replaced with a single SP before interpretation of the TEXT value. replaced with a single SP before interpretation of the TEXT value.
Hexadecimal numeric characters are used in several protocol elements. Hexadecimal numeric characters are used in several protocol elements.
skipping to change at page 23, line 34 skipping to change at page 24, 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", 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 25, line 19 skipping to change at page 26, line 19
HTTP applications have historically allowed three different formats HTTP applications have historically allowed three different formats
for the representation of date/time stamps: for the representation of date/time stamps:
Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT ; [RFC822], updated by [RFC1123] Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT ; [RFC822], updated by [RFC1123]
Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 850, obsoleted by [RFC1036] Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 850, obsoleted by [RFC1036]
Sun Nov 6 08:49:37 1994 ; ANSI C's asctime() format Sun Nov 6 08:49:37 1994 ; ANSI C's asctime() format
The first format is preferred as an Internet standard and represents The first format is preferred as an Internet standard and represents
a fixed-length subset of that defined by [RFC1123] (an update to a fixed-length subset of that defined by [RFC1123] (an update to
[RFC822]). The second format is in common use, but is based on the [RFC822]). The second format is in common use, but is based on the
obsolete RFC 850 [RFC1036] date format and lacks a four-digit year. obsolete RFC 1036 date format [RFC1036] and lacks a four-digit year.
HTTP/1.1 clients and servers that parse the date value MUST accept HTTP/1.1 clients and servers that parse the date value MUST accept
all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they MUST all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they MUST
only generate the RFC 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values only generate the RFC 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values
in header fields. See Appendix C for further information. in header fields. See Appendix C for further information.
Note: Recipients of date values are encouraged to be robust in Note: Recipients of date values are encouraged to be robust in
accepting date values that may have been sent by non-HTTP accepting date values that may have been sent by non-HTTP
applications, as is sometimes the case when retrieving or posting applications, as is sometimes the case when retrieving or posting
messages via proxies/gateways to SMTP or NNTP. messages via proxies/gateways to SMTP or NNTP.
skipping to change at page 27, line 15 skipping to change at page 28, line 15
to characters. In particular, use of external profiling information to characters. In particular, use of external profiling information
to determine the exact mapping is not permitted. to determine the exact mapping is not permitted.
Note: This use of the term "character set" is more commonly Note: This use of the term "character set" is more commonly
referred to as a "character encoding." However, since HTTP and referred to as a "character encoding." However, since HTTP and
MIME share the same registry, it is important that the terminology MIME share the same registry, it is important that the terminology
also be shared. also be shared.
HTTP character sets are identified by case-insensitive tokens. The HTTP character sets are identified by case-insensitive tokens. The
complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character Set registry complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character Set registry
[RFC1700]. (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets>).
charset = token charset = token
Although HTTP allows an arbitrary token to be used as a charset Although HTTP allows an arbitrary token to be used as a charset
value, any token that has a predefined value within the IANA value, any token that has a predefined value within the IANA
Character Set registry [RFC1700] MUST represent the character set Character Set registry MUST represent the character set defined by
defined by that registry. Applications SHOULD limit their use of that registry. Applications SHOULD limit their use of character sets
character sets to those defined by the IANA registry. to those defined by the IANA registry.
HTTP uses charset in two contexts: within an Accept-Charset request HTTP uses charset in two contexts: within an Accept-Charset request
header (in which the charset value is an unquoted token) and as the header (in which the charset value is an unquoted token) and as the
value of a parameter in a Content-Type header (within a request or value of a parameter in a Content-Type header (within a request or
response), in which case the parameter value of the charset parameter response), in which case the parameter value of the charset parameter
may be quoted. may be quoted.
Implementors should be aware of IETF character set requirements Implementors should be aware of IETF character set requirements
[RFC2279] [RFC2277]. [RFC2279] [RFC2277].
skipping to change at page 32, line 12 skipping to change at page 33, line 12
attribute and its value. The presence or absence of a parameter attribute and its value. The presence or absence of a parameter
might be significant to the processing of a media-type, depending on might be significant to the processing of a media-type, depending on
its definition within the media type registry. its definition within the media type registry.
Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type
parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications, parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications,
implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are
required by that type/subtype definition. required by that type/subtype definition.
Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number
Authority (IANA [RFC1700]). The media type registration process is Authority (IANA). The media type registration process is outlined in
outlined in [RFC1590]. Use of non-registered media types is [RFC1590]. Use of non-registered media types is discouraged.
discouraged.
3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults 3.7.1. Canonicalization and Text Defaults
Internet media types are registered with a canonical form. An Internet media types are registered with a canonical form. An
entity-body transferred via HTTP messages MUST be represented in the entity-body transferred via HTTP messages MUST be represented in the
appropriate canonical form prior to its transmission except for appropriate canonical form prior to its transmission except for
"text" types, as defined in the next paragraph. "text" types, as defined in the next paragraph.
When in canonical form, media subtypes of the "text" type use CRLF as When in canonical form, media subtypes of the "text" type use CRLF as
the text line break. HTTP relaxes this requirement and allows the the text line break. HTTP relaxes this requirement and allows the
skipping to change at page 33, line 38 skipping to change at page 34, line 33
body do not have any significance to HTTP beyond that defined by body do not have any significance to HTTP beyond that defined by
their MIME semantics. their MIME semantics.
In general, an HTTP user agent SHOULD follow the same or similar In general, an HTTP user agent SHOULD follow the same or similar
behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type. behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type.
If an application receives an unrecognized multipart subtype, the If an application receives an unrecognized multipart subtype, the
application MUST treat it as being equivalent to "multipart/mixed". application MUST treat it as being equivalent to "multipart/mixed".
Note: The "multipart/form-data" type has been specifically defined Note: The "multipart/form-data" type has been specifically defined
for carrying form data suitable for processing via the POST for carrying form data suitable for processing via the POST
request method, as described in [RFC1867]. request method, as described in RFC 1867 [RFC1867].
3.8. Product Tokens 3.8. Product Tokens
Product tokens are used to allow communicating applications to Product tokens are used to allow communicating applications to
identify themselves by software name and version. Most fields using identify themselves by software name and version. Most fields using
product tokens also allow sub-products which form a significant part product tokens also allow sub-products which form a significant part
of the application to be listed, separated by white space. By of the application to be listed, separated by white space. By
convention, the products are listed in order of their significance convention, the products are listed in order of their significance
for identifying the application. for identifying the application.
skipping to change at page 52, line 18 skipping to change at page 53, line 18
8.1.1. Purpose 8.1.1. Purpose
Prior to persistent connections, a separate TCP connection was Prior to persistent connections, a separate TCP connection was
established to fetch each URL, increasing the load on HTTP servers established to fetch each URL, increasing the load on HTTP servers
and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and
other associated data often require a client to make multiple other associated data often require a client to make multiple
requests of the same server in a short amount of time. Analysis of requests of the same server in a short amount of time. Analysis of
these performance problems and results from a prototype these performance problems and results from a prototype
implementation are available [Pad1995] [Spero]. Implementation implementation are available [Pad1995] [Spero]. Implementation
experience and measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2068) experience and measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 ([RFC2068])
implementations show good results [Nie1997]. Alternatives have also implementations show good results [Nie1997]. Alternatives have also
been explored, for example, T/TCP [Tou1998]. been explored, for example, T/TCP [Tou1998].
Persistent HTTP connections have a number of advantages: Persistent HTTP connections have a number of advantages:
o By opening and closing fewer TCP connections, CPU time is saved in o By opening and closing fewer TCP connections, CPU time is saved in
routers and hosts (clients, servers, proxies, gateways, tunnels, routers and hosts (clients, servers, proxies, gateways, tunnels,
or caches), and memory used for TCP protocol control blocks can be or caches), and memory used for TCP protocol control blocks can be
saved in hosts. saved in hosts.
skipping to change at page 73, line 28 skipping to change at page 74, line 28
The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI.
Since the redirection MAY be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD Since the redirection MAY be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD
continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response
is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header
field. field.
The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the
response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to
the new URI(s) , since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not the new URI(s), since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand
understand the 307 status. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the the 307 status. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the information
information necessary for a user to repeat the original request on necessary for a user to repeat the original request on the new URI.
the new URI.
If the 307 status code is received in response to a request method If the 307 status code is received in response to a request method
that is known to be "safe", as defined in Section 9.1.1, then the that is known to be "safe", as defined in Section 9.1.1, then the
request MAY be automatically redirected by the user agent without request MAY be automatically redirected by the user agent without
confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent MUST NOT automatically confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent MUST NOT automatically
redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since
this might change the conditions under which the request was issued. this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.
10.4. Client Error 4xx 10.4. Client Error 4xx
skipping to change at page 86, line 28 skipping to change at page 87, line 28
Warnings MAY be used for other purposes, both cache-related and Warnings MAY be used for other purposes, both cache-related and
otherwise. The use of a warning, rather than an error status code, otherwise. The use of a warning, rather than an error status code,
distinguish these responses from true failures. distinguish these responses from true failures.
Warnings are assigned three digit warn-codes. The first digit Warnings are assigned three digit warn-codes. The first digit
indicates whether the Warning MUST or MUST NOT be deleted from a indicates whether the Warning MUST or MUST NOT be deleted from a
stored cache entry after a successful revalidation: stored cache entry after a successful revalidation:
1xx Warnings that describe the freshness or revalidation status of 1xx Warnings that describe the freshness or revalidation status of
the response, and so MUST be deleted after a successful the response, and so MUST be deleted after a successful
revalidation. 1XX warn-codes MAY be generated by a cache only when revalidation. 1xx warn-codes MAY be generated by a cache only when
validating a cached entry. It MUST NOT be generated by clients. validating a cached entry. It MUST NOT be generated by clients.
2xx Warnings that describe some aspect of the entity body or entity 2xx Warnings that describe some aspect of the entity body or entity
headers that is not rectified by a revalidation (for example, a headers that is not rectified by a revalidation (for example, a
lossy compression of the entity bodies) and which MUST NOT be lossy compression of the entity bodies) and which MUST NOT be
deleted after a successful revalidation. deleted after a successful revalidation.
See Section 14.46 for the definitions of the codes themselves. See Section 14.46 for the definitions of the codes themselves.
HTTP/1.0 caches will cache all Warnings in responses, without HTTP/1.0 caches will cache all Warnings in responses, without
skipping to change at page 102, line 29 skipping to change at page 103, line 29
o TE o TE
o Trailer o Trailer
o Transfer-Encoding o Transfer-Encoding
o Upgrade o Upgrade
All other headers defined by HTTP/1.1 are end-to-end headers. All other headers defined by HTTP/1.1 are end-to-end headers.
Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header, Other hop-by-hop headers, if they are introduced either in HTTP/1.1
(Section 14.10) to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later). or later versions of HTTP/1.x, MUST be listed in a Connection header
(Section 14.10).
13.5.2. Non-modifiable Headers 13.5.2. Non-modifiable Headers
Some features of the HTTP/1.1 protocol, such as Digest Some features of the HTTP/1.1 protocol, such as Digest
Authentication, depend on the value of certain end-to-end headers. A Authentication, depend on the value of certain end-to-end headers. A
transparent proxy SHOULD NOT modify an end-to-end header unless the transparent proxy SHOULD NOT modify an end-to-end header unless the
definition of that header requires or specifically allows that. definition of that header requires or specifically allows that.
A transparent proxy MUST NOT modify any of the following fields in a A transparent proxy MUST NOT modify any of the following fields in a
request or response, and it MUST NOT add any of these fields if not request or response, and it MUST NOT add any of these fields if not
skipping to change at page 109, line 32 skipping to change at page 110, line 32
This is not to be construed to prohibit the history mechanism from This is not to be construed to prohibit the history mechanism from
telling the user that a view might be stale. telling the user that a view might be stale.
Note: if history list mechanisms unnecessarily prevent users from Note: if history list mechanisms unnecessarily prevent users from
viewing stale resources, this will tend to force service authors viewing stale resources, this will tend to force service authors
to avoid using HTTP expiration controls and cache controls when to avoid using HTTP expiration controls and cache controls when
they would otherwise like to. Service authors may consider it they would otherwise like to. Service authors may consider it
important that users not be presented with error messages or important that users not be presented with error messages or
warning messages when they use navigation controls (such as BACK) warning messages when they use navigation controls (such as BACK)
to view previously fetched resources. Even though sometimes such to view previously fetched resources. Even though sometimes such
resources ought not to cached, or ought to expire quickly, user resources ought not be cached, or ought to expire quickly, user
interface considerations may force service authors to resort to interface considerations may force service authors to resort to
other means of preventing caching (e.g. "once-only" URLs) in order other means of preventing caching (e.g. "once-only" URLs) in order
not to suffer the effects of improperly functioning history not to suffer the effects of improperly functioning history
mechanisms. mechanisms.
14. Header Field Definitions 14. Header Field Definitions
This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard
HTTP/1.1 header fields. For entity-header fields, both sender and HTTP/1.1 header fields. For entity-header fields, both sender and
recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who
skipping to change at page 128, line 36 skipping to change at page 129, line 36
Content-Encoding: gzip Content-Encoding: gzip
The content-coding is a characteristic of the entity identified by The content-coding is a characteristic of the entity identified by
the Request-URI. Typically, the entity-body is stored with this the Request-URI. Typically, the entity-body is stored with this
encoding and is only decoded before rendering or analogous usage. encoding and is only decoded before rendering or analogous usage.
However, a non-transparent proxy MAY modify the content-coding if the However, a non-transparent proxy MAY modify the content-coding if the
new coding is known to be acceptable to the recipient, unless the new coding is known to be acceptable to the recipient, unless the
"no-transform" cache-control directive is present in the message. "no-transform" cache-control directive is present in the message.
If the content-coding of an entity is not "identity", then the If the content-coding of an entity is not "identity", then the
response MUST include a Content-Encoding entity-header response MUST include a Content-Encoding entity-header that lists the
(Section 14.11) that lists the non-identity content-coding(s) used. non-identity content-coding(s) used.
If the content-coding of an entity in a request message is not If the content-coding of an entity in a request message is not
acceptable to the origin server, the server SHOULD respond with a acceptable to the origin server, the server SHOULD respond with a
status code of 415 (Unsupported Media Type). status code of 415 (Unsupported Media Type).
If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content
codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied. codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied.
Additional information about the encoding parameters MAY be provided Additional information about the encoding parameters MAY be provided
by other entity-header fields not defined by this specification. by other entity-header fields not defined by this specification.
skipping to change at page 133, line 15 skipping to change at page 134, line 15
A server sending a response with status code 416 (Requested range not A server sending a response with status code 416 (Requested range not
satisfiable) SHOULD include a Content-Range field with a byte-range- satisfiable) SHOULD include a Content-Range field with a byte-range-
resp-spec of "*". The instance-length specifies the current length resp-spec of "*". The instance-length specifies the current length
of the selected resource. A response with status code 206 (Partial of the selected resource. A response with status code 206 (Partial
Content) MUST NOT include a Content-Range field with a byte-range- Content) MUST NOT include a Content-Range field with a byte-range-
resp-spec of "*". resp-spec of "*".
Examples of byte-content-range-spec values, assuming that the entity Examples of byte-content-range-spec values, assuming that the entity
contains a total of 1234 bytes: contains a total of 1234 bytes:
. The first 500 bytes: o The first 500 bytes:
bytes 0-499/1234
. The second 500 bytes: bytes 0-499/1234
bytes 500-999/1234
. All except for the first 500 bytes: o The second 500 bytes:
bytes 500-1233/1234
. The last 500 bytes: bytes 500-999/1234
bytes 734-1233/1234
o All except for the first 500 bytes:
bytes 500-1233/1234
o The last 500 bytes:
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
skipping to change at page 134, line 46 skipping to change at page 135, line 49
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4
Further discussion of methods for identifying the media type of an Further discussion of methods for identifying the media type of an
entity is provided in Section 7.2.1. entity is provided in Section 7.2.1.
14.18. Date 14.18. Date
The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which
the message was originated, having the same semantics as orig-date in the message was originated, having the same semantics as orig-date in
RFC 822. The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in RFC 822. The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in
Section 3.3.1; it MUST be sent in [RFC1123]-date format. Section 3.3.1; it MUST be sent in rfc1123-date format.
Date = "Date" ":" HTTP-date Date = "Date" ":" HTTP-date
An example is An example is
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:12:31 GMT Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:12:31 GMT
Origin servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses, Origin servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses,
except in these cases: except in these cases:
skipping to change at page 137, line 25 skipping to change at page 138, line 30
be returned by a cache (either a proxy cache or a user agent cache) be returned by a cache (either a proxy cache or a user agent cache)
unless it is first validated with the origin server (or with an unless it is first validated with the origin server (or with an
intermediate cache that has a fresh copy of the entity). See intermediate cache that has a fresh copy of the entity). See
Section 13.2 for further discussion of the expiration model. Section 13.2 for further discussion of the expiration model.
The presence of an Expires field does not imply that the original The presence of an Expires field does not imply that the original
resource will change or cease to exist at, before, or after that resource will change or cease to exist at, before, or after that
time. time.
The format is an absolute date and time as defined by HTTP-date in The format is an absolute date and time as defined by HTTP-date in
Section 3.3.1; it MUST be in RFC 1123 date format: Section 3.3.1; it MUST be in rfc1123-date format:
Expires = "Expires" ":" HTTP-date Expires = "Expires" ":" HTTP-date
An example of its use is An example of its use is
Expires: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT Expires: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT
Note: if a response includes a Cache-Control field with the max- Note: if a response includes a Cache-Control field with the max-
age directive (see Section 14.9.3), that directive overrides the age directive (see Section 14.9.3), that directive overrides the
Expires field. Expires field.
skipping to change at page 139, line 14 skipping to change at page 140, line 18
A "host" without any trailing port information implies the default A "host" without any trailing port information implies the default
port for the service requested (e.g., "80" for an HTTP URL). For port for the service requested (e.g., "80" for an HTTP URL). For
example, a request on the origin server for example, a request on the origin server for
<http://www.example.org/pub/WWW/> would properly include: <http://www.example.org/pub/WWW/> would properly include:
GET /pub/WWW/ HTTP/1.1 GET /pub/WWW/ HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org Host: www.example.org
A client MUST include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request A client MUST include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request
messages . If the requested URI does not include an Internet host messages. If the requested URI does not include an Internet host
name for the service being requested, then the Host header field MUST name for the service being requested, then the Host header field MUST
be given with an empty value. An HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST ensure that any be given with an empty value. An HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST ensure that any
request message it forwards does contain an appropriate Host header request message it forwards does contain an appropriate Host header
field that identifies the service being requested by the proxy. All field that identifies the service being requested by the proxy. All
Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a 400 (Bad Request) Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a 400 (Bad Request)
status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host header status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host header
field. field.
See Sections 5.2 and F.1.1 for other requirements relating to Host. See Sections 5.2 and F.1.1 for other requirements relating to Host.
skipping to change at page 165, line 17 skipping to change at page 166, line 17
[RFC1806], from which the often implemented Content-Disposition (see [RFC1806], from which the often implemented Content-Disposition (see
Appendix E.1) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very serious Appendix E.1) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very serious
security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP
standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are documenting its standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are documenting its
use and risks for implementors. See [RFC2183] (which updates RFC use and risks for implementors. See [RFC2183] (which updates RFC
1806) for details. 1806) for details.
15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients 15.6. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients
Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication
information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1. does not provide a method for a information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1 does not provide a method for a
server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This
is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP. is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP.
Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the
application's security model include but are not limited to: application's security model include but are not limited to:
o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following
which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the
user for credentials. user for credentials.
o Applications which include a session termination indication (such o Applications which include a session termination indication (such
skipping to change at page 168, line 23 skipping to change at page 169, line 23
The Apache Group, Anselm Baird-Smith, author of Jigsaw, and Henrik The Apache Group, Anselm Baird-Smith, author of Jigsaw, and Henrik
Frystyk implemented RFC 2068 early, and we wish to thank them for the Frystyk implemented RFC 2068 early, and we wish to thank them for the
discovery of many of the problems that this document attempts to discovery of many of the problems that this document attempts to
rectify. rectify.
16.2. (This Document) 16.2. (This Document)
This document has benefited greatly from the comments of all those This document has benefited greatly from the comments of all those
participating in the HTTP-WG. In particular, we thank Scott Lawrence participating in the HTTP-WG. In particular, we thank Scott Lawrence
for maintaining the RFC2616 Errata list, and Roy Fielding, Bjoern for maintaining the RFC2616 Errata list, and Mark Baker, Roy
Hoehrmann, Larry Masinter, Howard Melman, Jeff Mogul and Alex Fielding, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Brian Kell, Jamie Lokier, Larry Masinter,
Rousskov for contributions to it. Howard Melman, Alexey Melnikov, Jeff Mogul, Henrik Nordstrom, Alex
Rousskov, Travis Snoozy and Dan Winship for contributions to it.
17. References 17. References
17.1. References 17.1. References (to be classified)
[ISO-8859] [ISO-8859-1]
International Organization for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology - 8-bit single byte coded graphic "Information technology - 8-bit single byte coded graphic
- character sets", 1987-1990. - character sets", 1987-1990.
Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987. Part 2: Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987. Part 2:
Latin alphabet No. 2, ISO-8859-2, 1987. Part 3: Latin Latin alphabet No. 2, ISO-8859-2, 1987. Part 3: Latin
alphabet No. 3, ISO-8859-3, 1988. Part 4: Latin alphabet alphabet No. 3, ISO-8859-3, 1988. Part 4: Latin alphabet
No. 4, ISO-8859-4, 1988. Part 5: Latin/Cyrillic alphabet, No. 4, ISO-8859-4, 1988. Part 5: Latin/Cyrillic alphabet,
ISO-8859-5, 1988. Part 6: Latin/Arabic alphabet, ISO- ISO-8859-5, 1988. Part 6: Latin/Arabic alphabet, ISO-
8859-6, 1987. Part 7: Latin/Greek alphabet, ISO-8859-7, 8859-6, 1987. Part 7: Latin/Greek alphabet, ISO-8859-7,
skipping to change at page 170, line 13 skipping to change at page 171, line 13
RFC 1436, March 1993. RFC 1436, March 1993.
[RFC1590] Postel, J., "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590, [RFC1590] Postel, J., "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590,
March 1994. March 1994.
[RFC1630] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A [RFC1630] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A
Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses
of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web", of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web",
RFC 1630, June 1994. RFC 1630, June 1994.
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
RFC 1700, October 1994.
[RFC1737] Masinter, L. and K. Sollins, "Functional Requirements for [RFC1737] Masinter, L. and K. Sollins, "Functional Requirements for
Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994. Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994.
[RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform [RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform
Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994. Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
[RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of [RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995. Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.
[RFC1806] Troost, R. and S. Dorner, "Communicating Presentation [RFC1806] Troost, R. and S. Dorner, "Communicating Presentation
skipping to change at page 172, line 33 skipping to change at page 173, line 29
[RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, [RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10,
RFC 821, August 1982. RFC 821, August 1982.
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet [RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982. text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[RFC959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", [RFC959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985. STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
[RFC977] Kantor, B. and P. Lapsley, "Network News Transfer
Protocol", RFC 977, February 1986.
[Spero] Spero, S., "Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems", [Spero] Spero, S., "Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems",
<http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdma-release/http-prob.html>. <http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdma-release/http-prob.html>.
[Tou1998] Touch, J., Heidemann, J., and K. Obraczka, "Analysis of [Tou1998] Touch, J., Heidemann, J., and K. Obraczka, "Analysis of
HTTP Performance", ISI Research Report ISI/RR-98-463 HTTP Performance", ISI Research Report ISI/RR-98-463
(original report dated Aug.1996), Aug 1998, (original report dated Aug.1996), Aug 1998,
<http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/http-perf96/>. <http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/http-perf96/>.
[USASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character [USASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
skipping to change at page 174, line 5 skipping to change at page 173, line 52
Wang, R., Sui, J., and M. Grinbaum, "WAIS Interface Wang, R., Sui, J., and M. Grinbaum, "WAIS Interface
Protocol Prototype Functional Specification (v1.5)", Protocol Prototype Functional Specification (v1.5)",
Thinking Machines Corporation , April 1990. Thinking Machines Corporation , April 1990.
17.2. Informative References 17.2. Informative References
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3977] Feather, C., "Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)",
RFC 3977, October 2006.
URIs URIs
[1] <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org> [1] <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
[2] <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe> [2] <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe>
[3] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-01>
Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and application/http Appendix A. Internet Media Type message/http and application/http
In addition to defining the HTTP/1.1 protocol, this document serves In addition to defining the HTTP/1.1 protocol, this document serves
as the specification for the Internet media type "message/http" and as the specification for the Internet media type "message/http" and
"application/http". The message/http type can be used to enclose a "application/http". The message/http type can be used to enclose a
single HTTP request or response message, provided that it obeys the single HTTP request or response message, provided that it obeys the
MIME restrictions for all "message" types regarding line length and MIME restrictions for all "message" types regarding line length and
encodings. The application/http type can be used to enclose a encodings. The application/http type can be used to enclose a
pipeline of one or more HTTP request or response messages (not pipeline of one or more HTTP request or response messages (not
intermixed). The following is to be registered with IANA [RFC1590]. intermixed). The following is to be registered with IANA [RFC1590].
skipping to change at page 188, line 18 skipping to change at page 189, line 18
(Section 13.1.2, 13.2.4, 13.5.2, 13.5.3, 14.9.3, and 14.46) Warning (Section 13.1.2, 13.2.4, 13.5.2, 13.5.3, 14.9.3, and 14.46) Warning
also needed to be a general header, as PUT or other methods may have also needed to be a general header, as PUT or other methods may have
need for it in requests. need for it in requests.
Transfer-coding had significant problems, particularly with Transfer-coding had significant problems, particularly with
interactions with chunked encoding. The solution is that transfer- interactions with chunked encoding. The solution is that transfer-
codings become as full fledged as content-codings. This involves codings become as full fledged as content-codings. This involves
adding an IANA registry for transfer-codings (separate from content adding an IANA registry for transfer-codings (separate from content
codings), a new header field (TE) and enabling trailer headers in the codings), a new header field (TE) and enabling trailer headers in the
future. Transfer encoding is a major performance benefit, so it was future. Transfer encoding is a major performance benefit, so it was
worth fixing [39]. TE also solves another, obscure, downward worth fixing [Nie1997]. TE also solves another, obscure, downward
interoperability problem that could have occurred due to interactions interoperability problem that could have occurred due to interactions
between authentication trailers, chunked encoding and HTTP/1.0 between authentication trailers, chunked encoding and HTTP/1.0
clients.(Section 3.6, 3.6.1, and 14.39) clients.(Section 3.6, 3.6.1, and 14.39)
The PATCH, LINK, UNLINK methods were defined but not commonly The PATCH, LINK, UNLINK methods were defined but not commonly
implemented in previous versions of this specification. See implemented in previous versions of this specification. See
[RFC2068]. [RFC2068].
The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and
Content-Base header fields were defined in previous versions of this Content-Base header fields were defined in previous versions of this
skipping to change at page 189, line 11 skipping to change at page 190, line 11
Clarify definition of POST. (Section 9.5) Clarify definition of POST. (Section 9.5)
Clarify that it's not ok to use a weak cache validator in a 206 Clarify that it's not ok to use a weak cache validator in a 206
response. (Section 10.2.7) response. (Section 10.2.7)
Failed to consider that there are many other request methods that are Failed to consider that there are many other request methods that are
safe to automatically redirect, and further that the user agent is safe to automatically redirect, and further that the user agent is
able to make that determination based on the request method able to make that determination based on the request method
semantics. (Sections 10.3.2, 10.3.3 and 10.3.8 ) semantics. (Sections 10.3.2, 10.3.3 and 10.3.8 )
Fix misspelled header. (Section 13.5.1) Fix misspelled header and clarify requirements for hop-by-hop headers
introduced in future specifications. (Section 13.5.1)
Clarify denial of service attack avoidance requirement. Clarify denial of service attack avoidance requirement.
(Section 13.10) (Section 13.10)
Clarify exactly when close connection options must be sent. Clarify exactly when close connection options must be sent.
(Section 14.10) (Section 14.10)
Correct syntax of Location header to allow fragment, as referred Correct syntax of Location header to allow fragment, as referred
symbol wasn't what was expected, and add some clarifications as to symbol wasn't what was expected, and add some clarifications as to
when it would not be appropriate. (Section 14.30) when it would not be appropriate. (Section 14.30)
skipping to change at page 191, line 5 skipping to change at page 191, line 49
Resolve issues "location-fragments" (by moving the remaining issue Resolve issues "location-fragments" (by moving the remaining issue
into the new issue "fragment-combination") and "media-reg" (by adding into the new issue "fragment-combination") and "media-reg" (by adding
"rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete" instead). "rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete" instead).
Reopen and close issue "rfc2606-compliance" again (other instances Reopen and close issue "rfc2606-compliance" again (other instances
where found). where found).
Add and resolve issue "references_style". Add and resolve issue "references_style".
G.4. Since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02
Add issues "i21-put-side-effects", "i34-updated-reference-for-uris",
"i50-misc-typos", "i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date", "i52-sort-1.3-
terminology", "i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2", "i54-definition-of-1xx-
warn-codes", "i55-updating-to-rfc4288", "i56-6.1.1-can-be-misread-as-
a-complete-list", "i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase", "i58-what-
identifies-an-http-resource", "i59-status-code-registry", "i60-
13.5.1-and-13.5.2", "i61-redirection-vs-location", "i62-whitespace-
in-quoted-pair", "i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words" and
"i67-quoting-charsets".
Add and resolve issues "i45-rfc977-reference", "i46-rfc1700_remove",
"i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation", "i48-date-reference-
typo" and "i49-connection-header-text".
Rename "References" to "References (to be classified)".
Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix H. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) publication)
Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this
document. document.
H.1. rfc2606-compliance H.1. i45-rfc977-reference
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i42> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i45>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-19): Make sure that domain julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-26): Classify RFC977 (NNTP) as
names in examples use names reserved for that purpose (see RFC2606). informative, and update the reference to RFC3977.
Resolution (2006-11-02): Done. Resolution (2006-10-26): Done.
H.2. references_style H.2. i46-rfc1700_remove
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/ <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i46>
0182.html>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-12): Change references style to julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-12): RFC1700 ("ASSIGNED
symbolic ("[RFC2396]") instead of ("[42]"). NUMBERS") has been obsoleted by RFC3232 ("Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700
is Replaced by an On-line Database").
draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00 just updates the reference, which I
think is a bug.
In fact, RFC2616 refers to RCF1700
(1) for the definition of the default TCP port (Section 1.4),
(2) for a reference to the character set registry (Section 3.4) and
(3) for a reference to the media type registry (Section 3.7).
I propose to remove the reference, and to make the following changes:
(1) Replace reference with in-lined URL of the IANA port registry,
(2) Replace the first reference with the in-lined URL of the IANA
character set registry, and drop the second one, and
(3) Drop the reference, as the next sentence refers to the Media Type
Registration Process anyway.
(see also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2006OctDec/0181.html>
Resolution (2006-11-19): Done. Resolution (2007-03-18): Accepted during the Prague meeting, see
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action21.
H.3. media-reg H.3. i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation
In Section 3.7: In Section 3.3.1:
Type: change Type: edit
<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i47>
derhoermi@gmx.net (2000-09-10): See julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-20): Should say "...obsolete
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/2000SepDec/0013. RFC1036 date format [...]..." instead of "...obsolete RFC 850 [12]
date format...".
See also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2006OctDec/0187.html>.
Resolution (2006-11-14): Done (note that RFC2048 has been obsoleted Resolution (2006-11-20): Done.
now as well; see separate issue rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete).
Note that the prosed resolution in
http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg contains typos both in the
original text ("4288" rather than "1590") and in the proposed
resolution ("Mulitpurpose").
H.4. location-fragments H.4. i49-connection-header-text
In Section 14.30: In Section 13.5.1:
Type: change Type: change
<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#location-fragments> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i49>
fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (1999-08-06): See julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-12-12): "Other hop-by-hop headers
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1999MayAug/0103. MUST be listed in a Connection header, (section 14.10) to be
introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later)." doesn't really make sense.
(See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/
0264.html>)
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-16): Fix BNF and add note about Jeff.Mogul@hp.com (2006-12-12): Proposed rewrite: " Other hop-by-hop
when it's appropriate to use fragments as suggested in headers, if they are introduced either in HTTP/1.1 or later versions
http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#location-fragments. This leaves us of HTTP/1.x, MUST be listed in a Connection header (Section 14.10)."
with the open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where (See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/
there was a fragment with the original URI, e.g.: 0265.html>)
http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1
redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is
'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1
within it? We don't have fragment combination rules._.
Resolution (2006-10-27): Close this issue (with fixes in draft 01), Resolution (2006-12-15): Resolve as proposed by Jeff Mogul in <http:/
and add the new issue fragment-combination to deal with the remaining /lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0265.html>.
issue.
H.5. i48-date-reference-typo
In Section 14.18:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i48>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-20): Should say "rfc1123-date
format [...]" instead of "[...]-date format".
See also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2006OctDec/0186.html>
hno@squid-cache.org (2006-11-29): Better without the [8], making it
an internal reference to the grammar. The rfc1123-date is not a copy
of RFC1123, only a subset thereof.
The relation to RFC 1123 is already well established elsewhere in
3.3.1, including the MUST level requirement on sending the RFC 1123
derived format.
A similar RFC 1123 reference which is better replaced by a rfc1123-
date grammar reference is also seen in 14.21 Last-Modified.
Resolution (2006-11-30): Done.
Appendix I. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to Appendix I. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
publication) publication)
I.1. rfc2616bis I.1. rfc2616bis
Type: edit Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-10): Umbrella issue for changes julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-10): Umbrella issue for changes
with respect to the revision process itself. with respect to the revision process itself.
I.2. unneeded_references I.2. unneeded_references
Type: edit Type: edit
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/ <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0054>
0054.html>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-19): The reference entries for julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-19): The reference entries for
RFC1866, RFC2069 and RFC2026 are unused. Remove them? RFC1866, RFC2069 and RFC2026 are unused. Remove them?
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-02): See also
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0118 and
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i44.
I.3. edit I.3. edit
Type: edit Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-08): Umbrella issue for julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-08): Umbrella issue for
editorial fixes/enhancements. editorial fixes/enhancements.
I.4. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete I.4. i66-iso8859-1-reference
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i66>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-28): Classify ISO8859 as
normative, and simplify reference to only refer to ISO8859 Part 1
(because that's the only part needed here), and update to the 1998
version.
I.5. abnf
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i36>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-12-03): Update BNF to RFC4234
(plan to be added).
I.6. rfc2048_informative_and_obsolete
Type: edit Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-15): Classify RFC2048 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-15): Classify RFC2048
("Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: ("Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four:
Registration Procedures") as informative, update to RFC4288, Registration Procedures") as informative, update to RFC4288,
potentially update the application/http and multipart/byteranges MIME potentially update the application/http and multipart/byteranges MIME
type registration. Also, in Section 3.7 fix first reference to refer type registration. Also, in Section 3.7 fix first reference to refer
to RFC2046 (it's about media types in general, not the registration to RFC2046 (it's about media types in general, not the registration
procedure). procedure).
I.5. languagetag julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-04-20): Separate issue for
updating the registration template: i55-updating-to-rfc4288.
I.7. i34-updated-reference-for-uris
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i34>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-14): Update RFC2396 ("Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax") to RFC3986.
I.8. i50-misc-typos
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i50>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-18): (See http://lists.w3.org/
Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0275.html).
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-06-29): Some of the strictly
editorial issues have been resolves as part of issue "edit".
I.9. i65-informative-references
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i65>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-05-28): The following references
are informative: Luo1998 ("Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web
proxy servers", also update reference to quote the expired Internet
Draft properly). Nie1997 ("Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1,
CSS1, and PNG"). Pad1995 ("Improving HTTP Latency"). RFC821 (SMTP),
also update the reference to RFC2821. RFC822 ("STANDARD FOR THE
FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES") -- but add another instance
as RFC822ABNF for the cases where the reference if for the ABNF part
(these references will later be replaced by references to RFC4234
(see issue abnf)). RFC959 (FTP). RFC1036 ("Standard for Interchange
of USENET Messages"). RFC1123 ("Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Application and Support") -- it is only used as a background
reference for rfc1123-date, which this spec defines itself (note this
disagrees with draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00 which made it
normative). RFC1305 ("Network Time Protocol (Version 3)"). RFC1436
(Gopher). RFC1630 (URI Syntax) -- there'll be a normative reference
to a newer spec. RFC1738 (URL) -- there'll be a normative reference
to a newer spec. RFC1806 ("Communicating Presentation Information in
Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header"). RFC1808
(Relative Uniform Resource Locators). RFC1867 ("Form-based File
Upload in HTML"), also update the reference to RFC2388 ("Returning
Values from Forms: multipart/form-data"). RFC1900 ("Renumbering
Needs Work"). RFC1945 (HTTP/1.0). RFC2026 ("The Internet Standards
Process -- Revision 3"). RFC2049 ("Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples").
RFC2068 (HTTP/1.1). RFC2076 ("Common Internet Message Headers").
RFC2110 (MHTML), also update the reference to RFC2557. RFC2145 ("Use
and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers"). RFC2183
("Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field"). RFC2277 ("IETF Policy on
Character Sets and Languages"). RFC2279 (UTF8), also update the
reference to RFC3629. RFC2324 (HTCPCP/1.0). Spero ("Analysis of
HTTP Performance Problems"). Tou1998 ("Analysis of HTTP
Performance"). WAIS ("WAIS Interface Protocol Prototype Functional
Specification (v1.5)").
derhoermi@gmx.net (2007-05-28): _On RFC1950-1952:_ Understanding
these documents is required in order to understand the coding values
defined for the coding registry established and used by the document;
why would it be appropriate to cite them as informative?
I.10. i52-sort-1.3-terminology
In Section 1.3:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i52>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-21): It's irritating to try and look
up definitions in section 1.3. IMHO, the entries really should be
sorted alphabetically, despite the fact that the terms have
dependencies on one another.
julian.reschke@greenytes.de (2006-06-15): See action item
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action23 and
proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
2007AprJun/0350.html.
julian.reschke@greenytes.de (2006-06-15): I personally think we
should not do this change:
(1) Sorting paragraphs makes it very hard to verify the changes; in
essence, a reviewer would either need to trust us, or re-do the
shuffling to control whether it's correct (nothing lost, no change in
the definitions).
(2) In the RFC2616 ordering, things that belong together (such as
"client", "user agent", "server" ...) are close to each other.
(3) Contrary to RFC2616, the text version of new spec will contain an
alphabetical index section anyway (unless it's removed upon
publication :-).
I.11. i63-header-length-limit-with-encoded-words
In Section 2.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i63>
derhoermi@gmx.net (2007-05-14): (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0050.html).
I.12. i31-qdtext-bnf
In Section 2.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i31>
jamie@shareable.org (2004-03-15): ...I wrote a regular expression
based on the RFC 2616 definition, and that allows "foo\" as a quoted-
string. That's not intended, is it?
I.13. i62-whitespace-in-quoted-pair
In Section 2.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i62>
dan.winship@gmail.com (2007-04-20): (...) RFC 2822 updates RFC 822's
quoted-pair rule to disallow CR, LF, and NUL. We should probably
make the same change.
I.14. i58-what-identifies-an-http-resource
In Section 3.2.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i58>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-01-23): 3.2.2 really doesn't say what
identifies the resource:
"If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The
semantics are that the identified resource is located at the server
listening for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the
Request-URI for the resource is abs_path (Section 5.1.2)."
But it *does* say what part of the HTTP URL becomes the Request-URI,
and that definitively needs to be fixed.
I.15. i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date
In Section 3.3.1:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i51>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-18): On closer inspection, shouldn't
the BNF for that section (14.18) be "rfc1123-date" and not "HTTP-
date"? I mean, why say it's an HTTP-date, but only RFC 1123 form is
allowed (conflicting with the definition of HTTP-date)*? Likewise,
shouldn't we just use the rfc1123-date moniker throughout the
document whenever explicitly referring to only dates in RFC 1123
format?
I.16. i67-quoting-charsets
In Section 3.7:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i67>
maiera@de.ibm.com (2007-05-23): (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0065.html).
I.17. media-reg
In Section 3.7:
Type: change
<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg>
derhoermi@gmx.net (2000-09-10): See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/2000SepDec/0013.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2007-04-20): See also
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i8.
I.18. languagetag
In Section 3: In Section 3:
Type: change Type: change
<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#languagetag> <http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#languagetag>
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-14): See julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-14): See
http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#languagetag. http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#languagetag.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-14): In the meantime RFC3066 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-14): In the meantime RFC3066
has been obsoleted by RFC4646. See also http://lists.w3.org/ has been obsoleted by RFC4646. See also
Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0001.html. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0001.
I.6. fragment-combination julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-11-15): See also
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i13.
I.19. i56-6.1.1-can-be-misread-as-a-complete-list
In Section 6.1.1:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i56>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-01-11): The second sentence in the
first paragraph can on a quick reading be misread as section 10
contains a complete definiton of all possible status codes, where it
in reality only has the status codes defined by this RFC.
I.20. i57-status-code-and-reason-phrase
In Section 6.1.1:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i57>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-01-11): 6.1.1 is apparently a bit
too vague about how applications should parse and process the
information, making some implementations parse the reason phrase
(probably exact matches on the complete status line, not just status
code) to determine the outcome.
There should be a SHOULD requirement or equivalent that applications
use the status code to determine the status of the response and only
process the Reason Phrase as a comment intended for humans.
It's true that later in the same section there is a reverse MAY
requirement implying this by saying that the phrases in the rfc is
just an example and may be replaced without affecting the protocol,
but apparently it's not sufficient for implementers to understand
that applications should not decide the outcome based on the reason
phrase.
I.21. i59-status-code-registry
In Section 6.1.1:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i59>
henrik@henriknordstrom.net (2007-02-18): The IANA status code
registry should be referred to.
I.22. i21-put-side-effects
In Section 9.6:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i21>
mnot@yahoo-inc.com (2006-04-03): (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/ietf-http-wg/2006AprJun/0002.html).
I.23. i54-definition-of-1xx-warn-codes
In Section 13.1.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i54>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-22): See
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i54.
I.24. i60-13.5.1-and-13.5.2
In Section 13.5:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i60>
mnot@yahoo-inc.com (2007-03-30): 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 describe how
proxies should handle headers, even though it's in a section entitled
"Caching in HTTP." People have a hard time finding them. Would it
be helpful to try to separate out the purely intermediary-related
material from section 13 to a more appropriate place (e.g., section
8, or a new section)?
I.25. i53-allow-is-not-in-13.5.2
In Section 13.5.2:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i53>
a-travis@microsoft.com (2006-12-20): Section 14.7 states:
"A proxy MUST NOT modify the Allow header field even if it does not
understand all the methods specified, since the user agent might have
other means of communicating with the origin server."
However, section 13.5.2 (Non-modifiable Headers) makes no mention of
Allow. This seems like an error, but I'm not entirely sure what the
fix should be -- remove 13.5.2 and push the (not-)modifiable
information in the definition of the respective headers, or to
maintain 13.5.2 in parallel with all of the header definitions, or to
push all the information out of the header definitions into 13.5.2.
The easy fix for now would be to just make a mention of Allow in
13.5.2.
Additionally, Server should also be included.
I.26. i25-accept-encoding-bnf
In Section 14.3:
Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i25>
abodeman@yahoo.com (2005-06-02): In section 14.3, the definition of
Accept-Encoding is given as follows:
Accept-Encoding = "Accept-Encoding" ":" 1#( codings [ ";" "q" "="
qvalue ] )
This definition implies that there must be at least one non-null
codings. However, just below this definition, one of the examples
given has an empty Accept-Encoding field-value:
Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip
Accept-Encoding:
Accept-Encoding: *
Accept-Encoding: compress;q=0.5, gzip;q=1.0
Accept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0
Furthermore, the fourth rule for testing whether a content-coding is
acceptable mentions the possibility that the field-value may be
empty.
It seems, then, that the definition for Accept-Encoding should be
revised:
Accept-Encoding = "Accept-Encoding" ":" #( codings [ ";" "q" "="
qvalue ] )
I.27. i61-redirection-vs-location
In Section 14.30:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i61>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-04-19): The first sentence could be
understood as if the presence of the "Location" response header
always implies some kind of redirection. See also http://
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007AprJun/0020.html.
I.28. fragment-combination
In Section 14.30: In Section 14.30:
Type: change Type: change
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i43> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i43>
fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (1999-08-06): See fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (1999-08-06): See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1999MayAug/0103. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1999MayAug/0103.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-29): Part of this was fixed in julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-29): Part of this was fixed in
draft 01 (see issue location-fragments). This leaves us with the draft 01 (see issue location-fragments). This leaves us with the
open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where there was a open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where there was a
fragment with the original URI, e.g.: fragment with the original URI, e.g.:
http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1 http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1
redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is
'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1 'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1
skipping to change at page 195, line 5 skipping to change at page 205, line 17
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-29): Part of this was fixed in julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2006-10-29): Part of this was fixed in
draft 01 (see issue location-fragments). This leaves us with the draft 01 (see issue location-fragments). This leaves us with the
open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where there was a open issue: _At present, the behavior in the case where there was a
fragment with the original URI, e.g.: fragment with the original URI, e.g.:
http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1 http://host1.example.com/resource1#fragment1 where /resource1
redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is redirects to http://host2.example.com/resource2#fragment2 is
'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1 'fragment1' discarded? Do you find fragment2 and then find fragment1
within it? We don't have fragment combination rules._. See also within it? We don't have fragment combination rules._. See also
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i43. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i43.
I.29. i55-updating-to-rfc4288
In Section A:
Type: edit
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i56>
julian.reschke@gmx.de (2007-01-05): The update from RFC2048 to
RFC4288 requires minor modifications for the media type registrations
for "message/http", "application/http" and "multipart/byteranges".
Index Index
1 1
100 Continue (status code) 66 100 Continue (status code) 67
101 Switching Protocols (status code) 66 101 Switching Protocols (status code) 67
2 2
200 OK (status code) 67 200 OK (status code) 68
201 Created (status code) 67 201 Created (status code) 68
202 Accepted (status code) 67 202 Accepted (status code) 68
203 Non-Authoritative Information (status code) 68 203 Non-Authoritative Information (status code) 69
204 No Content (status code) 68 204 No Content (status code) 69
205 Reset Content (status code) 68 205 Reset Content (status code) 69
206 Partial Content (status code) 69 206 Partial Content (status code) 70
3 3
300 Multiple Choices (status code) 70 300 Multiple Choices (status code) 71
301 Moved Permanently (status code) 70 301 Moved Permanently (status code) 71
302 Found (status code) 71 302 Found (status code) 72
303 See Other (status code) 71 303 See Other (status code) 72
304 Not Modified (status code) 72 304 Not Modified (status code) 73
305 Use Proxy (status code) 72 305 Use Proxy (status code) 73
306 (Unused) (status code) 73 306 (Unused) (status code) 74
307 Temporary Redirect (status code) 73 307 Temporary Redirect (status code) 74
4 4
400 Bad Request (status code) 74 400 Bad Request (status code) 75
401 Unauthorized (status code) 74 401 Unauthorized (status code) 75
402 Payment Required (status code) 74 402 Payment Required (status code) 75
403 Forbidden (status code) 74 403 Forbidden (status code) 75
404 Not Found (status code) 74 404 Not Found (status code) 75
405 Method Not Allowed (status code) 75 405 Method Not Allowed (status code) 76
406 Not Acceptable (status code) 75 406 Not Acceptable (status code) 76
407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 75 407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 76
408 Request Timeout (status code) 76 408 Request Timeout (status code) 77
409 Conflict (status code) 76 409 Conflict (status code) 77
410 Gone (status code) 76 410 Gone (status code) 77
411 Length Required (status code) 77 411 Length Required (status code) 78
412 Precondition Failed (status code) 77 412 Precondition Failed (status code) 78
413 Request Entity Too Large (status code) 77 413 Request Entity Too Large (status code) 78
414 Request-URI Too Long (status code) 77 414 Request-URI Too Long (status code) 78
415 Unsupported Media Type (status code) 77 415 Unsupported Media Type (status code) 78
416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable (status code) 77 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable (status code) 78
417 Expectation Failed (status code) 78 417 Expectation Failed (status code) 79
5 5
500 Internal Server Error (status code) 78 500 Internal Server Error (status code) 79
501 Not Implemented (status code) 78 501 Not Implemented (status code) 79
502 Bad Gateway (status code) 78 502 Bad Gateway (status code) 79
503 Service Unavailable (status code) 79 503 Service Unavailable (status code) 80
504 Gateway Timeout (status code) 79 504 Gateway Timeout (status code) 80
505 HTTP Version Not Supported (status code) 79 505 HTTP Version Not Supported (status code) 80
A A
Accept header 110 Accept header 111
Accept-Charset header 112 Accept-Charset header 113
Accept-Encoding header 112 Accept-Encoding header 113
Accept-Language header 114 Accept-Language header 115
Accept-Ranges header 115 Accept-Ranges header 116
age 14 age 15
Age header 115 Age header 116
Allow header 116 Allow header 117
Alternates header 188 Alternates header 189
Authorization header 116 application/http Media Type 176
Authorization header 117
C C
cache 13 cache 14
Cache Directives Cache Directives
max-age 122, 124 max-age 123, 125
max-stale 122 max-stale 123
min-fresh 122 min-fresh 123
must-revalidate 124 must-revalidate 125
no-cache 120 no-cache 121
no-store 120 no-store 121
no-transform 125 no-transform 126
only-if-cached 124 only-if-cached 125
private 119 private 120
proxy-revalidate 125 proxy-revalidate 126
public 119 public 120
s-maxage 121 s-maxage 122
Cache-Control header 117 Cache-Control header 118
cacheable 13 cacheable 14
client 12 client 13
compress 28 compress 29
CONNECT method 65 CONNECT method 66
connection 11 connection 12
Connection header 127 Connection header 128
content negotiation 12 content negotiation 13
Content-Base header 188 Content-Base header 189
Content-Encoding header 128 Content-Disposition header 184
Content-Language header 128 Content-Encoding header 129
Content-Length header 129 Content-Language header 129
Content-Location header 130 Content-Length header 130
Content-MD5 header 131 Content-Location header 131
Content-Range header 132 Content-MD5 header 132
Content-Type header 134 Content-Range header 133
Content-Version header 188 Content-Type header 135
Content-Version header 189
D D
Date header 134 Date header 135
deflate 28 deflate 29
DELETE method 64 DELETE method 65
Derived-From header 188 Derived-From header 189
downstream 15 downstream 16
E E
entity 11 entity 12
ETag header 136 ETag header 137
Expect header 136 Expect header 137
Expires header 137 Expires header 138
explicit expiration time 14 explicit expiration time 15
F F
first-hand 13 first-hand 14
fresh 14 fresh 15
freshness lifetime 14 freshness lifetime 15
From header 138 From header 139
G G
gateway 13 gateway 14
GET method 61 GET method 62
Grammar Grammar
Accept 110 Accept 111
Accept-Charset 112 Accept-Charset 113
Accept-Encoding 112 Accept-Encoding 113
accept-extension 110 accept-extension 111
Accept-Language 114 Accept-Language 115
accept-params 110 accept-params 111
Accept-Ranges 115 Accept-Ranges 116
acceptable-ranges 115 acceptable-ranges 116
Age 117
age-value 117
Allow 117
ALPHA 21
asctime-date 27
attribute 30
Authorization 118
byte-content-range-spec 133
byte-range-resp-spec 133
byte-range-set 149
byte-range-spec 149
byte-ranges-specifier 149
bytes-unit 36
Cache-Control 119
cache-directive 119
cache-extension 119
cache-request-directive 119
cache-response-directive 119
CHAR 21
charset 28
chunk 31
chunk-data 31
chunk-ext-name 31
chunk-ext-val 31
chunk-extension 31
chunk-size 31
Chunked-Body 31
codings 113
comment 22
Connection 128
connection-token 128
content-coding 29
content-disposition 184
Content-Encoding 129
Content-Language 130
Content-Length 130
Content-Location 131
Content-MD5 132
Content-Range 133
content-range-spec 133
Content-Type 135
CR 21
CRLF 21
ctext 22
CTL 21
Date 135
date1 27
date2 27
date3 27
delta-seconds 27
DIGIT 21
disp-extension-parm 184
disp-extension-token 184
disposition-parm 184
disposition-type 184
entity-body 51
entity-header 51
entity-tag 36
ETag 137
Expect 137
expect-params 137
expectation 137
expectation-extension 137
Expires 138
extension-code 49
extension-header 51
extension-method 43
extension-pragma 147
field-content 39
field-name 39
field-value 39
filename-parm 184
first-byte-pos 149
From 139
general-header 42
generic-message 38
HEX 22
Host 140
HT 21
HTTP-date 27
HTTP-message 38
HTTP-Version 23
http_URL 25
If-Match 140
If-Modified-Since 141
If-None-Match 143
If-Range 144
If-Unmodified-Since 145
instance-length 133
language-range 115
language-tag 35
last-byte-pos 149
last-chunk 31
Last-Modified 145
LF 21
LOALPHA 21
Location 146
LWS 21
Max-Forwards 147
md5-digest 132
media-range 111
media-type 32
message-body 39
message-header 39
Method 43
MIME-Version 181
month 27
OCTET 21
opaque-tag 36
other-range-unit 36
parameter 30
Pragma 147
pragma-directive 147
primary-tag 35
product 34
product-version 34
protocol-name 157
protocol-version 157
Proxy-Authenticate 148
Proxy-Authorization 148
pseudonym 157
qdtext 22
quoted-pair 22
quoted-string 22
qvalue 35
Range 151
range-unit 36
ranges-specifier 149
Reason-Phrase 49
received-by 157
received-protocol 157
Referer 151
Request 43
request-header 46
Request-Line 43
Request-URI 44
Response 47
response-header 50
Retry-After 152
rfc850-date 27
rfc1123-date 27
separators 22
Server 152
SP 21
start-line 38
Status-Code 49
Status-Line 47
subtag 35
subtype 32
suffix-byte-range-spec 150
suffix-length 150
t-codings 153
TE 153
TEXT 21
time 27
token 22
Trailer 154
trailer 31
transfer-coding 30
Transfer-Encoding 154
transfer-extension 30
type 32
UPALPHA 21
Upgrade 155
User-Agent 156
value 30
Vary 156
Via 157
warn-agent 159
warn-code 159
warn-date 159
warn-text 159
Warning 159
warning-value 159
weak 36
weekday 27
wkday 27
WWW-Authenticate 161
gzip 29
H
HEAD method 62
Headers
Accept 111
Accept-Charset 113
Accept-Encoding 113
Accept-Language 115
Accept-Ranges 116
Age 116 Age 116
age-value 116 Allow 117
Allow 116 Alternate 189
ALPHA 20
asctime-date 26
attribute 29
Authorization 117 Authorization 117
byte-content-range-spec 132
byte-range-resp-spec 132
byte-range-set 148
byte-range-spec 148
byte-ranges-specifier 148
bytes-unit 35
Cache-Control 118 Cache-Control 118
cache-directive 118 Connection 128
cache-extension 118 Content-Base 189
cache-request-directive 118 Content-Disposition 184
cache-response-directive 118 Content-Encoding 129
CHAR 20
charset 27
chunk 30
chunk-data 30
chunk-ext-name 30
chunk-ext-val 30
chunk-extension 30
chunk-size 30
Chunked-Body 30
codings 112
comment 21
Connection 127
connection-token 127
content-coding 28
content-disposition 183
Content-Encoding 128
Content-Language 129 Content-Language 129
Content-Length 129 Content-Length 130
Content-Location 130 Content-Location 131
Content-MD5 131 Content-MD5 132
Content-Range 132 Content-Range 133
content-range-spec 132 Content-Type 135
Content-Type 134 Content-Version 189
CR 20 Date 135
CRLF 20 Derived-From 189
ctext 21 ETag 137
CTL 20 Expect 137
Date 134 Expires 138
date1 26 From 139
date2 26 Host 139
date3 26 If-Match 140
delta-seconds 26 If-Modified-Since 141
DIGIT 20 If-None-Match 143
disp-extension-parm 183 If-Range 144
disp-extension-token 183 If-Unmodified-Since 145
disposition-parm 183 Last-Modified 145
disposition-type 183 Link 189
entity-body 50 Location 146
entity-header 50 Max-Forwards 147
entity-tag 35 Pragma 147
ETag 136 Proxy-Authenticate 148
Expect 136 Proxy-Authorization 148
expect-params 136 Public 189
expectation 136
expectation-extension 136
Expires 137
extension-code 48
extension-header 50
extension-method 42
extension-pragma 146
field-content 38
field-name 38
field-value 38
filename-parm 183
first-byte-pos 148
From 138
general-header 41
generic-message 37
HEX 21
Host 138
HT 20
HTTP-date 26
HTTP-message 37
HTTP-Version 22
http_URL 24
If-Match 139
If-Modified-Since 140
If-None-Match 142
If-Range 143
If-Unmodified-Since 144
instance-length 132
language-range 114
language-tag 34
last-byte-pos 148
last-chunk 30
Last-Modified 144
LF 20
LOALPHA 20
Location 145
LWS 20
Max-Forwards 146
md5-digest 131
media-range 110
media-type 31
message-body 38
message-header 38
Method 42
MIME-Version 180
month 26
OCTET 20
opaque-tag 35
other-range-unit 35
parameter 29
Pragma 146
pragma-directive 146
primary-tag 34
product 33
product-version 33
protocol-name 156
protocol-version 156
Proxy-Authenticate 147
Proxy-Authorization 147
pseudonym 156
qdtext 21
quoted-pair 21
quoted-string 21
qvalue 34
Range 149 Range 149
range-unit 35 Referer 151
ranges-specifier 148 Retry-After 152
Reason-Phrase 48 Server 152
received-by 156 TE 153
received-protocol 156 Trailer 154
Referer 150 Transfer-Encoding 154
Request 42 Upgrade 155
request-header 45 URI 189
Request-Line 42 User-Agent 156
Request-URI 43 Vary 156
Response 46 Via 157
response-header 49 Warning 159
Retry-After 151 WWW-Authenticate 161
rfc850-date 26 heuristic expiration time 15
rfc1123-date 26 Host header 139
separators 21
Server 151
SP 20
start-line 37
Status-Code 48
Status-Line 46
subtag 34
subtype 31
suffix-byte-range-spec 149
suffix-length 149
t-codings 152
TE 152
TEXT 20
time 26
token 21
Trailer 153
trailer 30
transfer-coding 29
Transfer-Encoding 153
transfer-extension 29
type 31
UPALPHA 20
Upgrade 154
User-Agent 155
value 29
Vary 155
Via 156
warn-agent 158
warn-code 158
warn-date 158
warn-text 158
Warning 158
warning-value 158
weak 35
weekday 26
wkday 26
WWW-Authenticate 160
gzip 28
H
HEAD method 61
Headers
Accept 110
Accept-Charset 112
Accept-Encoding 112
Accept-Language 114
Accept-Ranges 115
Age 115
Allow 116
Alternate 188
Authorization 116
Cache-Control 117
Connection 127
Content-Base 188
Content-Encoding 128
Content-Language 128
Content-Length 129
Content-Location 130
Content-MD5 131
Content-Range 132
Content-Type 134
Content-Version 188
Date 134
Derived-From 188
ETag 136
Expect 136
Expires 137
From 138
Host 138
If-Match 139
If-Modified-Since 140
If-None-Match 142
If-Range 143
If-Unmodified-Since 144
Last-Modified 144
Link 188
Location 145
Max-Forwards 146
Pragma 146
Proxy-Authenticate 147
Proxy-Authorization 147
Public 188
Range 148
Referer 150
Retry-After 151
Server 151
TE 152
Trailer 153
Transfer-Encoding 153
Upgrade 154
URI 188
User-Agent 155
Vary 155
Via 156
Warning 158
WWW-Authenticate 160
heuristic expiration time 14
Host header 138
I I
identity 28 identity 29
If-Match header 139 If-Match header 140
If-Modified-Since header 140 If-Modified-Since header 141
If-None-Match header 142 If-None-Match header 143
If-Range header 143 If-Range header 144
If-Unmodified-Since header 144 If-Unmodified-Since header 145
inbound 15 inbound 16
L L
Last-Modified header 144 Last-Modified header 145
Link header 188 Link header 189
LINK method 188 LINK method 189
Location header 145 Location header 146
M M
max-age max-age
Cache Directive 122, 124 Cache Directive 123, 125
Max-Forwards header 146 Max-Forwards header 147
max-stale max-stale
Cache Directive 122 Cache Directive 123
message 11 Media Type
application/http 176
message/http 176
multipart/byteranges 178
multipart/x-byteranges 179
message 12
message/http Media Type 176
Methods Methods
CONNECT 65 CONNECT 66
DELETE 64 DELETE 65
GET 61 GET 62
HEAD 61 HEAD 62
LINK 188 LINK 189
OPTIONS 60 OPTIONS 61
PATCH 188 PATCH 189
POST 62 POST 63
PUT 63 PUT 64
TRACE 64 TRACE 65
UNLINK 188 UNLINK 189
min-fresh min-fresh
Cache Directive 122 Cache Directive 123
multipart/byteranges Media Type 178
multipart/x-byteranges Media Type 179
must-revalidate must-revalidate
Cache Directive 124 Cache Directive 125
N N
no-cache no-cache
Cache Directive 120 Cache Directive 121
no-store no-store
Cache Directive 120 Cache Directive 121
no-transform no-transform
Cache Directive 125 Cache Directive 126
O O
only-if-cached only-if-cached
Cache Directive 124 Cache Directive 125
OPTIONS method 60 OPTIONS method 61
origin server 12 origin server 13
outbound 15 outbound 16
P P
PATCH method 188 PATCH method 189
POST method 62 POST method 63
Pragma header 146 Pragma header 147
private private
Cache Directive 119 Cache Directive 120
proxy 12 proxy 13
Proxy-Authenticate header 147 Proxy-Authenticate header 148
Proxy-Authorization header 147 Proxy-Authorization header 148
proxy-revalidate proxy-revalidate
Cache Directive 125 Cache Directive 126
public public
Cache Directive 119 Cache Directive 120
Public header 188 Public header 189
PUT method 63 PUT method 64
R R
Range header 148 Range header 149
Referer header 150 Referer header 151
representation 11 representation 12
request 11 request 12
resource 11 resource 12
response 11 response 12
Retry-After header 151 Retry-After header 152
S S
s-maxage s-maxage
Cache Directive 121 Cache Directive 122
semantically transparent 14 semantically transparent 15
server 12 server 13
Server header 151 Server header 152
stale 14 stale 15
Status Codes Status Codes
100 Continue 66 100 Continue 67
101 Switching Protocols 66 101 Switching Protocols 67
200 OK 67 200 OK 68
201 Created 67 201 Created 68
202 Accepted 67 202 Accepted 68
203 Non-Authoritative Information 68 203 Non-Authoritative Information 69
204 No Content 68 204 No Content 69
205 Reset Content 68 205 Reset Content 69
206 Partial Content 69 206 Partial Content 70
300 Multiple Choices 70 300 Multiple Choices 71
301 Moved Permanently 70 301 Moved Permanently 71
302 Found 71 302 Found 72
303 See Other 71 303 See Other 72
304 Not Modified 72 304 Not Modified 73
305 Use Proxy 72 305 Use Proxy 73
306 (Unused) 73 306 (Unused) 74
307 Temporary Redirect 73 307 Temporary Redirect 74
400 Bad Request 74 400 Bad Request 75
401 Unauthorized 74 401 Unauthorized 75
402 Payment Required 74 402 Payment Required 75
403 Forbidden 74 403 Forbidden 75
404 Not Found 74 404 Not Found 75
405 Method Not Allowed 75 405 Method Not Allowed 76
406 Not Acceptable 75 406 Not Acceptable 76
407 Proxy Authentication Required 75 407 Proxy Authentication Required 76
408 Request Timeout 76 408 Request Timeout 77
409 Conflict 76 409 Conflict 77
410 Gone 76 410 Gone 77
411 Length Required 77 411 Length Required 78
412 Precondition Failed 77 412 Precondition Failed 78
413 Request Entity Too Large 77 413 Request Entity Too Large 78
414 Request-URI Too Long 77 414 Request-URI Too Long 78
415 Unsupported Media Type 77 415 Unsupported Media Type 78
416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable 77 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable 78
417 Expectation Failed 78 417 Expectation Failed 79
500 Internal Server Error 78 500 Internal Server Error 79
501 Not Implemented 78 501 Not Implemented 79
502 Bad Gateway 78 502 Bad Gateway 79
503 Service Unavailable 79 503 Service Unavailable 80
504 Gateway Timeout 79 504 Gateway Timeout 80
505 HTTP Version Not Supported 79 505 HTTP Version Not Supported 80
T T
TE header 152 TE header 153
TRACE method 64 TRACE method 65
Trailer header 153 Trailer header 154
Transfer-Encoding header 153 Transfer-Encoding header 154
tunnel 13 tunnel 14
U U
UNLINK method 188 UNLINK method 189
Upgrade header 154 Upgrade header 155
upstream 15 upstream 16
URI header 188 URI header 189
user agent 12 user agent 13
User-Agent header 155 User-Agent header 156
V V
validator 14 validator 15
variant 12 variant 13
Vary header 155 Vary header 156
Via header 156 Via header 157
W W
Warning header 158 Warning header 159
WWW-Authenticate header 160 WWW-Authenticate header 161
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
skipping to change at page 209, line 7 skipping to change at page 221, line 7
Muenster, NW 48155 Muenster, NW 48155
Germany Germany
Phone: +49 251 2807760 Phone: +49 251 2807760
Fax: +49 251 2807761 Fax: +49 251 2807761
Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/ URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 End of changes. 119 change blocks. 
837 lines changed or deleted 1307 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.44jr. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/