[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-nottingham-structured-headers)
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17
HTTP M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft Fastly
Intended status: Standards Track P-H. Kamp
Expires: October 19, 2019 The Varnish Cache Project
April 17, 2019
Structured Headers for HTTP
draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-10
Abstract
This document describes a set of data types and algorithms associated
with them that are intended to make it easier and safer to define and
handle HTTP header fields. It is intended for use by new
specifications of HTTP header fields as well as revisions of existing
header field specifications when doing so does not cause
interoperability issues.
Note to Readers
_RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_
Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group
mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ [1].
Working Group information can be found at https://httpwg.github.io/
[2]; source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/header-structure
[3].
Tests for implementations are collected at https://github.com/httpwg/
structured-header-tests [4].
Implementations are tracked at https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki/
Structured-Headers [5].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Intentionally Strict Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Defining New Structured Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Structured Header Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Lists of Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Parameterised Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7. Floats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.8. Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.9. Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.10. Byte Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.11. Booleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Structured Headers in HTTP/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Serialising Structured Headers into HTTP/1 . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Parsing HTTP/1 Header Fields into Structured Headers . . 18
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
7.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix B. Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B.1. Why not JSON? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B.2. Structured Headers don't "fit" my data. . . . . . . . . . 30
B.3. What should generic Structured Headers implementations
expose? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix C. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-09 . . . . . . 31
C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-08 . . . . . . 32
C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-07 . . . . . . 32
C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-06 . . . . . . 33
C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-05 . . . . . . 33
C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-04 . . . . . . 33
C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-03 . . . . . . 33
C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-02 . . . . . . 33
C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-01 . . . . . . 34
C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00 . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction
Specifying the syntax of new HTTP header fields is an onerous task;
even with the guidance in [RFC7231], Section 8.3.1, there are many
decisions - and pitfalls - for a prospective HTTP header field
author.
Once a header field is defined, bespoke parsers and serialisers often
need to be written, because each header has slightly different
handling of what looks like common syntax.
This document introduces a set of common data structures for use in
HTTP header field values to address these problems. In particular,
it defines a generic, abstract model for header field values, along
with a concrete serialisation for expressing that model in HTTP/1
[RFC7230] header fields.
HTTP headers that are defined as "Structured Headers" use the types
defined in this specification to define their syntax and basic
handling rules, thereby simplifying both their definition by
specification writers and handling by implementations.
Additionally, future versions of HTTP can define alternative
serialisations of the abstract model of these structures, allowing
headers that use it to be transmitted more efficiently without being
redefined.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
Note that it is not a goal of this document to redefine the syntax of
existing HTTP headers; the mechanisms described herein are only
intended to be used with headers that explicitly opt into them.
To specify a header field that is a Structured Header, see Section 2.
Section 3 defines a number of abstract data types that can be used in
Structured Headers.
Those abstract types can be serialised into and parsed from textual
headers - such as those used in HTTP/1 - using the algorithms
described in Section 4.
1.1. Intentionally Strict Processing
This specification intentionally defines strict parsing and
serialisation behaviours using step-by-step algorithms; the only
error handling defined is to fail the operation altogether.
This is designed to encourage faithful implementation and therefore
good interoperability. Therefore, implementations that try to be
"helpful" by being more tolerant of input are doing a disservice to
the overall community, since it will encourage other implementations
to implement similar (but likely subtly different) workarounds.
In other words, strict processing is an intentional feature of this
specification; it allows non-conformant input to be discovered and
corrected early, and avoids both interoperability and security issues
that might otherwise result.
Note that as a result of this strictness, if a header field is
appended to by multiple parties (e.g., intermediaries, or different
components in the sender), it could be that an error in one party's
value causes the entire header field to fail parsing.
1.2. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of
[RFC5234], including the VCHAR, SP, DIGIT, ALPHA and DQUOTE rules
from that document. It also includes the OWS rule from [RFC7230].
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
This document uses algorithms to specify parsing and serialisation
behaviours, and ABNF to illustrate expected syntax in HTTP/1-style
header fields.
For parsing from HTTP/1 header fields, implementations MUST follow
the algorithms, but MAY vary in implementation so as the behaviours
are indistinguishable from specified behaviour. If there is
disagreement between the parsing algorithms and ABNF, the specified
algorithms take precedence. In some places, the algorithms are
"greedy" with whitespace, but this should not affect conformance.
For serialisation to HTTP/1 header fields, the ABNF illustrates the
range of acceptable wire representations with as much fidelity as
possible, and the algorithms define the recommended way to produce
them. Implementations MAY vary from the specified behaviour so long
as the output still matches the ABNF.
2. Defining New Structured Headers
To define a HTTP header as a structured header, its specification
needs to:
o Reference this specification. Recipients and generators of the
header need to know that the requirements of this document are in
effect.
o Specify the header field's allowed syntax for values, in terms of
the types described in Section 3, along with their associated
semantics. Syntax definitions are encouraged to use the ABNF
rules beginning with "sh-" defined in this specification.
o Specify any additional constraints upon the syntax of the
structured used, as well as the consequences when those
constraints are violated. When Structured Headers parsing fails,
the header is discarded (see Section 4.2); in most situations,
header-specific constraints should do likewise.
Note that a header field definition cannot relax the requirements of
a structure or its processing because doing so would preclude
handling by generic software; they can only add additional
constraints. Likewise, header field definitions should use
Structured Headers for the entire header field value, not a portion
thereof.
For example:
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
# Foo-Example Header
The Foo-Example HTTP header field conveys information about how
much Foo the message has.
Foo-Example is a Structured Header [RFCxxxx]. Its value MUST be a
dictionary ([RFCxxxx], Section Y.Y). Its ABNF is:
Foo-Example = sh-dictionary
The dictionary MUST contain:
* Exactly one member whose key is "foo", and whose value is an
integer ([RFCxxxx], Section Y.Y), indicating the number of foos
in the message.
* Exactly one member whose key is "barUrls", and whose value is a
string ([RFCxxxx], Section Y.Y), conveying the Bar URLs for the
message. See below for processing requirements.
If the parsed header field does not contain both, it MUST be
ignored.
"foo" MUST be between 0 and 10, inclusive; other values MUST cause
the header to be ignored.
"barUrls" contains a space-separated list of URI-references
([RFC3986], Section 4.1):
barURLs = URI-reference *( 1*SP URI-reference )
If a member of barURLs is not a valid URI-reference, it MUST cause
that value to be ignored.
If a member of barURLs is a relative reference ([RFC3986],
Section 4.2), it MUST be resolved ([RFC3986], Section 5) before
being used.
This specification defines minimums for the length or number of
various structures supported by Structured Headers implementations.
It does not specify maximum sizes in most cases, but header authors
should be aware that HTTP implementations do impose various limits on
the size of individual header fields, the total number of fields,
and/or the size of the entire header block.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
3. Structured Header Data Types
This section defines the abstract value types that can be composed
into Structured Headers. The ABNF provided represents the on-wire
format in HTTP/1.
3.1. Dictionaries
Dictionaries are ordered maps of key-value pairs, where the keys are
short, textual strings and the values are items (Section 3.5). There
can be one or more members, and keys are required to be unique.
Implementations MUST provide access to dictionaries both by index and
by key. Specifications MAY use either means of accessing the
members.
The ABNF for dictionaries in HTTP/1 headers is:
sh-dictionary = dict-member *( OWS "," OWS dict-member )
dict-member = member-name "=" member-value
member-name = key
member-value = sh-item
key = lcalpha *( lcalpha / DIGIT / "_" / "-" )
lcalpha = %x61-7A ; a-z
In HTTP/1, keys and values are separated by "=" (without whitespace),
and key/value pairs are separated by a comma with optional
whitespace. For example:
Example-DictHeader: en="Applepie", da=*w4ZibGV0w6ZydGU=*
Typically, a header field specification will define the semantics of
individual keys, as well as whether their presence is required or
optional. Recipients MUST ignore keys that are undefined or unknown,
unless the header field's specification specifically disallows them.
Parsers MUST support dictionaries containing at least 1024 key/value
pairs, and dictionary keys with at least 64 characters.
3.2. Lists
Lists are arrays of items (Section 3.5) with one or more members.
The ABNF for lists in HTTP/1 headers is:
sh-list = list-member *( OWS "," OWS list-member )
list-member = sh-item
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
In HTTP/1, each member is separated by a comma and optional
whitespace. For example, a header field whose value is defined as a
list of strings could look like:
Example-StrListHeader: "foo", "bar", "It was the best of times."
Header specifications can constrain the types of individual values if
necessary.
Parsers MUST support lists containing at least 1024 members.
3.3. Lists of Lists
Lists of Lists are arrays of arrays containing items (Section 3.5).
The ABNF for lists of lists in HTTP/1 headers is:
sh-listlist = inner-list *( OWS "," OWS inner-list )
inner-list = list-member *( OWS ";" OWS list-member )
In HTTP/1, each inner-list is separated by a comma and optional
whitespace, and members of the inner-list are separated by semicolons
and optional whitespace. For example, a header field whose value is
defined as a list of lists of strings could look like:
Example-StrListListHeader: "foo";"bar", "baz", "bat"; "one"
Header specifications can constrain the types of individual inner-
list values if necessary.
Parsers MUST support lists of lists containing at least 1024 members,
and inner-lists containing at least 256 members.
3.4. Parameterised Lists
Parameterised Lists are arrays of parameterised identifiers, with one
or more members.
A parameterised identifier is a primary identifier (a Section 3.9})
with associated parameters, an ordered map of key-value pairs where
the keys are short, textual strings and the values are items
(Section 3.5). There can be zero or more parameters, and keys are
required to be unique.
The ABNF for parameterised lists in HTTP/1 headers is:
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
sh-param-list = param-item *( OWS "," OWS param-item )
param-item = primary-id *parameter
primary-id = sh-token
parameter = OWS ";" OWS param-name [ "=" param-value ]
param-name = key
param-value = sh-item
In HTTP/1, each param-id is separated by a comma and optional
whitespace (as in Lists), and the parameters are separated by
semicolons. For example:
Example-ParamListHeader: abc_123;a=1;b=2; cdef_456, ghi;q="9";r="w"
Parsers MUST support parameterised lists containing at least 1024
members, support members with at least 256 parameters, and support
parameter keys with at least 64 characters.
3.5. Items
An item is can be a integer (Section 3.6), float (Section 3.7),
string (Section 3.8), token (Section 3.9), byte sequence
(Section 3.10), or Boolean (Section 3.11).
The ABNF for items in HTTP/1 headers is:
sh-item = sh-integer / sh-float / sh-string / sh-token / sh-binary
/ sh-boolean
3.6. Integers
Integers have a range of -999,999,999,999,999 to 999,999,999,999,999
inclusive (i.e., up to fifteen digits, signed).
The ABNF for integers in HTTP/1 headers is:
sh-integer = ["-"] 1*15DIGIT
For example:
Example-IntegerHeader: 42
3.7. Floats
Floats are integers with a fractional part, that can be stored as
IEEE 754 double precision numbers (binary64) ([IEEE754]).
The ABNF for floats in HTTP/1 headers is:
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
sh-float = ["-"] (
DIGIT "." 1*14DIGIT /
2DIGIT "." 1*13DIGIT /
3DIGIT "." 1*12DIGIT /
4DIGIT "." 1*11DIGIT /
5DIGIT "." 1*10DIGIT /
6DIGIT "." 1*9DIGIT /
7DIGIT "." 1*8DIGIT /
8DIGIT "." 1*7DIGIT /
9DIGIT "." 1*6DIGIT /
10DIGIT "." 1*5DIGIT /
11DIGIT "." 1*4DIGIT /
12DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT /
13DIGIT "." 1*2DIGIT /
14DIGIT "." 1DIGIT )
For example, a header whose value is defined as a float could look
like:
Example-FloatHeader: 4.5
3.8. Strings
Strings are zero or more printable ASCII [RFC0020] characters (i.e.,
the range 0x20 to 0x7E). Note that this excludes tabs, newlines,
carriage returns, etc.
The ABNF for strings in HTTP/1 headers is:
sh-string = DQUOTE *(chr) DQUOTE
chr = unescaped / escaped
unescaped = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E
escaped = "\" ( DQUOTE / "\" )
In HTTP/1 headers, strings are delimited with double quotes, using a
backslash ("\") to escape double quotes and backslashes. For
example:
Example-StringHeader: "hello world"
Note that strings only use DQUOTE as a delimiter; single quotes do
not delimit strings. Furthermore, only DQUOTE and "\" can be
escaped; other sequences MUST cause parsing to fail.
Unicode is not directly supported in this document, because it causes
a number of interoperability issues, and - with few exceptions -
header values do not require it.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
When it is necessary for a field value to convey non-ASCII string
content, a byte sequence (Section 3.10) SHOULD be specified, along
with a character encoding (preferably UTF-8).
Parsers MUST support strings with at least 1024 characters.
3.9. Tokens
Tokens are short textual words; their abstract model is identical to
their expression in the textual HTTP serialisation.
The ABNF for tokens in HTTP/1 headers is:
sh-token = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / "-" / "." / ":" / "%" / "*" / "/" )
Parsers MUST support tokens with at least 512 characters.
Note that a Structured Header token is not the same as the "token"
ABNF rule defined in [RFC7230].
3.10. Byte Sequences
Byte sequences can be conveyed in Structured Headers.
The ABNF for a byte sequence in HTTP/1 headers is:
sh-binary = "*" *(base64) "*"
base64 = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/" / "="
In HTTP/1 headers, a byte sequence is delimited with asterisks and
encoded using base64 ([RFC4648], Section 4). For example:
Example-BinaryHdr: *cHJldGVuZCB0aGlzIGlzIGJpbmFyeSBjb250ZW50Lg==*
Parsers MUST support byte sequences with at least 16384 octets after
decoding.
3.11. Booleans
Boolean values can be conveyed in Structured Headers.
The ABNF for a Boolean in HTTP/1 headers is:
sh-boolean = "?" boolean
boolean = "0" / "1"
In HTTP/1 headers, a boolean is indicated with a leading "?"
character. For example:
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
Example-BoolHdr: ?1
4. Structured Headers in HTTP/1
This section defines how to serialise and parse Structured Headers in
HTTP/1 textual header fields, and protocols compatible with them
(e.g., in HTTP/2 [RFC7540] before HPACK [RFC7541] is applied).
4.1. Serialising Structured Headers into HTTP/1
Given a structured defined in this specification:
1. If the structure is a dictionary, return the result of
Serialising a Dictionary (Section 4.1.1).
2. If the structure is a parameterised list, return the result of
Serialising a Parameterised List (Section 4.1.4).
3. If the structure is a list of lists, return the result of
Serialising a List of Lists ({ser-listlist}).
4. If the structure is a list, return the result of Serialising a
List Section 4.1.2.
5. If the structure is an item, return the result of Serialising an
Item (Section 4.1.5).
6. Otherwise, fail serialisation.
4.1.1. Serialising a Dictionary
Given a dictionary as input_dictionary:
1. Let output be an empty string.
2. For each member mem of input_dictionary:
1. Let name be the result of applying Serialising an Key
(Section 4.1.1.1) to mem's member-name.
2. Append name to output.
3. Append "=" to output.
4. Let value be the result of applying Serialising an Item
(Section 4.1.5) to mem's member-value.
5. Append value to output.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
6. If more members remain in input_dictionary:
1. Append a COMMA to output.
2. Append a single WS to output.
3. Return output.
4.1.1.1. Serialising a Key
Given a key as input_key:
1. If input_key is not a sequence of characters, or contains
characters not allowed in the ABNF for key, fail serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append input_key to output, using ASCII encoding [RFC0020].
4. Return output.
4.1.2. Serialising a List
Given a list as input_list:
1. Let output be an empty string.
2. For each member mem of input_list:
1. Let value be the result of applying Serialising an Item
(Section 4.1.5) to mem.
2. Append value to output.
3. If more members remain in input_list:
1. Append a COMMA to output.
2. Append a single WS to output.
3. Return output.
4.1.3. Serialising a List of Lists
Given a list of lists of items as input_list:
1. Let output be an empty string.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
2. For each member inner_list of input_list:
1. If inner_list is not a list, fail serialisation.
2. If inner_list is empty, fail serialisation.
3. For each inner_mem of inner_list:
1. Let value be the result of applying Serialising an Item
(Section 4.1.5) to inner_mem.
2. Append value to output.
3. If more members remain in inner_list:
1. Append a ";" to output.
2. Append a single WS to output.
4. If more members remain in input_list:
1. Append a COMMA to output.
2. Append a single WS to output.
3. Return output.
4.1.4. Serialising a Parameterised List
Given a parameterised list as input_plist:
1. Let output be an empty string.
2. For each member mem of input_plist:
1. Let id be the result of applying Serialising a Token
(Section 4.1.9) to mem's token.
2. Append id to output.
3. For each parameter in mem's parameters:
1. Append ";" to output.
2. Let name be the result of applying Serialising a Key
(Section 4.1.1.1) to parameter's param-name.
3. Append name to output.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
4. If parameter has a param-value:
1. Let value be the result of applying Serialising an
Item (Section 4.1.5) to parameter's param-value.
2. Append "=" to output.
3. Append value to output.
4. If more members remain in input_plist:
1. Append a COMMA to output.
2. Append a single WS to output.
3. Return output.
4.1.5. Serialising an Item
Given an item as input_item:
1. If input_item is an integer, return the result of applying
Serialising an Integer (Section 4.1.6) to input_item.
2. If input_item is a float, return the result of applying
Serialising a Float (Section 4.1.7) to input_item.
3. If input_item is a string, return the result of applying
Serialising a String (Section 4.1.8) to input_item.
4. If input_item is a token, return the result of Serialising a
Token (Section 4.1.9) to input_item.
5. If input_item is a Boolean, return the result of applying
Serialising a Boolean (Section 4.1.11) to input_item.
6. If input_item is a byte sequence, return the result of applying
Serialising a Byte Sequence (Section 4.1.10) to input_item.
7. Otherwise, fail serialisation.
4.1.6. Serialising an Integer
Given an integer as input_integer:
1. If input_integer is not an integer in the range of
-999,999,999,999,999 to 999,999,999,999,999 inclusive, fail
serialisation.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. If input_integer is less than (but not equal to) 0, append "-" to
output.
4. Append input_integer's numeric value represented in base 10 using
only decimal digits to output.
5. Return output.
4.1.7. Serialising a Float
Given a float as input_float:
1. If input_float is not a IEEE 754 double precision number, fail
serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. If input_float is less than (but not equal to) 0, append "-" to
output.
4. Append input_float's integer component represented in base 10
using only decimal digits to output; if it is zero, append "0".
5. Append "." to output.
6. Append input_float's decimal component represented in base 10
using only decimal digits to output; if it is zero, append "0".
7. Return output.
4.1.8. Serialising a String
Given a string as input_string:
1. If input_string is not a sequence of characters, or contains
characters outside the range allowed by VCHAR or SP, fail
serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append DQUOTE to output.
4. For each character char in input_string:
1. If char is "\" or DQUOTE:
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
1. Append "\" to output.
2. Append char to output, using ASCII encoding [RFC0020].
5. Append DQUOTE to output.
6. Return output.
4.1.9. Serialising a Token
Given a token as input_token:
1. If input_token is not a sequence of characters, or contains
characters not allowed in Section 3.9}, fail serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append input_token to output, using ASCII encoding [RFC0020].
4. Return output.
4.1.10. Serialising a Byte Sequence
Given a byte sequence as input_bytes:
1. If input_bytes is not a sequence of bytes, fail serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append "*" to output.
4. Append the result of base64-encoding input_bytes as per
[RFC4648], Section 4, taking account of the requirements below.
5. Append "*" to output.
6. Return output.
The encoded data is required to be padded with "=", as per [RFC4648],
Section 3.2.
Likewise, encoded data SHOULD have pad bits set to zero, as per
[RFC4648], Section 3.5, unless it is not possible to do so due to
implementation constraints.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
4.1.11. Serialising a Boolean
Given a Boolean as input_boolean:
1. If input_boolean is not a boolean, fail serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append "?" to output.
4. If input_boolean is true, append "1" to output.
5. If input_boolean is false, append "0" to output.
6. Return output.
4.2. Parsing HTTP/1 Header Fields into Structured Headers
When a receiving implementation parses textual HTTP header fields
(e.g., in HTTP/1 or HTTP/2) that are known to be Structured Headers,
it is important that care be taken, as there are a number of edge
cases that can cause interoperability or even security problems.
This section specifies the algorithm for doing so.
Given an ASCII string input_string that represents the chosen
header's field-value, and header_type, one of "dictionary", "list",
"list-list", "param-list", or "item", return the parsed header value.
1. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
2. If header_type is "dictionary", let output be the result of
Parsing a Dictionary from Text (Section 4.2.1).
3. If header_type is "list", let output be the result of Parsing a
List from Text (Section 4.2.3).
4. If header_type is "list-list", let output be the result of
Parsing a List of Lists from Text (Section 4.2.4).
5. If header_type is "param-list", let output be the result of
Parsing a Parameterised List from Text (Section 4.2.5).
6. If header_type is "item", let output be the result of Parsing an
Item from Text (Section 4.2.7).
7. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
8. If input_string is not empty, fail parsing.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
9. Otherwise, return output.
When generating input_string, parsers MUST combine all instances of
the target header field into one comma-separated field-value, as per
[RFC7230], Section 3.2.2; this assures that the header is processed
correctly.
For Lists, Lists of Lists, Parameterised Lists and Dictionaries, this
has the effect of correctly concatenating all instances of the header
field, as long as individual individual members of the top-level data
structure are not split across multiple header instances.
Strings split across multiple header instances will have
unpredictable results, because comma(s) and whitespace inserted upon
combination will become part of the string output by the parser.
Since concatenation might be done by an upstream intermediary, the
results are not under the control of the serialiser or the parser.
Integers, Floats and Byte Sequences cannot be split across multiple
headers because the inserted commas will cause parsing to fail.
If parsing fails - including when calling another algorithm - the
entire header field's value MUST be discarded. This is intentionally
strict, to improve interoperability and safety, and specifications
referencing this document cannot loosen this requirement.
Note that this has the effect of discarding any header field with
non-ASCII characters in input_string.
4.2.1. Parsing a Dictionary from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return an ordered map of (key,
item). input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. Let dictionary be an empty, ordered map.
2. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let this_key be the result of running Parse a Key from Text
(Section 4.2.2) with input_string.
2. If dictionary already contains this_key, fail parsing.
3. Consume the first character of input_string; if it is not
"=", fail parsing.
4. Let this_value be the result of running Parse Item from Text
(Section 4.2.7) with input_string.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
5. Add key this_key with value this_value to dictionary.
6. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
7. If input_string is empty, return dictionary.
8. Consume the first character of input_string; if it is not
COMMA, fail parsing.
9. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
10. If input_string is empty, fail parsing.
3. No structured data has been found; fail parsing.
4.2.2. Parsing a Key from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return a key. input_string is
modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is not lcalpha, fail
parsing.
2. Let output_string be an empty string.
3. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let char be the result of removing the first character of
input_string.
2. If char is not one of lcalpha, DIGIT, "_", or "-":
1. Prepend char to input_string.
2. Return output_string.
3. Append char to output_string.
4. Return output_string.
4.2.3. Parsing a List from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return a list of items.
input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. Let items be an empty array.
2. While input_string is not empty:
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
1. Let item be the result of running Parse Item from Text
(Section 4.2.7) with input_string.
2. Append item to items.
3. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
4. If input_string is empty, return items.
5. Consume the first character of input_string; if it is not
COMMA, fail parsing.
6. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
7. If input_string is empty, fail parsing.
3. No structured data has been found; fail parsing.
4.2.4. Parsing a List of Lists from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return a list of lists of items.
input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. let top_list be an empty array.
2. Let inner_list be an empty array.
3. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let item be the result of running Parse Item from Text
(Section 4.2.7) with input_string.
2. Append item to inner_list.
3. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
4. If input_string is empty, append inner_list to top_list and
return top_list.
5. Let char be the result of consuming the first character of
input_string.
6. If char is COMMA:
1. Append inner_list to top_list.
2. Let inner_list be an empty array.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
7. Else if char is not ";", fail parsing.
8. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
9. If input_string is empty, fail parsing.
4. No structured data has been found; fail parsing.
4.2.5. Parsing a Parameterised List from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return a list of parameterised
identifiers. input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. Let items be an empty array.
2. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let item be the result of running Parse Parameterised
Identifier from Text (Section 4.2.6) with input_string.
2. Append item to items.
3. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
4. If input_string is empty, return items.
5. Consume the first character of input_string; if it is not
COMMA, fail parsing.
6. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
7. If input_string is empty, fail parsing.
3. No structured data has been found; fail parsing.
4.2.6. Parsing a Parameterised Identifier from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return an token with an unordered
map of parameters. input_string is modified to remove the parsed
value.
1. Let primary_identifier be the result of Parsing a Token from Text
(Section 4.2.10) from input_string.
2. Let parameters be an empty, ordered map.
3. In a loop:
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
1. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
2. If the first character of input_string is not ";", exit the
loop.
3. Consume a ";" character from the beginning of input_string.
4. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
5. let param_name be the result of Parsing a key from Text
(Section 4.2.2) from input_string.
6. If param_name is already present in parameters, fail parsing.
7. Let param_value be a null value.
8. If the first character of input_string is "=":
1. Consume the "=" character at the beginning of
input_string.
2. Let param_value be the result of Parsing an Item from
Text (Section 4.2.7) from input_string.
9. Add key param_name with value param_value to parameters.
4. Return the tuple (primary_identifier, parameters).
4.2.7. Parsing an Item from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return an item. input_string is
modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is a "-" or a DIGIT,
process input_string as a number (Section 4.2.8) and return the
result.
2. If the first character of input_string is a DQUOTE, process
input_string as a string (Section 4.2.9) and return the result.
3. If the first character of input_string is "*", process
input_string as a byte sequence (Section 4.2.11) and return the
result.
4. If the first character of input_string is "?", process
input_string as a Boolean (Section 4.2.12) and return the result.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
5. If the first character of input_string is an ALPHA, process
input_string as a token (Section 4.2.10) and return the result.
6. Otherwise, fail parsing.
4.2.8. Parsing a Number from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return a number. input_string is
modified to remove the parsed value.
NOTE: This algorithm parses both Integers Section 3.6 and Floats
Section 3.7, and returns the corresponding structure.
1. Let type be "integer".
2. Let sign be 1.
3. Let input_number be an empty string.
4. If the first character of input_string is "-", remove it from
input_string and set sign to -1.
5. If input_string is empty, fail parsing.
6. If the first character of input_string is not a DIGIT, fail
parsing.
7. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let char be the result of removing the first character of
input_string.
2. If char is a DIGIT, append it to input_number.
3. Else, if type is "integer" and char is ".", append char to
input_number and set type to "float".
4. Otherwise, prepend char to input_string, and exit the loop.
5. If type is "integer" and input_number contains more than 15
characters, fail parsing.
6. If type is "float" and input_number contains more than 16
characters, fail parsing.
8. If type is "integer":
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
1. Parse input_number as an integer and let output_number be
the product of the result and sign.
2. If output_number is outside the range defined in
Section 3.6, fail parsing.
9. Otherwise:
1. If the final character of input_number is ".", fail parsing.
2. Parse input_number as a float and let output_number be the
product of the result and sign.
10. Return output_number.
4.2.9. Parsing a String from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return an unquoted string.
input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. Let output_string be an empty string.
2. If the first character of input_string is not DQUOTE, fail
parsing.
3. Discard the first character of input_string.
4. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let char be the result of removing the first character of
input_string.
2. If char is a backslash ("\"):
1. If input_string is now empty, fail parsing.
2. Else:
1. Let next_char be the result of removing the first
character of input_string.
2. If next_char is not DQUOTE or "\", fail parsing.
3. Append next_char to output_string.
3. Else, if char is DQUOTE, return output_string.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
4. Else, if char is in the range %x00-1f or %x7f (i.e., is not
in VCHAR or SP), fail parsing.
5. Else, append char to output_string.
5. Reached the end of input_string without finding a closing DQUOTE;
fail parsing.
4.2.10. Parsing a Token from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return a token. input_string is
modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is not ALPHA, fail
parsing.
2. Let output_string be an empty string.
3. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let char be the result of removing the first character of
input_string.
2. If char is not one of ALPHA, DIGIT, "_", "-", ".", ":", "%",
"*" or "/":
1. Prepend char to input_string.
2. Return output_string.
3. Append char to output_string.
4. Return output_string.
4.2.11. Parsing a Byte Sequence from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return a byte sequence.
input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is not "*", fail parsing.
2. Discard the first character of input_string.
3. If there is not a "*" character before the end of input_string,
fail parsing.
4. Let b64_content be the result of removing content of input_string
up to but not including the first instance of the character "*".
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
5. Consume the "*" character at the beginning of input_string.
6. If b64_content contains a character not included in ALPHA, DIGIT,
"+", "/" and "=", fail parsing.
7. Let binary_content be the result of Base 64 Decoding [RFC4648]
b64_content, synthesising padding if necessary (note the
requirements about recipient behaviour below).
8. Return binary_content.
Because some implementations of base64 do not allow reject of encoded
data that is not properly "=" padded (see [RFC4648], Section 3.2),
parsers SHOULD NOT fail when it is not present, unless they cannot be
configured to do so.
Because some implementations of base64 do not allow rejection of
encoded data that has non-zero pad bits (see [RFC4648], Section 3.5),
parsers SHOULD NOT fail when it is present, unless they cannot be
configured to do so.
This specification does not relax the requirements in [RFC4648],
Section 3.1 and 3.3; therefore, parsers MUST fail on characters
outside the base64 alphabet, and on line feeds in encoded data.
4.2.12. Parsing a Boolean from Text
Given an ASCII string input_string, return a Boolean. input_string is
modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is not "?", fail parsing.
2. Discard the first character of input_string.
3. If the first character of input_string matches "1", discard the
first character, and return true.
4. If the first character of input_string matches "0", discard the
first character, and return false.
5. No value has matched; fail parsing.
5. IANA Considerations
This draft has no actions for IANA.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
6. Security Considerations
The size of most types defined by Structured Headers is not limited;
as a result, extremely large header fields could be an attack vector
(e.g., for resource consumption). Most HTTP implementations limit
the sizes of size of individual header fields as well as the overall
header block size to mitigate such attacks.
It is possible for parties with the ability to inject new HTTP header
fields to change the meaning of a Structured Header. In some
circumstances, this will cause parsing to fail, but it is not
possible to reliably fail in all such circumstances.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
7.2. Informative References
[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",
IEEE 754-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935,
ISBN 978-0-7381-5752-8, August 2008,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4610935/>.
See also http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/ [6].
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
[RFC7541] Peon, R. and H. Ruellan, "HPACK: Header Compression for
HTTP/2", RFC 7541, DOI 10.17487/RFC7541, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7541>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
7.3. URIs
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
[2] https://httpwg.github.io/
[3] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/header-structure
[4] https://github.com/httpwg/structured-header-tests
[5] https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki/Structured-Headers
[6] https://github.com/httpwg/structured-header-tests
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Matthew Kerwin for his detailed feedback and careful
consideration during the development of this specification.
Appendix B. Frequently Asked Questions
B.1. Why not JSON?
Earlier proposals for structured headers were based upon JSON
[RFC8259]. However, constraining its use to make it suitable for
HTTP header fields required senders and recipients to implement
specific additional handling.
For example, JSON has specification issues around large numbers and
objects with duplicate members. Although advice for avoiding these
issues is available (e.g., [RFC7493]), it cannot be relied upon.
Likewise, JSON strings are by default Unicode strings, which have a
number of potential interoperability issues (e.g., in comparison).
Although implementers can be advised to avoid non-ASCII content where
unnecessary, this is difficult to enforce.
Another example is JSON's ability to nest content to arbitrary
depths. Since the resulting memory commitment might be unsuitable
(e.g., in embedded and other limited server deployments), it's
necessary to limit it in some fashion; however, existing JSON
implementations have no such limits, and even if a limit is
specified, it's likely that some header field definition will find a
need to violate it.
Because of JSON's broad adoption and implementation, it is difficult
to impose such additional constraints across all implementations;
some deployments would fail to enforce them, thereby harming
interoperability.
Since a major goal for Structured Headers is to improve
interoperability and simplify implementation, these concerns led to a
format that requires a dedicated parser and serialiser.
Additionally, there were widely shared feelings that JSON doesn't
"look right" in HTTP headers.
B.2. Structured Headers don't "fit" my data.
Structured headers intentionally limits the complexity of data
structures, to assure that it can be processed in a performant manner
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
with little overhead. This means that work is necessary to fit some
data types into them.
Sometimes, this can be achieved by creating limited substructures in
values, and/or using more than one header. For example, consider:
Example-Thing: name="Widget", cost=89.2, descriptions="foo bar"
Example-Description: foo; url="https://example.net"; context=123,
bar; url="https://example.org"; context=456
Since the description contains a list of key/value pairs, we use a
Parameterised List to represent them, with the token for each item in
the list used to identify it in the "descriptions" member of the
Example-Thing header.
When specifying more than one header, it's important to remember to
describe what a processor's behaviour should be when one of the
headers is missing.
If you need to fit arbitrarily complex data into a header, Structured
Headers is probably a poor fit for your use case.
B.3. What should generic Structured Headers implementations expose?
A generic implementation should expose the top-level parse
(Section 4.2) and serialise (Section 4.1) functions. They need not
be functions; for example, it could be implemented as an object, with
methods for each of the different top-level types.
For interoperability, it's important that generic implementations be
complete and follow the algorithms closely; see Section 1.1. To aid
this, a common test suite is being maintained by the community; see
https://github.com/httpwg/structured-header-tests [7].
Implementers should note that dictionaries and parameters are order-
preserving maps. Some headers may not convey meaning in the ordering
of these data types, but it should still be exposed so that
applications which need to use it will have it available.
Appendix C. Changes
_RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication._
C.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-09
o Changed Boolean from T/F to 1/0 (#784).
o Parameters are now ordered maps (#765).
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
o Clamp integers to 15 digits (#737).
C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-08
o Disallow whitespace before items properly (#703).
o Created "key" for use in dictionaries and parameters, rather than
relying on identifier (#702). Identifiers have a separate minimum
supported size.
o Expanded the range of special characters allowed in identifier to
include all of ALPHA, ".", ":", and "%" (#702).
o Use "?" instead of "!" to indicate a Boolean (#719).
o Added "Intentionally Strict Processing" (#684).
o Gave better names for referring specs to use in Parameterised
Lists (#720).
o Added Lists of Lists (#721).
o Rename Identifier to Token (#725).
o Add implementation guidance (#727).
C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-07
o Make Dictionaries ordered mappings (#659).
o Changed "binary content" to "byte sequence" to align with Infra
specification (#671).
o Changed "mapping" to "map" for #671.
o Don't fail if byte sequences aren't "=" padded (#658).
o Add Booleans (#683).
o Allow identifiers in items again (#629).
o Disallowed whitespace before items (#703).
o Explain the consequences of splitting a string across multiple
headers (#686).
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-06
o Add a FAQ.
o Allow non-zero pad bits.
o Explicitly check for integers that violate constraints.
C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-05
o Reorganise specification to separate parsing out.
o Allow referencing specs to use ABNF.
o Define serialisation algorithms.
o Refine relationship between ABNF, parsing and serialisation
algorithms.
C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-04
o Remove identifiers from item.
o Remove most limits on sizes.
o Refine number parsing.
C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-03
o Strengthen language around failure handling.
C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-02
o Split Numbers into Integers and Floats.
o Define number parsing.
o Tighten up binary parsing and give it an explicit end delimiter.
o Clarify that mappings are unordered.
o Allow zero-length strings.
o Improve string parsing algorithm.
o Improve limits in algorithms.
o Require parsers to combine header fields before processing.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP April 2019
o Throw an error on trailing garbage.
C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-01
o Replaced with draft-nottingham-structured-headers.
C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00
o Added signed 64bit integer type.
o Drop UTF8, and settle on BCP137 ::EmbeddedUnicodeChar for h1-
unicode-string.
o Change h1_blob delimiter to ":" since "'" is valid t_char
Authors' Addresses
Mark Nottingham
Fastly
Email: mnot@mnot.net
URI: https://www.mnot.net/
Poul-Henning Kamp
The Varnish Cache Project
Email: phk@varnish-cache.org
Nottingham & Kamp Expires October 19, 2019 [Page 34]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/