[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-fielding-http-key) 00 01

HTTP Working Group                                           R. Fielding
Internet-Draft                                Adobe Systems Incorporated
Intended status: Standards Track                           M. Nottingham
Expires: September 3, 2016                                 March 2, 2016


                   The Key HTTP Response Header Field
                       draft-ietf-httpbis-key-01

Abstract

   The 'Key' header field for HTTP responses allows an origin server to
   describe the secondary cache key (RFC 7234, Section 4.1) for a
   resource, by conveying what is effectively a short algorithm that can
   be used upon later requests to determine if a stored response is
   reusable for a given request.

   Key has the advantage of avoiding an additional round trip for
   validation whenever a new request differs slightly, but not
   significantly, from prior requests.

   Key also informs user agents of the request characteristics that
   might result in different content, which can be useful if the user
   agent is not sending request header fields in order to reduce the
   risk of fingerprinting.

Note to Readers

   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/ .

   Working Group information can be found at http://httpwg.github.io/ ;
   source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/key .

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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any



Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   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 September 3, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   (http://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.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  The "Key" Response Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Relationship with Vary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Calculating a Secondary Cache Key . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  Creating a Header Field Value . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.2.  Failing Parameter Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Key Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.1.  div . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.2.  partition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.3.  match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.3.4.  substr  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.3.5.  param . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.1.  Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.2.  Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix B.  Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.1.  Since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16




Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


1.  Introduction

   In HTTP caching [RFC7234], the Vary response header field effectively
   modifies the key used to store and access a response to include
   information from the request's headers.  This "secondary cache key"
   allows proactive content negotiation [RFC7231] to work with caches.

   Vary's operation is generic; it works well when caches understand the
   semantics of the selecting headers.  For example, the Accept-Language
   request header field has a well-defined syntax for expressing the
   client's preferences; a cache that understands this header field can
   select the appropriate response (based upon its Content-Language
   header field) and serve it to a client, without any knowledge of the
   underlying resource.

   Vary does not work as well when the criteria for selecting a response
   are specific to the resource.  For example, if the nature of the
   response depends upon the presence or absence of a particular Cookie
   ([RFC6265]) in a request, Vary doesn't have a mechanism to offer
   enough fine-grained, resource-specific information to aid a cache's
   selection of the appropriate response.

   This document defines a new response header field, "Key", that allows
   resources to describe the secondary cache key in a fine-grained,
   resource-specific manner, leading to improved cache efficiency when
   responses depend upon such headers.

1.1.  Examples

   For example, this response header field:


     Key: cookie;param=_sess;param=ID

   indicates that the selected response depends upon the "_sess" and
   "ID" cookie values.

   This Key:


     Key: user-agent;substr=MSIE

   indicates that there are two possible secondary cache keys for this
   resource; one for requests whose User-Agent header field contains
   "MSIE", and another for those that don't.

   A more complex example:




Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


     Key: user-agent;substr=MSIE;Substr="mobile", Cookie;param="ID"

   indicates that the selected response depends on the presence of two
   strings in the User-Agent request header field, as well as the value
   of the "ID" cookie request header field.

1.2.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of
   [RFC5234] (including the DQUOTE rule), and the list rule extension
   defined in [RFC7230], Section 7.  It includes by reference the field-
   name, quoted-string and quoted-pair rules from that document, the OWS
   rule from [RFC7230] and the parameter rule from [RFC7231].

2.  The "Key" Response Header Field

   The "Key" response header field describes the portions of the request
   that the resource currently uses to select representations.

   As such, its semantics are similar to the "Vary" response header
   field, but it allows more fine-grained description, using "key
   parameters".

   Caches can use this information as part of determining whether a
   stored response can be used to satisfy a given request.  When a cache
   knows and fully understands the Key header field for a given
   resource, it MAY ignore the Vary response header field in any stored
   responses for it.

   Additionally, user agents can use Key to discover if additional
   request header fields might influence the resource's selection of
   responses.

   The Key field-value is a comma-delimited list of selecting header
   fields (similar to Vary), with zero to many parameters each,
   delimited by semicolons.


     Key       = 1#key-value
     key-value = field-name *( OWS ";" OWS parameter )

   Note that, as per [RFC7231], parameter names are case-insensitive,
   and parameter values can be double-quoted strings (potentially with
   "\"-escaped characters inside).



Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   The following header fields have the same effect:


     Vary: Accept-Encoding, Cookie
     Key: Accept-Encoding, Cookie

   However, Key's use of parameters allows:


     Key: Accept-Encoding, Cookie; param=foo

   to indicate that the secondary cache key depends upon the Accept-
   Encoding header field and the "foo" Cookie.

   One important difference between Vary and Key is how they are
   applied.  Vary is specified to be specific to the response it occurs
   within, whereas Key is specific to the resource (as identified by the
   request URL) it is associated with.  The most recent key you receive
   for a given resource is applicable to all responses from that
   resource.

   This difference allows more efficient implementation (and reflects
   practices that many caches use in implementing Vary already).

   This specification defines a selection of Key parameters to address
   common use cases such as selection upon individual Cookie header
   fields, User-Agent substrings and numerical ranges.  Future
   parameters may define further capabilities.

2.1.  Relationship with Vary

   Origin servers SHOULD still send Vary when using Key, to ensure
   backwards compatibility.

   For example,


     Vary: User-Agent
     Key: User-Agent;substr="mozilla"

   Note that, in some cases, it may be better to explicitly use "Vary:
   *" if clients and caches don't have any practical way to use the Vary
   header field's value.  For example,


     Vary: *
     Key: Cookie;param="ID"




Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   Except when Vary: * is used, the set of headers used in Key SHOULD
   reflect the same request header fields as Vary does, even if they
   don't have parameters.  For example,


     Vary: Accept-Encoding, User-Agent
     Key: Accept-Encoding, User-Agent;substr="mozilla"

   Here, Accept-Encoding is included in Key without parameters; caches
   MAY treat these as they do values in the Vary header, relying upon
   knowledge of their generic semantics to select an appropriate
   response.

2.2.  Calculating a Secondary Cache Key

   When used by a cache to determine whether a stored response can be
   used to satisfy a presented request, each field-name in Key
   identifies a potential request header, just as with the Vary response
   header field.

   However, each of these can have zero to many key parameters that
   change how the response selection process (as defined in [RFC7234],
   Section 4.3)) works.

   In particular, when a cache fully implements this specification, it
   creates a secondary cache key for every request by following the
   instructions in the Key header field, ignoring the Vary header for
   this purpose.

   Then, when a new request is presented, the secondary cache key
   generated for that request can be compared to the stored one to find
   the appropriate response, to determine if it can be selected.

   To generate a secondary cache key for a given request (including that
   which is stored with a response) using Key, the following steps are
   taken:

   1)  If the Key header field is not present on the most recent
       cacheable (as per [RFC7234], Section 3)) response seen for the
       resource, abort this algorithm (i.e., fall back to using Vary to
       determine the secondary cache key).
   2)  Let "key_value" be the result of Creating a Header Field Value
       (Section 2.2.1) with "key" as the "target_field_name" and the
       most recently seen response header list for the resource as
       "header_list".
   3)  Let "secondary_key" be an empty string.





Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   4)  Create "key_list" by splitting "key_value" on "," characters,
       excepting "," characters within quoted strings, as per [RFC7230]
       Section 3.2.6..
   5)  For "key_item" in "key_list":

       1)  Remove any leading and trailing WSP from "key_item".
       2)  If "key_item" does not contain a ";" character, fail
           parameter processing (Section 2.2.2) and skip to the next
           "key_item".
       3)  Let "field_name" be the string before the first ";" character
           in "key_item", removing any WSP between them.
       4)  Let "field_value" be the result of Creating a Header Field
           Value (Section 2.2.1) with "field_name" as the
           "target_field_name" and the request header list as
           "header_list".
       5)  Let "parameters" be the string after the first ";" character
           in "key_item", removing any WSP between them.
       6)  Create "param_list" by splitting "parameters" on ";"
           characters, excepting ";" characters within quoted strings,
           as per [RFC7230] Section 3.2.6.
       7)  For "parameter" in "param_list":

           1)  If "parameter" does not contain a "=", fail parameter
               processing (Section 2.2.2) and skip to the next
               "key_item".
           2)  Remove any WSP at the beginning and/or end of
               "parameter".
           3)  Let "param_name" be the string before the first "="
               character in "parameter", case-normalized to lowercase.
           4)  If "param_name" does not identify a Key parameter
               processing algorithm that is implemented, fail parameter
               processing (Section 2.2.2) and skip to the next
               "key_item".
           5)  Let "param_value" be the string after the first "="
               character in "parameter".
           6)  If the first and last characters of "param_value" are
               both DQUOTE:

               1)  Remove the first and last characters of
                   "param_value".
               2)  Replace quoted-pairs within "param_value" with the
                   octet following the backslash, as per [RFC7230]
                   Section 3.2.6.
           7)  If "param_value" does not conform to the syntax defined
               for it by the parameter definition, fail parameter
               processing Section 2.2.2 and skip to the next "key_item".
           8)  Run the identified processing algorithm on "field_value"
               with the "param_value", and append the result to



Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


               "secondary_key".  If parameter processing fails
               Section 2.2.2, skip to the next "key_item".
           9)  Append a separator character (e.g., NULL) to
               "secondary_key".
   6)  Return "secondary_key".

   Note that this specification does not require that exact algorithm to
   be implemented.  However, implementations' observable behavior MUST
   be identical to running it.  This includes parameter processing
   algorithms; implementations MAY use different internal artefacts for
   secondary cache keys, as long as the results are the same.

   Likewise, while the secondary cache key associated with both stored
   and presented requests is required to use the most recently seen Key
   header field for the resource in question, this can be achieved using
   a variety of implementation strategies, including (but not limited
   to):

   o  Generating a new secondary cache key for every stored response
      associated with the resource upon each request.
   o  Caching the secondary cache key with the stored request/response
      pair and re-generating it when the Key header field is observed to
      change.
   o  Caching the secondary cache key with the stored response and
      invalidating the stored response(s) when the Key header field is
      observed to change.

2.2.1.  Creating a Header Field Value

   Given a header field name "target_field_name" and "header_list", a
   list of ("field_name", "field_value") tuples:

   1)  Let "target_field_values" be an empty list.
   2)  For each ("field_name", "field_value") tuple in "header_list":

       1)  If "field_name" does not match "target_field_name", skip to
           the next tuple.
       2)  Strip leading and trailing WSP from "field_value" and append
           it to "target_field_values".
   3)  If "target_field_values" is empty, return an empty string.
   4)  Return the concatenation of "target_field_values", separating
       each with "," characters.

2.2.2.  Failing Parameter Processing

   In some cases, a key parameter cannot determine a secondary cache key
   corresponding to its nominated header field value.  When this




Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   happens, Key processing needs to fail safely, so that the correct
   behavior is observed.

   When this happens, implementations MUST either behave as if the Key
   header was not present, or assure that the nominated header fields
   being compared match, as per [RFC7234], Section 4.1.

2.3.  Key Parameters

   A Key parameter associates a name with a specific processing
   algorithm that takes two inputs; a HTTP header value "header_value"
   (as described in Section 2.2.1), and "parameter_value", a string that
   indicates how the identified header should be processed.

   The set of key parameters (and their associated processing
   algorithms) is extensible; see Section 3.  This document defines the
   following key parameters:

2.3.1.  div

   The "div" parameter normalizes positive integer header values into
   groups by dividing them by a configured value.

   Its value's syntax is:


   div    = 1*DIGIT

   To process a set of header fields against a div parameter, follow
   these steps (or their equivalent):

   1)  If "parameter_value" is "0", fail parameter processing
       Section 2.2.2.
   2)  If "header_value" is the empty string, return "none".
   3)  If "header_value" contains a ",", remove it and all subsequent
       characters.
   4)  Remove all WSP characters from "header_value".
   5)  If "header_value" does not match the div ABNF rule, fail
       parameter processing (Section 2.2.2).
   6)  Return the quotient of "header_value" / "parameter_value"
       (omitting the modulus).

   For example, the Key:


   Key: Bar;div=5





Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   indicates that the "Bar" header's field value should be partitioned
   into groups of 5.  Thus, the following field values would be
   considered the same (because, divided by 5, they all result in 0):


   Bar: 1
   Bar: 3 , 42
   Bar: 4, 1

   whereas these would be considered to be in a different group
   (because, divided by 5, they all result in 2);


   Bar: 12
   Bar: 10
   Bar: 14, 1

2.3.2.  partition

   The "partition" parameter normalizes positive numeric header values
   into pre-defined segments.

   Its value's syntax is:


   partition = [ segment ] *( ":" [ segment ] )
   segment   = [ 0*DIGIT "." ] 1*DIGIT

   To process a set of header fields against a partition parameter,
   follow these steps (or their equivalent):

   1)  If "header_value" is the empty string, return "none".
   2)  If "header_value" contains a ",", remove it and all subsequent
       characters.
   3)  Remove all WSP characters from "header_value".
   4)  If "header_value" does not match the segment ABNF rule, fail
       parameter processing (Section 2.2.2).
   5)  Let "segment_id" be 0.
   6)  Create a list "segment_list" by splitting "parameter_value" on
       ":" characters.
   7)  For each "segment_value" in "segment_list":

       1)  If "header_value" is less than "segment_value" when they are
           numerically compared, skip to step 7.
       2)  Increment "segment_id" by 1.
   8)  Return "segment_id".

   For example, the Key:



Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   Key: Foo;partition=20:30:40

   indicates that the "Foo" header's field value should be divided into
   four segments:

   o  less than 20
   o  20 to less than 30
   o  30 to less than 40
   o  forty or greater

   Thus, the following headers would all be normalized to the first
   segment:


   Foo: 1
   Foo: 0
   Foo: 4, 54
   Foo: 19.9

   whereas the following would fall into the second segment:


   Foo: 20
   Foo: 29.999
   Foo:  24   , 10

2.3.3.  match

   The "match" parameter is used to determine if an exact value occurs
   in a list of header values.  It is case-sensitive.

   Its value's syntax is:


   match  = ( token / quoted-string )

   To process a set of header fields against a match parameter, follow
   these steps (or their equivalent):

   1)  If "header_value" is the empty string, return "none".
   2)  Create "header_list" by splitting "header_value" on ","
       characters.
   3)  For each "header_item" in "header_list":

       1)  Remove leading and trailing WSP characters in "header_item".
       2)  If the value of "header_item" is character-for-character
           identical to "parameter_value", return "1".
   4)  Return "0".



Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   For example, the Key:


   Key: Baz;match="charlie"

   Would return "1" for the following header field values:


   Baz: charlie
   Baz: foo, charlie
   Baz: bar, charlie     , abc

   and "0" for these:


   Baz: theodore
   Baz: joe, sam
   Baz: "charlie"
   Baz: Charlie
   Baz: cha rlie
   Baz: charlie2

2.3.4.  substr

   The "substr" parameter is used to determine if a value occurs as a
   substring of an item in a list of header values.  It is case-
   sensitive.

   Its value's syntax is:


   substr  = ( token / quoted-string )

   To process a set of header fields against a substr parameter, follow
   these steps (or their equivalent):

   1)  If "header_value" is the empty string, return "none".
   2)  Create "header_list" by splitting "header_value" on ","
       characters.
   3)  For each "header_item" in "header_list":

       1)  Remove leading and trailing WSP characters in "header_item".
       2)  If the value of "parameter_value" is character-for-character
           present as a substring of "header_value", return "1".
   4)  Return "0".

   For example, the Key:




Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   Key: Abc;substr=bennet

   Would return "1" for the following header field values:


   Abc: bennet
   Abc: foo, bennet
   Abc: abennet00
   Abc: bar, 99bennet     , abc
   Abc: "bennet"

   and "0" for these:


   Abc: theodore
   Abc: joe, sam
   Abc: Bennet
   Abc: Ben net

2.3.5.  param

   The "param" parameter considers the request header field as a list of
   key=value parameters, and uses the nominated key's value as the
   secondary cache key.

   Its value's syntax is:


   param  = ( token / quoted-string )

   To process a list of header fields against a param parameter, follow
   these steps (or their equivalent):

   1)  Let "header_list" be an empty list.
   2)  Create "header_list_tmp1" by splitting header_value on ","
       characters.
   3)  For each "header_item_tmp1" in "header_list_tmp1":

       1)  Create "header_list_tmp2" by splitting "header_item_tmp1" on
           ";" characters.
       2)  For each "header_item_tmp2" in "header_list_tmp2":

           1)  Remove leading and trailing WSP from "header_item_tmp2".
           2)  Append "header_item_tmp2" to header_list.
   4)  For each "header_item" in "header_list":

       1)  If the "=" character does not occur within "header_item",
           skip to the next "header_item".



Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


       2)  Let "item_name" be the string occurring before the first "="
           character in "header_item".
       3)  If "item_name" does not case-insensitively match
           "parameter_value", skip to the next "header_item".
       4)  Return the string occurring after the first "=" character in
           "header_item".
   5)  Return the empty string.

   Note that steps 2 and 3 accommodate semicolon-separated values, so
   that it can be used with the Cookie request header field.

   For example, the Key:


   Key: Def;param=liam

   The following headers would return the string (surrounded in single
   quotes) indicated:


   Def: liam=123           // '123'
   Def: mno=456            // ''
   Def:                    // ''
   Def: abc=123; liam=890  // '890'
   Def: liam="678"         // '"678"'

3.  IANA Considerations

   This specification defines the HTTP Key Parameter Registry,
   maintained at http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-
   parameters.xhtml#key .

3.1.  Procedure

   Key Parameter registrations MUST include the following fields:

   o  Parameter Name: [name]
   o  Reference: [Pointer to specification text]

   Values to be added to this namespace require IETF Review (see
   Section 4.1 of [RFC5226]) and MUST conform to the purpose of content
   coding defined in this section.

3.2.  Registrations

   This specification makes the following entries in the HTTP Key
   Parameter Registry:




Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


                    +----------------+---------------+
                    | Parameter Name | Reference     |
                    +----------------+---------------+
                    | div            | Section 2.3.1 |
                    | partition      | Section 2.3.2 |
                    | match          | Section 2.3.3 |
                    | substr         | Section 2.3.4 |
                    | param          | Section 2.3.5 |
                    +----------------+---------------+

4.  Security Considerations

   Because Key is an alternative to Vary, it is possible for caches to
   behave differently based upon whether they implement Key. Likewise,
   because support for any one Key parameter is not required, it is
   possible for different implementations of Key to behave differently.
   In both cases, an attacker might be able to exploit these
   differences.

   This risk is mitigated by the requirement to fall back to Vary when
   unsupported parameters are encountered, coupled with the requirement
   that servers that use Key also include a relevant Vary header.

   An attacker with the ability to inject response headers might be able
   to perform a cache poisoning attack that tailors a response to a
   specific user (e.g., by Keying to a Cookie that's specific to them).
   While the attack is still possible without Key, the ability to tailor
   is new.

   When implemented, Key might result in a larger number of stored
   responses for a given resource in caches; this, in turn, might be
   used to create an attack upon the cache itself.  Good cache
   replacement algorithms and denial of service monitoring in cache
   implementations are reasonable mitigations against this risk.

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.



Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
              RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.

5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC6265]  Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6265>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Ilya Grigorik, Amos Jeffries and Yoav Weiss for their
   feedback.

Appendix B.  Changes

B.1.  Since -00

   o  Issue 108 (field-name cardinality) closed with no action.
   o  Issue 104 (Support "Or" operator) closed with no action.
   o  Issue 107 (Whitespace requirement) addressed by allowing
      whitespace around parameters.
   o  Issue 106 (Policy for Key parameter registry) closed with no
      action.

Authors' Addresses








Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                     Key                        March 2016


   Roy T. Fielding
   Adobe Systems Incorporated

   Email: fielding@gbiv.com
   URI:   http://roy.gbiv.com/


   Mark Nottingham

   Email: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   https://www.mnot.net/








































Fielding & Nottingham   Expires September 3, 2016              [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/