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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 5987

Network Working Group                                         J. Reschke
Internet-Draft                                                greenbytes
Intended status: Standards Track                          March 30, 2010
Expires: October 1, 2010


                  Application of RFC 2231 Encoding to
            Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Fields
                    draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-11

Abstract

   By default, message header field parameters in Hypertext Transfer
   Protocol (HTTP) messages can not carry characters outside the ISO-
   8859-1 character set.  RFC 2231 defines an escaping mechanism for use
   in Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) headers.  This
   document specifies a profile of that encoding suitable for use in
   HTTP header fields.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)

   There are multiple HTTP header fields that already use RFC 2231
   encoding in practice (Content-Disposition) or might use it in the
   future (Link).  The purpose of this document is to provide a single
   place where the generic aspects of RFC 2231 encoding in HTTP header
   fields are defined.

   Distribution of this document is unlimited.  Although this is not a
   work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to
   the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) mailing list at
   ietf-http-wg@w3.org [1], which may be joined by sending a message
   with subject "subscribe" to ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [2].

   Discussions of the HTTPbis Working Group are archived at
   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.

   XML versions, latest edits and the issues list for this document are
   available from
   <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http>.  A
   collection of test cases is available at
   <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/>.

      Note: as of February 2010, there were at least three independent
      implementations of the encoding defined in Section 3.2: Konqueror
      (starting with 4.4.1), Mozilla Firefox, and Opera.


Status of This Memo



Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 1, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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 BSD License.
















Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  A Profile of RFC 2231 for Use in HTTP  . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Parameter Continuations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Parameter Value Character Set and Language Information . .  5
       3.2.1.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Language specification in Encoded Words  . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions  . . . .  8
     4.1.  When to Use the Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.  Document History and Future Plans (to be removed
                by RFC Editor before publication) . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix B.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
                publication)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     B.1.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00 . . . . . . . . . . 12
     B.2.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-01 . . . . . . . . . . 12
     B.3.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-02 . . . . . . . . . . 13
     B.4.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-03 . . . . . . . . . . 13
     B.5.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-04 . . . . . . . . . . 13
     B.6.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-05 . . . . . . . . . . 13
     B.7.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-06 . . . . . . . . . . 13
     B.8.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-07 . . . . . . . . . . 13
     B.9.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-08 . . . . . . . . . . 13
     B.10. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-09 . . . . . . . . . . 13
     B.11. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-10 . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix C.  Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor
                before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.1.  edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.2.  charset-registered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.3.  parameter-abnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.4.  value-abnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.5.  iso8859  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     C.6.  when-ext-value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     C.7.  repeated-param . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     C.8.  handling-multiple  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     C.9.  i18n-spoofing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     C.10. multiple-inst-spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17






Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


1.  Introduction

   By default, message header field parameters in HTTP ([RFC2616])
   messages can not carry characters outside the ISO-8859-1 character
   set ([ISO-8859-1]).  RFC 2231 (Appendix of [RFC2231]) defines an
   escaping mechanism for use in MIME headers.  This document specifies
   a profile of that encoding for use in HTTP header fields.

      Note: this profile does not apply to message payloads transmitted
      over HTTP, such as when using the media type "multipart/form-data"
      ([RFC2388]).

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 specification uses the ABNF (Augmented Backus-Naur Form)
   notation defined in [RFC5234].  The following core rules are included
   by reference, as defined in [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters),
   DIGIT (decimal 0-9), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f) and LWSP
   (linear white space).

   Note that this specification uses the term "character set" for
   consistency with other IETF specifications such as RFC 2277 (see
   [RFC2277], Section 3).  A more accurate term would be "character
   encoding" (a mapping of code points to octet sequences).

3.  A Profile of RFC 2231 for Use in HTTP

   RFC 2231 defines several extensions to MIME.  The sections below
   discuss if and how they apply to HTTP.

   In short:

   o  Parameter Continuations aren't needed (Section 3.1),

   o  Character Set and Language Information are useful, therefore a
      simple subset is specified (Section 3.2), and

   o  Language Specifications in Encoded Words aren't needed
      (Section 3.3).








Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


3.1.  Parameter Continuations

   Section 3 of [RFC2231] defines a mechanism that deals with the length
   limitations that apply to MIME headers.  These limitations do not
   apply to HTTP ([RFC2616], Section 19.4.7).

   Thus in HTTP, senders MUST NOT use parameter continuations, and
   therefore recipients do not need to support them.

3.2.  Parameter Value Character Set and Language Information

   Section 4 of [RFC2231] specifies how to embed language information
   into parameter values, and also how to encode non-ASCII characters,
   dealing with restrictions both in MIME and HTTP header parameters.

   However, RFC 2231 does not specify a mandatory-to-implement character
   set, making it hard for senders to decide which character set to use.
   Thus, recipients implementing this specification MUST support the
   character sets "ISO-8859-1" [ISO-8859-1] and "UTF-8" [RFC3629].

   Furthermore, RFC 2231 allows leaving out the character set
   information.  The profile defined by this specification does not
   allow that.

   The syntax for parameters is defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC2616]
   (with RFC 2616 implied LWS translated to RFC 5234 LWSP):

     parameter     = attribute LWSP "=" LWSP value

     attribute     = token
     value         = token / quoted-string

     quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2>
     token         = <token, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2>

   This specification modifies the grammar to:















Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


     parameter     = reg-parameter / ext-parameter

     reg-parameter = parmname LWSP "=" LWSP value

     ext-parameter = parmname "*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value

     parmname      = 1*attr-char

     ext-value     = charset  "'" [ language ] "'" value-chars
                   ; extended-initial-value,
                   ; defined in [RFC2231], Section 7

     charset       = "UTF-8" / "ISO-8859-1" / mime-charset

     mime-charset  = 1*mime-charsetc
     mime-charsetc = ALPHA / DIGIT
                   / "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&"
                   / "+" / "-" / "^" / "_" / "`"
                   / "{" / "}" / "~"
                   ; as <mime-charset> in Section 2.3 of [RFC2978]
                   ; except that the single quote is not included
                   ; SHOULD be registered in the IANA charset registry

     language      = <Language-Tag, defined in [RFC5646], Section 2.1>

     value-chars   = *( pct-encoded / attr-char )

     pct-encoded   = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
                   ; see [RFC3986], Section 2.1

     attr-char     = ALPHA / DIGIT
                   / "!" / "#" / "$" / "&" / "+" / "-" / "."
                   / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~"
                   ; token except ( "*" / "'" / "%" )

   Thus, a parameter is either regular parameter (reg-parameter), as
   previously defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC2616], or an extended
   parameter (ext-parameter).

   Extended parameters are those where the left hand side of the
   assignment ends with an asterisk character.

   The value part of an extended parameter (ext-value) is a token that
   consists of three parts: the REQUIRED character set name (charset),
   the OPTIONAL language information (language), and a character
   sequence representing the actual value (value-chars), separated by
   single quote characters.  Note that both character set names and
   language tags are restricted to the US-ASCII character set, and are



Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


   matched case-insensitively (see [RFC2978], Section 2.3 and [RFC5646],
   Section 2.1.1).

   Inside the value part, characters not contained in attr-char are
   encoded into an octet sequence using the specified character set.
   That octet sequence then is percent-encoded as specified in Section
   2.1 of [RFC3986].

   Producers MUST NOT use character sets other than "UTF-8" ([RFC3629])
   or "ISO-8859-1" ([ISO-8859-1]).  Extension character sets (ext-
   charset) are reserved for future use.

      Note: recipients should be prepared to handle encoding errors,
      such as malformed or incomplete percent escape sequences, or non-
      decodable octet sequences, in a robust manner.  This specification
      does not mandate any specific behavior, for instance the following
      strategies are all acceptable:

      *  ignoring the parameter,

      *  stripping a non-decodable octet sequence,

      *  substituting a non-decodable octet sequence by a replacement
         character, such as the Unicode character U+FFFD (Replacement
         Character).

      Note: the RFC 2616 token production ([RFC2616], Section 2.2)
      differs from the production used in RFC 2231 (imported from
      Section 5.1 of [RFC2045]) in that curly braces ("{" and "}") are
      excluded.  Thus, these two characters are excluded from the attr-
      char production as well.

      Note: the <mime-charset> ABNF defined here differs from the one in
      Section 2.3 of [RFC2978] in that it does not allow the single
      quote character (see also RFC Editor Errata ID 1912 [3]).  In
      practice, no character set names using that character have been
      registered at the time of this writing.

3.2.1.  Examples

   Non-extended notation, using "token":

     foo: bar; title=Economy

   Non-extended notation, using "quoted-string":

     foo: bar; title="US-$ rates"




Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


   Extended notation, using the unicode character U+00A3 (POUND SIGN):

     foo: bar; title*=iso-8859-1'en'%A3%20rates

   Note: the Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded using ISO-
   8859-1 into the single octet A3, then percent-encoded.  Also note
   that the space character was encoded as %20, as it is not contained
   in attr-char.

   Extended notation, using the unicode characters U+00A3 (POUND SIGN)
   and U+20AC (EURO SIGN):

     foo: bar; title*=UTF-8''%c2%a3%20and%20%e2%82%ac%20rates

   Note: the unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded using UTF-8
   into the octet sequence C2 A3, then percent-encoded.  Likewise, the
   unicode euro sign character U+20AC was encoded into the octet
   sequence E2 82 AC, then percent-encoded.  Also note that HEXDIG
   allows both lower-case and upper-case character, so recipients must
   understand both, and that the language information is optional, while
   the character set is not.

3.3.  Language specification in Encoded Words

   Section 5 of [RFC2231] extends the encoding defined in [RFC2047] to
   also support language specification in encoded words.  Although the
   HTTP/1.1 specification does refer to RFC 2047 ([RFC2616], Section
   2.2), it's not clear to which header field exactly it applies, and
   whether it is implemented in practice (see
   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/111> for details).

   Thus, the RFC 2231 profile defined by this specification does not
   include this feature.

4.  Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions

   Specifications of HTTP header fields that use the extensions defined
   in Section 3.2 should clearly state that.  A simple way to achieve
   this is to normatively reference this specification, and to include
   the ext-value production into the ABNF for that header field.

   For instance:

     foo-header  = "foo" LWSP ":" LWSP token ";" LWSP title-param
     title-param = "title" LWSP "=" LWSP value
                 / "title*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value
     ext-value   = <see RFCxxxx, Section 3.2>




Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


   [[rfcno: Note to RFC Editor: in the figure above, please replace
   "xxxx" by the RFC number assigned to this specification.]]

      Note: The Parameter Value Continuation feature defined in Section
      3 of [RFC2231] makes it impossible to have multiple instances of
      extended parameters with identical parmname components, as the
      processing of continuations would become ambiguous.  Thus,
      specifications using this extension are recommended to disallow
      this case for compatibility with RFC 2231.

4.1.  When to Use the Extension

   Section 4.2 of [RFC2277] requires that protocol elements containing
   text are able to carry language information.  Thus, the ext-value
   production should always be used when the parameter value is of
   textual nature and its language is known.

   Furthermore, the extension should also be used whenever the parameter
   value needs to carry characters not present in the US-ASCII
   ([USASCII]) character set (note that it would be unacceptable to
   define a new parameter that would be restricted to a subset of the
   Unicode character set).

4.2.  Error Handling

   Header field specifications need to define whether multiple instances
   of parameters with identical parmname components are allowed, and how
   they should processed.  It is recommended that a parameter using the
   extended syntax takes precedence.  This could be used by producers to
   use both formats without breaking recipients that do not understand
   the extended syntax yet.

   Example:

     foo: bar; title="EURO exchange rates";
               title*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20exchange%20rates

   In this case, the sender provides an ASCII version of the title for
   legacy recipients, but also includes an internationalized version for
   recipients understanding this specification -- the latter obviously
   should prefer the new syntax over the old one.

      Note: at the time of this writing, many implementations failed to
      ignore the form they do not understand, or prioritize the ASCII
      form although the extended syntax was present.






Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


5.  Security Considerations

   The format described in this document makes it possible to transport
   non-ASCII characters, and thus enables character "spoofing"
   scenarios, in which a displayed value appears to be something other
   than it is.

   Furthermore, there are known attack scenarios relating to decoding
   UTF-8.

   See Section 10 of [RFC3629] for more information on both topics.

   In addition, the extension specified in this document makes it
   possible to transport multiple language variants for a single
   parameter, and such use might allow spoofing attacks, where different
   language versions of the same parameter are not equivalent.  Whether
   this attack is useful as an attack depends on the parameter
   specified.

6.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA Considerations related to this specification.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Martin Duerst and Frank Ellermann for help figuring out
   ABNF details, to Graham Klyne and Alexey Melnikov for general review,
   Chris Newman for pointing out an RFC 2231 incompatibility, and to
   Benjamin Carlyle and Roar Lauritzsen for implementer's feedback.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [ISO-8859-1]  International Organization for Standardization,
                 "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded
                 graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No.
                 1", ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.

   [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2616]     Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
                 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
                 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC2978]     Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
                 Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000.



Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


   [RFC3629]     Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
                 10646", RFC 3629, STD 63, November 2003.

   [RFC3986]     Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
                 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
                 RFC 3986, STD 66, January 2005.

   [RFC5234]     Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
                 Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
                 January 2008.

   [RFC5646]     Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for
                 Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646,
                 September 2009.

   [USASCII]     American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
                 Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
                 Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2045]     Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
                 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet
                 Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [RFC2047]     Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
                 Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for
                 Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.

   [RFC2231]     Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and
                 Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
                 Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997.

   [RFC2277]     Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
                 Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.

   [RFC2388]     Masinter, L., "Returning Values from Forms:  multipart/
                 form-data", RFC 2388, August 1998.

URIs

   [1]  <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

   [2]  <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe>

   [3]  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1912>





Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


Appendix A.  Document History and Future Plans (to be removed by RFC
             Editor before publication)

   Problems with the internationalization of the HTTP Content-
   Disposition header field have been known for many years (see test
   cases at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/>).

   During IETF 72
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/minutes?item=minutes72.html>), the
   HTTPbis Working Group shortly discussed how to deal with the
   underspecification of (1) Content-Disposition, and its (2)
   internationalization aspects.  Back then, there was rough consensus
   in the room to move the definition into a separate draft.

   This specification addresses problem (2), by defining a simple subset
   of the encoding format defined in RFC 2231.  A separate
   specification, draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http, is planned to address
   problem (1).  Note that this approach was chosen because Content-
   Disposition is just an example for an HTTP header field using this
   kind of encoding.  Another example is the currently proposed Link
   header field (draft-nottingham-http-link-header).

   This document is planned to be published on the IETF Standards Track,
   so that other standards-track level documents can depend on it, such
   as the new specification of Content-Disposition, or potentially
   future revisions of the HTTP Link Header specification.

   Also note that this document specifies a proper subset of the
   extensions defined in RFC 2231, but does not normatively refer to it.
   Thus, RFC 2231 can be revised separately, should the email community
   decide to.

Appendix B.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)

B.1.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00

   Use RFC5234-style ABNF, closer to the one used in RFC 2231.

   Make RFC 2231 dependency informative, so this specification can
   evolve independently.

   Explain the ABNF in prose.

B.2.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-01

   Remove unneeded RFC5137 notation (code point vs character).





Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


B.3.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-02

   And and resolve issues "charset", "repeats" and "rfc4646".

B.4.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-03

   And and resolve issue "charsetmatch".

B.5.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-04

   Add and resolve issues "badseq" and "tokenquotcharset".

B.6.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-05

   Say "header field" instead of "header" in the context of HTTP.

B.7.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-06

   Add an appendix discussing document history and future plans, to be
   removed before publication.

B.8.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-07

   Add and resolve issues "impl" and "rel-2388".

B.9.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-08

   Editorial improvements.  Add and resolve issues "attrcharvstoken" and
   "tokengrammar".

B.10.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-09

   Add issues "i18n-spoofing", "iso8859", "parameter-abnf", and "when-
   ext-value".  Add and resolve issues "rfc2978-normative", "rfc3986-
   normative" and "usascii-normative".

B.11.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-10

   Resolve issues "i18n-spoofing", "iso8859", "parameter-abnf", and
   "when-ext-value".

   Add and resolve issue "charset-registered", "handling-multiple",
   "multiple-inst-spoofing", "repeated-param" and "value-abnf".

   Update the KDE implementation note.






Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


Appendix C.  Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before
             publication)

   Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this
   document.

C.1.  edit

   Type: edit

   julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2009-04-17): Umbrella issue for
   editorial fixes/enhancements.

C.2.  charset-registered

   In Section 3.2:

   Type: change

   julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-20): Mention to use only
   registered charset names? (reported by Alexey Melnikov).

   Resolution (2010-03-29): State this in the ABNF.

C.3.  parameter-abnf

   In Section 3.2:

   Type: change

   julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-20): The ABNF for reg-parameter
   and ext-parameter is ambiguous, as "*" is a valid token character;
   furthermore, RFC 2616's "attribute" production allows "*" while RFC
   2231's does not. (reported by Alexey Melnikov).

   julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-21): Proposal: restrict the
   allowable character set in parameter names to exclude "*" (and maybe
   even more non-name characters?).  Also, consider extending the set of
   value characters (for the right hand side) to allow more characters
   that can be unambiguously parsed outside quoted strings, such as "/".

   Resolution: Introduced parmname, disallowing "*" / "'" / "%".  Moving
   the value ABNF discussion into a separate issue ("value-abnf").

C.4.  value-abnf

   In Section 3.2:




Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


   Type: change

   julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-26): Consider extending the
   right-hand side ABNF - both for regular and extended parameters - to
   include more characters that can be unambiguously parsed outside
   quoted strings, such as "/".

   Resolution (2010-03-29): No change due to lack of feedback.
   Potentially defer to future versions of HTTP/1.1 (defining guidelines
   for header definitions), or a revision of this spec.

C.5.  iso8859

   In Section 3.2:

   Type: change

   julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-20): The protocol could be
   further simplified by mandating UTF-8 only (reported by Alexey
   Melnikov).  On the other hand and not surprinsingly, testing shows
   that ISO-8859-1 support is widely implemented.  The author is looking
   for community feedback on this choice.

   Resolution (2010-03-29): Further feedback was requested during IETF
   LC; but none was received.  Thus defaulting to no change; keeping the
   support for ISO-8859-1.

C.6.  when-ext-value

   In Section 4.1:

   Type: change

   julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-18): There's no point in using
   ext-value when the language is unknown and no "special" characters
   are present.

   Resolution (2010-02-23): Fixed.

C.7.  repeated-param

   In Section 4:

   Type: change

   Chris.Newman@Sun.COM (2010-03-22): RFC 2231 did not allow two
   parameters with the same name but different languages, at least in
   the context of continuations that was impossible.  Absent



Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


   continuations, RFC 2231 was otherwise silent on that topic.
   So section 4.3 adds a new feature over and above what RFC 2231 did.
   It's a feature that will make implementations significantly more
   complex and is likely to cause interoperability problems.
   Much of the experience with deployment of both language tagging and
   language variants in the IETF seems to result in unnecessary
   complexity.  While there are good abstract arguments for language
   tagging in theory, it seems more often than not that the parties in
   the exchange are unable to put anything useful in the field in which
   case it falls into the realm of unnecessary complexity.  In addition,
   we have experience where we attempted to allow language variants
   (multipart/alternative) and not only did that usage not deploy, it is
   actively broken despite being an explicit example in RFC 1766.
   The one place where I've seen language variants mostly work is when
   the language tag is actually included in the attribute name (LDAP
   does this) and the "search" mechanism allows wildcarding of
   languages.  But having two attributes with the same name seems
   dangerous.
   My recommendation is to remove this feature as I believe it will not
   be used in practice and will add unnecessary complexity that is
   likely to create interoperability problems.

   Resolution (2010-03-29): State the issue.  Remove section 4.3.
   Rephrase 4.2 accordingly.

C.8.  handling-multiple

   In Section 4.2:

   Type: change

   <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/
   msg01344.html>

   roessler@gmail.com (2010-02-24): Leaving the choice of precedence to
   the header specification implies that parsers need to special-case.
   It would seem reasonable to make a choice in this specification that
   for properties which can only occur once, the traditional syntax
   takes precedence.

   julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-26): That would rule out the
   use case where the traditional syntax is used as a fallback for
   clients that do not support the new syntax, as discussed in that
   section: ... http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attfnboth2 is a test
   case that shows that using this technique, both variants can be
   served to clients, and those that understand the ext-parameter
   encoding will indeed pick the "better" parameter.  Unfortunately,
   this appears to depend on parameter ordering, which I didn't want to



Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


   mention in this spec.  Maybe I should?

   Resolution (2010-03-29): Just state that when repetitions are not
   allowed, the extended form should take precedence.

C.9.  i18n-spoofing

   In Section 5:

   Type: change

   <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/
   msg01329.html>

   GK@ninebynine.org (2010-02-20): I note that the security
   considerations section says nothing about possible character
   "spoofing" - i.e. making a displayed prompt or value appear to be
   something other than it is.  E.g.  Non-ASCII characters have been
   used to set up exploits involving dodgy URIs that may appear to a
   user to be legitimate.

   Resolution (2010-02-23): Mention the problem, and point to RFC 3629's
   security considerations which mention this as well.  While at it,
   also mention the other UTF-8 related attack scenario.

C.10.  multiple-inst-spoofing

   In Section 5:

   Type: change

   kivinen@iki.fi (2010-03-01): Yes, but the impact of them is
   different.  For example it does not really matter if the filename
   parameters having different languages differ, but there might be
   parameters where this really matters.
   As this document does not define any exact parameters, it might be
   enough to comment something like that "This document specifies way to
   transport multiple language variants for parameters, and such use
   might allow spoofing attacks, where different language versions of
   the same parameters do not match.  Whether this attack is useful as
   an attack depends on the parameter specified."

   Resolution (2010-03-01): Add text based on the recommendation.








Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          RFC2231 Encoding in HTTP              March 2010


Author's Address

   Julian F. Reschke
   greenbytes GmbH
   Hafenweg 16
   Muenster, NW  48155
   Germany

   EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
   URI:   http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/









































Reschke                  Expires October 1, 2010               [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/