draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-01.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02.txt 
HTTP Working Group J. Reschke HTTP Working Group J. Reschke
Internet-Draft greenbytes Internet-Draft greenbytes
Intended status: Standards Track May 30, 2015 Intended status: Standards Track August 13, 2015
Expires: December 1, 2015 Expires: February 14, 2016
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Client-Initiated Content-Encoding Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Client-Initiated Content-Encoding
draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-01 draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02
Abstract Abstract
In HTTP, content codings allow for payload encodings such as for In HTTP, content codings allow for payload encodings such as for
compression or integrity checks. In particular, the "gzip" content compression or integrity checks. In particular, the "gzip" content
coding is widely used for payload data sent in response messages. coding is widely used for payload data sent in response messages.
Content codings can be used in request messages as well, however Content codings can be used in request messages as well, however
discoverability is not on par with response messages. This document discoverability is not on par with response messages. This document
extends the HTTP "Accept-Encoding" header field for use in responses, extends the HTTP "Accept-Encoding" header field for use in responses,
to indicate that content codings are supported in requests. to indicate the content codings that are supported in requests.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group
mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>. <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.
Working Group information can be found at Working Group information can be found at
<https://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/> and <http://httpwg.github.io/>; <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/> and <http://httpwg.github.io/>;
source code and issues list for this draft can be found at source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions>. <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions>.
The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix A.4. The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix A.5.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 1, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 14, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Using the 'Accept-Encoding' Header Field in Responses . . . . . 3 3. Using the 'Accept-Encoding' Header Field in Responses . . . . . 3
4. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Header Field Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Status Code Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix A. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.1. Since draft-reschke-http-cice-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A.1. Since draft-reschke-http-cice-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.2. Since draft-reschke-http-cice-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A.2. Since draft-reschke-http-cice-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.3. Since draft-reschke-http-cice-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A.3. Since draft-reschke-http-cice-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In HTTP, content codings allow for payload encodings such as for In HTTP, content codings allow for payload encodings such as for
compression or integrity checks ([RFC7231], Section 3.1.2). In compression or integrity checks ([RFC7231], Section 3.1.2). In
particular, the "gzip" content coding is widely used for payload data particular, the "gzip" content coding is widely used for payload data
sent in response messages. sent in response messages.
Content codings can be used in request messages as well, however Content codings can be used in request messages as well, however
discoverability is not on par with response messages. This document discoverability is not on par with response messages. This document
extends the HTTP "Accept-Encoding" header field ([RFC7231], Section extends the HTTP "Accept-Encoding" header field ([RFC7231], Section
5.3.4) for use in responses, to indicate that content codings are 5.3.4) for use in responses, to indicate the content codings that are
supported in requests. supported in requests. It furthermore updates the definition of
status code 415 (Unsupported Media Type) ([RFC7231], Section 6.5.13),
recommending to include the "Accept-Encoding" header field when
appropriate.
2. Notational Conventions 2. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document reuses terminology defined in the base HTTP This document reuses terminology defined in the base HTTP
specifications, namely Section 2 of [RFC7230] and Section 3.1.2 of specifications, namely Section 2 of [RFC7230] and Section 3.1.2 of
[RFC7231]. [RFC7231].
skipping to change at page 5, line 4 skipping to change at page 5, line 10
"gzip" content coding. "gzip" content coding.
Alternatively, a server that does not support any content codings in Alternatively, a server that does not support any content codings in
requests could answer with: requests could answer with:
HTTP/1.1 415 Unsupported Media Type HTTP/1.1 415 Unsupported Media Type
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 11:43:53 GMT Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 11:43:53 GMT
Accept-Encoding: identity Accept-Encoding: identity
Content-Length: 61 Content-Length: 61
Content-Type: text/plain Content-Type: text/plain
This resource does not support content codings in requests. This resource does not support content codings in requests.
5. Deployment Considerations 5. Deployment Considerations
Servers that do not support content codings in requests already are Servers that do not support content codings in requests already are
required to fail a request that does use a content coding. Section required to fail a request that uses a content coding. Section
6.5.13 of [RFC7231] recommends using the status code 415 (Unsupported 6.5.13 of [RFC7231] defines the status code 415 (Unsupported Media
Media Type), so the only change needed is to include the "Accept- Type) for this purpose, so the only change needed is to include the
Encoding" header field with value "identity" in that response. "Accept-Encoding" header field with value "identity" in that
response.
Servers that do support some content codings are required to fail Servers that do support some content codings are required to fail
requests with unsupported content codings as well. To be compliant requests with unsupported content codings as well. To be compliant
with this specification, servers will need to use the status code 415 with this specification, servers will need to use the status code 415
(Unsupported Media Type) to signal the problem, and will have to (Unsupported Media Type) to signal the problem, and will have to
include an "Accept-Encoding" header field that enumerates the content include an "Accept-Encoding" header field that enumerates the content
codings that are supported. As the set of supported content codings codings that are supported. As the set of supported content codings
is usually static and small, adding the header field ought to be is usually static and small, adding the header field ought to be
trivial. trivial.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This specification does not introduce any new security considerations This specification does not introduce any new security considerations
beyond those discussed in Section 9 of [RFC7231]. beyond those discussed in Section 9 of [RFC7231].
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Header Field Registry
HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers" HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers"
registry located at registry located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers>, as defined by <http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers>, as defined by
[BCP90]. [BCP90].
This document updates the definition of the "Accept-Encoding" header This document updates the definition of the "Accept-Encoding" header
field, so the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry shall field, so the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry ought
be updated accordingly: to be updated accordingly:
+-----------------+----------+----------+---------------------------+ +-----------------+----------+----------+---------------------------+
| Header Field | Protocol | Status | Reference | | Header Field | Protocol | Status | Reference |
| Name | | | | | Name | | | |
+-----------------+----------+----------+---------------------------+ +-----------------+----------+----------+---------------------------+
| Accept-Encoding | http | standard | [RFC7231], Section 5.3.4, | | Accept-Encoding | http | standard | [RFC7231], Section 5.3.4, |
| | | | and Section 3 of this | | | | | and Section 3 of this |
| | | | document | | | | | document |
+-----------------+----------+----------+---------------------------+ +-----------------+----------+----------+---------------------------+
7.2. Status Code Registry
HTTP status codes are registered within the "Status Code" registry
located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>.
This document updates the definition of the status code 415
(Unsupported Media Type), so the "Status Code" registry ought to be
updated accordingly:
+-------+------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+------------------+----------------------------------------+
| 415 | Unsupported | [RFC7231], Section 6.5.13, and |
| | Media Type | Section 3 of this document |
+-------+------------------+----------------------------------------+
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
skipping to change at page 7, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 35
actually a problem related to content coding. actually a problem related to content coding.
A.3. Since draft-reschke-http-cice-02 A.3. Since draft-reschke-http-cice-02
First Working Group draft; updated boilerplate accordingly. First Working Group draft; updated boilerplate accordingly.
A.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-00 A.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-00
Apply editorial improvements suggested by Mark Nottingham. Apply editorial improvements suggested by Mark Nottingham.
A.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-01
Clarify that we're also extending the definition of status code 415
(so update that IANA registry entry as well).
Appendix B. Acknowledgements Appendix B. Acknowledgements
Thanks go to the members of the and HTTPbis Working Group, namely Thanks go to the members of the and HTTPbis Working Group, namely
Amos Jeffries, Mark Nottingham, and Ted Hardie. Amos Jeffries, Mark Nottingham, Pete Resnick, and Ted Hardie.
Author's Address Author's Address
Julian F. Reschke Julian F. Reschke
greenbytes GmbH greenbytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16 Hafenweg 16
Muenster, NW 48155 Muenster, NW 48155
Germany Germany
EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 51 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/