draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04.txt 
Network Working Group R. Fielding, Ed. Network Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.
Internet-Draft Day Software Internet-Draft Day Software
Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys
Intended status: Standards Track One Laptop per Child Intended status: Standards Track One Laptop per Child
Expires: December 19, 2008 J. Mogul Expires: March 2, 2009 J. Mogul
HP HP
H. Frystyk H. Frystyk
Microsoft Microsoft
L. Masinter L. Masinter
Adobe Systems Adobe Systems
P. Leach P. Leach
Microsoft Microsoft
T. Berners-Lee T. Berners-Lee
W3C/MIT W3C/MIT
Y. Lafon, Ed. Y. Lafon, Ed.
W3C W3C
J. Reschke, Ed. J. Reschke, Ed.
greenbytes greenbytes
June 17, 2008 August 29, 2008
HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation
draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03 draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 2, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global
information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 3 of the information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 3 of the
seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as
"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 3 defines "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 3 defines
HTTP message content, metadata, and content negotiation. HTTP message content, metadata, and content negotiation.
skipping to change at page 3, line 51 skipping to change at page 3, line 51
8.1. Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers . . . . . . . . 26 8.1. Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers . . . . . . . . 26
8.2. Content-Disposition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.2. Content-Disposition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Appendix A. Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045
Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.1. MIME-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 A.1. MIME-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.2. Conversion to Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 A.2. Conversion to Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.3. Introduction of Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 A.3. Introduction of Content-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A.4. No Content-Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.4. No Content-Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A.5. Introduction of Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.5. Introduction of Transfer-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A.6. MHTML and Line Length Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.6. MHTML and Line Length Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix B. Additional Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix B. Additional Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
B.1. Content-Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 B.1. Content-Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix C. Compatibility with Previous Versions . . . . . . . . 33 Appendix C. Compatibility with Previous Versions . . . . . . . . 33
C.1. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 C.1. Changes from RFC 2068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
C.2. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 C.2. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
D.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 D.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
D.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-00 . . . . . . . . . . 34 D.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-00 . . . . . . . . . . 34
D.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01 . . . . . . . . . . 35 D.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01 . . . . . . . . . . 35
D.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02 . . . . . . . . . . 35 D.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02 . . . . . . . . . . 35
D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03 . . . . . . . . . . 36
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 41 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 42
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines HTTP/1.1 message payloads (a.k.a., content), This document defines HTTP/1.1 message payloads (a.k.a., content),
the associated metadata header fields that define how the payload is the associated metadata header fields that define how the payload is
intended to be interpreted by a recipient, the request header fields intended to be interpreted by a recipient, the request header fields
that may influence content selection, and the various selection that may influence content selection, and the various selection
algorithms that are collectively referred to as HTTP content algorithms that are collectively referred to as HTTP content
negotiation. negotiation.
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
value = token | quoted-string value = token | quoted-string
The type, subtype, and parameter attribute names are case- The type, subtype, and parameter attribute names are case-
insensitive. Parameter values might or might not be case-sensitive, insensitive. Parameter values might or might not be case-sensitive,
depending on the semantics of the parameter name. Linear white space depending on the semantics of the parameter name. Linear white space
(LWS) MUST NOT be used between the type and subtype, nor between an (LWS) MUST NOT be used between the type and subtype, nor between an
attribute and its value. The presence or absence of a parameter attribute and its value. The presence or absence of a parameter
might be significant to the processing of a media-type, depending on might be significant to the processing of a media-type, depending on
its definition within the media type registry. its definition within the media type registry.
All parameters defined as a token are also allowed to occur as A parameter value that matches the token production may be
quoted-string; both notations are equivalent. transmitted as either a token or within a quoted-string. The quoted
and unquoted values are equivalent.
Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type
parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications, parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications,
implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are
required by that type/subtype definition. required by that type/subtype definition.
Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number
Authority (IANA). The media type registration process is outlined in Authority (IANA). The media type registration process is outlined in
[RFC4288]. Use of non-registered media types is discouraged. [RFC4288]. Use of non-registered media types is discouraged.
skipping to change at page 20, line 47 skipping to change at page 20, line 47
work and are not permitted with x-gzip or x-compress. work and are not permitted with x-gzip or x-compress.
6.4. Accept-Language 6.4. Accept-Language
The Accept-Language request-header field is similar to Accept, but The Accept-Language request-header field is similar to Accept, but
restricts the set of natural languages that are preferred as a restricts the set of natural languages that are preferred as a
response to the request. Language tags are defined in Section 3.5. response to the request. Language tags are defined in Section 3.5.
Accept-Language = "Accept-Language" ":" Accept-Language = "Accept-Language" ":"
1#( language-range [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] ) 1#( language-range [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
language-range = ( ( 1*8ALPHA *( "-" 1*8ALPHA ) ) | "*" ) language-range =
<language-range, defined in [RFC4647], Section 2.1>
Each language-range MAY be given an associated quality value which Each language-range can be given an associated quality value which
represents an estimate of the user's preference for the languages represents an estimate of the user's preference for the languages
specified by that range. The quality value defaults to "q=1". For specified by that range. The quality value defaults to "q=1". For
example, example,
Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7 Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7
would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and
other types of English." A language-range matches a language-tag if other types of English."
it exactly equals the tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix of the
tag such that the first tag character following the prefix is "-". For matching, the "Basic Filtering" matching scheme, defined in
Section 3.3.1 of [RFC4647], is used:
A language range matches a particular language tag if, in a case-
insensitive comparison, it exactly equals the tag, or if it
exactly equals a prefix of the tag such that the first character
following the prefix is "-".
The special range "*", if present in the Accept-Language field, The special range "*", if present in the Accept-Language field,
matches every tag not matched by any other range present in the matches every tag not matched by any other range present in the
Accept-Language field. Accept-Language field.
Note: This use of a prefix matching rule does not imply that Note: This use of a prefix matching rule does not imply that
language tags are assigned to languages in such a way that it is language tags are assigned to languages in such a way that it is
always true that if a user understands a language with a certain always true that if a user understands a language with a certain
tag, then this user will also understand all languages with tags tag, then this user will also understand all languages with tags
for which this tag is a prefix. The prefix rule simply allows the for which this tag is a prefix. The prefix rule simply allows the
use of prefix tags if this is the case. use of prefix tags if this is the case.
skipping to change at page 26, line 26 skipping to change at page 26, line 28
| Accept | http | standard | Section 6.1 | | Accept | http | standard | Section 6.1 |
| Accept-Charset | http | standard | Section 6.2 | | Accept-Charset | http | standard | Section 6.2 |
| Accept-Encoding | http | standard | Section 6.3 | | Accept-Encoding | http | standard | Section 6.3 |
| Accept-Language | http | standard | Section 6.4 | | Accept-Language | http | standard | Section 6.4 |
| Content-Disposition | http | | Appendix B.1 | | Content-Disposition | http | | Appendix B.1 |
| Content-Encoding | http | standard | Section 6.5 | | Content-Encoding | http | standard | Section 6.5 |
| Content-Language | http | standard | Section 6.6 | | Content-Language | http | standard | Section 6.6 |
| Content-Location | http | standard | Section 6.7 | | Content-Location | http | standard | Section 6.7 |
| Content-MD5 | http | standard | Section 6.8 | | Content-MD5 | http | standard | Section 6.8 |
| Content-Type | http | standard | Section 6.9 | | Content-Type | http | standard | Section 6.9 |
| MIME-Version | http | | Appendix A.1 |
+---------------------+----------+----------+--------------+ +---------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet
Engineering Task Force". Engineering Task Force".
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This section is meant to inform application developers, information This section is meant to inform application developers, information
providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as
described by this document. The discussion does not include described by this document. The discussion does not include
skipping to change at page 27, line 28 skipping to change at page 27, line 33
identifier. In environments where proxies are used to enhance identifier. In environments where proxies are used to enhance
privacy, user agents ought to be conservative in offering accept privacy, user agents ought to be conservative in offering accept
header configuration options to end users. As an extreme privacy header configuration options to end users. As an extreme privacy
measure, proxies could filter the accept headers in relayed requests. measure, proxies could filter the accept headers in relayed requests.
General purpose user agents which provide a high degree of header General purpose user agents which provide a high degree of header
configurability SHOULD warn users about the loss of privacy which can configurability SHOULD warn users about the loss of privacy which can
be involved. be involved.
8.2. Content-Disposition Issues 8.2. Content-Disposition Issues
[RFC1806], from which the often implemented Content-Disposition (see [RFC2183], from which the often implemented Content-Disposition (see
Appendix B.1) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very serious Appendix B.1) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very serious
security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP
standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are documenting its standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are documenting its
use and risks for implementors. See [RFC2183] (which updates use and risks for implementors. See Section 5 of [RFC2183] for
[RFC1806]) for details. details.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[ISO-8859-1] [ISO-8859-1]
International Organization for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic
character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1", ISO/ character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1", ISO/
IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998. IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.
[Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections,
and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-03 and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-04
(work in progress), June 2008. (work in progress), August 2008.
[Part2] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part2] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message
Semantics", draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-03 (work in Semantics", draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-04 (work in
progress), June 2008. progress), August 2008.
[Part4] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part4] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional
Requests", draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-03 (work in Requests", draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-04 (work in
progress), June 2008. progress), August 2008.
[Part5] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part5] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and
Partial Responses", draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-03 (work Partial Responses", draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-04 (work
in progress), June 2008. in progress), August 2008.
[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching", and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",
draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-03 (work in progress), draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-04 (work in progress),
June 2008. August 2008.
[RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of [RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995. Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.
[RFC1864] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "The Content-MD5 Header Field", [RFC1864] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "The Content-MD5 Header Field",
RFC 1864, October 1995. RFC 1864, October 1995.
[RFC1950] Deutsch, L. and J-L. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format [RFC1950] Deutsch, L. and J-L. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format
Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996. Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996.
RFC1950 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less RFC1950 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less
stable than this specification. On the other hand, this stable than this specification. On the other hand, this
downward reference was present since [RFC2068] (published downward reference was present since the publication of
in 1997), therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in RFC 2068 in 1997 ([RFC2068]), therefore it is unlikely to
practice. cause problems in practice. See also [BCP97].
[RFC1951] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification [RFC1951] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification
version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996. version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996.
RFC1951 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less RFC1951 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less
stable than this specification. On the other hand, this stable than this specification. On the other hand, this
downward reference was present since [RFC2068] (published downward reference was present since the publication of
in 1997), therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in RFC 2068 in 1997 ([RFC2068]), therefore it is unlikely to
practice. cause problems in practice. See also [BCP97].
[RFC1952] Deutsch, P., Gailly, J-L., Adler, M., Deutsch, L., and G. [RFC1952] Deutsch, P., Gailly, J-L., Adler, M., Deutsch, L., and G.
Randers-Pehrson, "GZIP file format specification version Randers-Pehrson, "GZIP file format specification version
4.3", RFC 1952, May 1996. 4.3", RFC 1952, May 1996.
RFC1952 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less RFC1952 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less
stable than this specification. On the other hand, this stable than this specification. On the other hand, this
downward reference was present since [RFC2068] (published downward reference was present since the publication of
in 1997), therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in RFC 2068 in 1997 ([RFC2068]), therefore it is unlikely to
practice. cause problems in practice. See also [BCP97].
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996. Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996. November 1996.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4647] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Matching of Language
Tags", BCP 47, RFC 4647, September 2006.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC1806] Troost, R. and S. Dorner, "Communicating Presentation [BCP97] Klensin, J. and S. Hartman, "Handling Normative References
Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition to Standards-Track Documents", BCP 97, RFC 4897,
Header", RFC 1806, June 1995. June 2007.
[RFC1945] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Nielsen, "Hypertext [RFC1945] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Nielsen, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996.
[RFC2049] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail [RFC2049] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996. Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996.
[RFC2068] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., and T. [RFC2068] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., and T.
Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
skipping to change at page 33, line 14 skipping to change at page 33, line 20
the base HTTP/1.1 specification. the base HTTP/1.1 specification.
A number of other headers, such as Content-Disposition and Title, A number of other headers, such as Content-Disposition and Title,
from SMTP and MIME are also often implemented (see [RFC2076]). from SMTP and MIME are also often implemented (see [RFC2076]).
B.1. Content-Disposition B.1. Content-Disposition
The Content-Disposition response-header field has been proposed as a The Content-Disposition response-header field has been proposed as a
means for the origin server to suggest a default filename if the user means for the origin server to suggest a default filename if the user
requests that the content is saved to a file. This usage is derived requests that the content is saved to a file. This usage is derived
from the definition of Content-Disposition in [RFC1806]. from the definition of Content-Disposition in [RFC2183].
content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":" content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":"
disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm ) disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm )
disposition-type = "attachment" | disp-extension-token disposition-type = "attachment" | disp-extension-token
disposition-parm = filename-parm | disp-extension-parm disposition-parm = filename-parm | disp-extension-parm
filename-parm = "filename" "=" quoted-string filename-parm = "filename" "=" quoted-string
disp-extension-token = token disp-extension-token = token
disp-extension-parm = token "=" ( token | quoted-string ) disp-extension-parm = token "=" ( token | quoted-string )
An example is An example is
skipping to change at page 34, line 19 skipping to change at page 34, line 29
similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML [RFC2557]. similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML [RFC2557].
A content-coding of "identity" was introduced, to solve problems A content-coding of "identity" was introduced, to solve problems
discovered in caching. (Section 3.2) discovered in caching. (Section 3.2)
Quality Values of zero should indicate that "I don't want something" Quality Values of zero should indicate that "I don't want something"
to allow clients to refuse a representation. (Section 3.4) to allow clients to refuse a representation. (Section 3.4)
The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and
Content-Base header fields were defined in previous versions of this Content-Base header fields were defined in previous versions of this
specification, but not commonly implemented. See [RFC2068]. specification, but not commonly implemented. See Section 19.6.2 of
[RFC2068].
C.2. Changes from RFC 2616 C.2. Changes from RFC 2616
Clarify contexts that charset is used in. (Section 3.1) Clarify contexts that charset is used in. (Section 3.1)
Remove reference to non-existant identity transfer-coding value Remove reference to non-existant identity transfer-coding value
tokens. (Appendix A.4) tokens. (Appendix A.4)
Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
skipping to change at page 36, line 5 skipping to change at page 36, line 16
o <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/115>: "missing o <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/115>: "missing
default for qvalue in description of Accept-Encoding" default for qvalue in description of Accept-Encoding"
Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Registration Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Registration
(<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>): (<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>):
o Reference RFC 3984, and update header registrations for headers o Reference RFC 3984, and update header registrations for headers
defined in this document. defined in this document.
D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03
Closed issues:
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67>: "Quoting
Charsets"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/113>: "language tag
matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/121>: "RFC 1806 has
been replaced by RFC2183"
Other changes:
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68>: "Encoding
References Normative" -- rephrase the annotation and reference
[BCP97].
Index Index
A A
Accept header 16 Accept header 16
Accept-Charset header 18 Accept-Charset header 18
Accept-Encoding header 19 Accept-Encoding header 19
Accept-Language header 20 Accept-Language header 20
Alternates header 34 Alternates header 34
C C
skipping to change at page 36, line 43 skipping to change at page 37, line 26
Accept-Encoding 19 Accept-Encoding 19
accept-extension 16 accept-extension 16
Accept-Language 20 Accept-Language 20
accept-params 16 accept-params 16
attribute 9 attribute 9
charset 7 charset 7
codings 19 codings 19
content-coding 7 content-coding 7
content-disposition 33 content-disposition 33
Content-Encoding 22 Content-Encoding 22
Content-Language 22 Content-Language 23
Content-Location 23 Content-Location 23
Content-MD5 24 Content-MD5 24
Content-Type 25 Content-Type 25
disp-extension-parm 33 disp-extension-parm 33
disp-extension-token 33 disp-extension-token 33
disposition-parm 33 disposition-parm 33
disposition-type 33 disposition-type 33
entity-body 12 entity-body 12
entity-header 12 entity-header 12
extension-header 12 extension-header 12
skipping to change at page 37, line 38 skipping to change at page 38, line 21
Content-Base 34 Content-Base 34
Content-Disposition 33 Content-Disposition 33
Content-Encoding 22 Content-Encoding 22
Content-Language 22 Content-Language 22
Content-Location 23 Content-Location 23
Content-MD5 24 Content-MD5 24
Content-Type 25 Content-Type 25
Content-Version 34 Content-Version 34
Derived-From 34 Derived-From 34
Link 34 Link 34
MIME-Version 31
Public 34 Public 34
URI 34 URI 34
I I
identity 8 identity 8
L L
Link header 34 Link header 34
M
MIME-Version header 31
P P
Public header 34 Public header 34
U U
URI header 34 URI header 34
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Roy T. Fielding (editor) Roy T. Fielding (editor)
Day Software Day Software
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
42 lines changed or deleted 81 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/