Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 7231

Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content

Pages: 101
Obsoletes:  2616
Obsoleted by:  9110
Updates:  2817
Part 4 of 5 – Pages 73 to 96
First   Prev   Next

Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 73   prevText

8. IANA Considerations

8.1. Method Registry

The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registry" defines the namespace for the request method token (Section 4). The method registry has been created and is now maintained at <>.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 74

8.1.1. Procedure

HTTP method registrations MUST include the following fields: o Method Name (see Section 4) o Safe ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.1) o Idempotent ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.2) o Pointer to specification text Values to be added to this namespace require IETF Review (see [RFC5226], Section 4.1).

8.1.2. Considerations for New Methods

Standardized methods are generic; that is, they are potentially applicable to any resource, not just one particular media type, kind of resource, or application. As such, it is preferred that new methods be registered in a document that isn't specific to a single application or data format, since orthogonal technologies deserve orthogonal specification. Since message parsing (Section 3.3 of [RFC7230]) needs to be independent of method semantics (aside from responses to HEAD), definitions of new methods cannot change the parsing algorithm or prohibit the presence of a message body on either the request or the response message. Definitions of new methods can specify that only a zero-length message body is allowed by requiring a Content-Length header field with a value of "0". A new method definition needs to indicate whether it is safe (Section 4.2.1), idempotent (Section 4.2.2), cacheable (Section 4.2.3), what semantics are to be associated with the payload body if any is present in the request and what refinements the method makes to header field or status code semantics. If the new method is cacheable, its definition ought to describe how, and under what conditions, a cache can store a response and use it to satisfy a subsequent request. The new method ought to describe whether it can be made conditional (Section 5.2) and, if so, how a server responds when the condition is false. Likewise, if the new method might have some use for partial response semantics ([RFC7233]), it ought to document this, too. Note: Avoid defining a method name that starts with "M-", since that prefix might be misinterpreted as having the semantics assigned to it by [RFC2774].
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 75

8.1.3. Registrations

The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registry" has been populated with the registrations below: +---------+------+------------+---------------+ | Method | Safe | Idempotent | Reference | +---------+------+------------+---------------+ | CONNECT | no | no | Section 4.3.6 | | DELETE | no | yes | Section 4.3.5 | | GET | yes | yes | Section 4.3.1 | | HEAD | yes | yes | Section 4.3.2 | | OPTIONS | yes | yes | Section 4.3.7 | | POST | no | no | Section 4.3.3 | | PUT | no | yes | Section 4.3.4 | | TRACE | yes | yes | Section 4.3.8 | +---------+------+------------+---------------+

8.2. Status Code Registry

The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry" defines the namespace for the response status-code token (Section 6). The status code registry is maintained at <>. This section replaces the registration procedure for HTTP Status Codes previously defined in Section 7.1 of [RFC2817].

8.2.1. Procedure

A registration MUST include the following fields: o Status Code (3 digits) o Short Description o Pointer to specification text Values to be added to the HTTP status code namespace require IETF Review (see [RFC5226], Section 4.1).
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 76

8.2.2. Considerations for New Status Codes

When it is necessary to express semantics for a response that are not defined by current status codes, a new status code can be registered. Status codes are generic; they are potentially applicable to any resource, not just one particular media type, kind of resource, or application of HTTP. As such, it is preferred that new status codes be registered in a document that isn't specific to a single application. New status codes are required to fall under one of the categories defined in Section 6. To allow existing parsers to process the response message, new status codes cannot disallow a payload, although they can mandate a zero-length payload body. Proposals for new status codes that are not yet widely deployed ought to avoid allocating a specific number for the code until there is clear consensus that it will be registered; instead, early drafts can use a notation such as "4NN", or "3N0" .. "3N9", to indicate the class of the proposed status code(s) without consuming a number prematurely. The definition of a new status code ought to explain the request conditions that would cause a response containing that status code (e.g., combinations of request header fields and/or method(s)) along with any dependencies on response header fields (e.g., what fields are required, what fields can modify the semantics, and what header field semantics are further refined when used with the new status code). The definition of a new status code ought to specify whether or not it is cacheable. Note that all status codes can be cached if the response they occur in has explicit freshness information; however, status codes that are defined as being cacheable are allowed to be cached without explicit freshness information. Likewise, the definition of a status code can place constraints upon cache behavior. See [RFC7234] for more information. Finally, the definition of a new status code ought to indicate whether the payload has any implied association with an identified resource (Section

8.2.3. Registrations

The status code registry has been updated with the registrations below:
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 77
   | Value | Description                   | Reference      |
   | 100   | Continue                      | Section 6.2.1  |
   | 101   | Switching Protocols           | Section 6.2.2  |
   | 200   | OK                            | Section 6.3.1  |
   | 201   | Created                       | Section 6.3.2  |
   | 202   | Accepted                      | Section 6.3.3  |
   | 203   | Non-Authoritative Information | Section 6.3.4  |
   | 204   | No Content                    | Section 6.3.5  |
   | 205   | Reset Content                 | Section 6.3.6  |
   | 300   | Multiple Choices              | Section 6.4.1  |
   | 301   | Moved Permanently             | Section 6.4.2  |
   | 302   | Found                         | Section 6.4.3  |
   | 303   | See Other                     | Section 6.4.4  |
   | 305   | Use Proxy                     | Section 6.4.5  |
   | 306   | (Unused)                      | Section 6.4.6  |
   | 307   | Temporary Redirect            | Section 6.4.7  |
   | 400   | Bad Request                   | Section 6.5.1  |
   | 402   | Payment Required              | Section 6.5.2  |
   | 403   | Forbidden                     | Section 6.5.3  |
   | 404   | Not Found                     | Section 6.5.4  |
   | 405   | Method Not Allowed            | Section 6.5.5  |
   | 406   | Not Acceptable                | Section 6.5.6  |
   | 408   | Request Timeout               | Section 6.5.7  |
   | 409   | Conflict                      | Section 6.5.8  |
   | 410   | Gone                          | Section 6.5.9  |
   | 411   | Length Required               | Section 6.5.10 |
   | 413   | Payload Too Large             | Section 6.5.11 |
   | 414   | URI Too Long                  | Section 6.5.12 |
   | 415   | Unsupported Media Type        | Section 6.5.13 |
   | 417   | Expectation Failed            | Section 6.5.14 |
   | 426   | Upgrade Required              | Section 6.5.15 |
   | 500   | Internal Server Error         | Section 6.6.1  |
   | 501   | Not Implemented               | Section 6.6.2  |
   | 502   | Bad Gateway                   | Section 6.6.3  |
   | 503   | Service Unavailable           | Section 6.6.4  |
   | 504   | Gateway Timeout               | Section 6.6.5  |
   | 505   | HTTP Version Not Supported    | Section 6.6.6  |

8.3. Header Field Registry

HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers" registry located at <>, as defined by [BCP90].
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 78

8.3.1. Considerations for New Header Fields

Header fields are key:value pairs that can be used to communicate data about the message, its payload, the target resource, or the connection (i.e., control data). See Section 3.2 of [RFC7230] for a general definition of header field syntax in HTTP messages. The requirements for header field names are defined in [BCP90]. Authors of specifications defining new fields are advised to keep the name as short as practical and not to prefix the name with "X-" unless the header field will never be used on the Internet. (The "X-" prefix idiom has been extensively misused in practice; it was intended to only be used as a mechanism for avoiding name collisions inside proprietary software or intranet processing, since the prefix would ensure that private names never collide with a newly registered Internet name; see [BCP178] for further information). New header field values typically have their syntax defined using ABNF ([RFC5234]), using the extension defined in Section 7 of [RFC7230] as necessary, and are usually constrained to the range of US-ASCII characters. Header fields needing a greater range of characters can use an encoding such as the one defined in [RFC5987]. Leading and trailing whitespace in raw field values is removed upon field parsing (Section 3.2.4 of [RFC7230]). Field definitions where leading or trailing whitespace in values is significant will have to use a container syntax such as quoted-string (Section 3.2.6 of [RFC7230]). Because commas (",") are used as a generic delimiter between field-values, they need to be treated with care if they are allowed in the field-value. Typically, components that might contain a comma are protected with double-quotes using the quoted-string ABNF production. For example, a textual date and a URI (either of which might contain a comma) could be safely carried in field-values like these: Example-URI-Field: ",foo", "" Example-Date-Field: "Sat, 04 May 1996", "Wed, 14 Sep 2005" Note that double-quote delimiters almost always are used with the quoted-string production; using a different syntax inside double-quotes will likely cause unnecessary confusion.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 79
   Many header fields use a format including (case-insensitively) named
   parameters (for instance, Content-Type, defined in Section
   Allowing both unquoted (token) and quoted (quoted-string) syntax for
   the parameter value enables recipients to use existing parser
   components.  When allowing both forms, the meaning of a parameter
   value ought to be independent of the syntax used for it (for an
   example, see the notes on parameter handling for media types in

   Authors of specifications defining new header fields are advised to
   consider documenting:

   o  Whether the field is a single value or whether it can be a list
      (delimited by commas; see Section 3.2 of [RFC7230]).

      If it does not use the list syntax, document how to treat messages
      where the field occurs multiple times (a sensible default would be
      to ignore the field, but this might not always be the right

      Note that intermediaries and software libraries might combine
      multiple header field instances into a single one, despite the
      field's definition not allowing the list syntax.  A robust format
      enables recipients to discover these situations (good example:
      "Content-Type", as the comma can only appear inside quoted
      strings; bad example: "Location", as a comma can occur inside a

   o  Under what conditions the header field can be used; e.g., only in
      responses or requests, in all messages, only on responses to a
      particular request method, etc.

   o  Whether the field should be stored by origin servers that
      understand it upon a PUT request.

   o  Whether the field semantics are further refined by the context,
      such as by existing request methods or status codes.

   o  Whether it is appropriate to list the field-name in the Connection
      header field (i.e., if the header field is to be hop-by-hop; see
      Section 6.1 of [RFC7230]).

   o  Under what conditions intermediaries are allowed to insert,
      delete, or modify the field's value.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 80
   o  Whether it is appropriate to list the field-name in a Vary
      response header field (e.g., when the request header field is used
      by an origin server's content selection algorithm; see
      Section 7.1.4).

   o  Whether the header field is useful or allowable in trailers (see
      Section 4.1 of [RFC7230]).

   o  Whether the header field ought to be preserved across redirects.

   o  Whether it introduces any additional security considerations, such
      as disclosure of privacy-related data.

8.3.2. Registrations

The "Message Headers" registry has been updated with the following permanent registrations: +-------------------+----------+----------+-----------------+ | Header Field Name | Protocol | Status | Reference | +-------------------+----------+----------+-----------------+ | Accept | http | standard | Section 5.3.2 | | Accept-Charset | http | standard | Section 5.3.3 | | Accept-Encoding | http | standard | Section 5.3.4 | | Accept-Language | http | standard | Section 5.3.5 | | Allow | http | standard | Section 7.4.1 | | Content-Encoding | http | standard | Section | | Content-Language | http | standard | Section | | Content-Location | http | standard | Section | | Content-Type | http | standard | Section | | Date | http | standard | Section | | Expect | http | standard | Section 5.1.1 | | From | http | standard | Section 5.5.1 | | Location | http | standard | Section 7.1.2 | | Max-Forwards | http | standard | Section 5.1.2 | | MIME-Version | http | standard | Appendix A.1 | | Referer | http | standard | Section 5.5.2 | | Retry-After | http | standard | Section 7.1.3 | | Server | http | standard | Section 7.4.2 | | User-Agent | http | standard | Section 5.5.3 | | Vary | http | standard | Section 7.1.4 | +-------------------+----------+----------+-----------------+ The change controller for the above registrations is: "IETF ( - Internet Engineering Task Force".
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 81

8.4. Content Coding Registry

The "HTTP Content Coding Registry" defines the namespace for content coding names (Section 4.2 of [RFC7230]). The content coding registry is maintained at <>.

8.4.1. Procedure

Content coding registrations MUST include the following fields: o Name o Description o Pointer to specification text Names of content codings MUST NOT overlap with names of transfer codings (Section 4 of [RFC7230]), unless the encoding transformation is identical (as is the case for the compression codings defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC7230]). 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.

8.4.2. Registrations

The "HTTP Content Coding Registry" has been updated with the registrations below: +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ | Name | Description | Reference | +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ | identity | Reserved (synonym for "no encoding" in | Section 5.3.4 | | | Accept-Encoding) | | +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+

9. Security Considerations

This section is meant to inform developers, information providers, and users of known security concerns relevant to HTTP semantics and its use for transferring information over the Internet. Considerations related to message syntax, parsing, and routing are discussed in Section 9 of [RFC7230]. The list of considerations below is not exhaustive. Most security concerns related to HTTP semantics are about securing server-side applications (code behind the HTTP interface), securing user agent
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 82
   processing of payloads received via HTTP, or secure use of the
   Internet in general, rather than security of the protocol.  Various
   organizations maintain topical information and links to current
   research on Web application security (e.g., [OWASP]).

9.1. Attacks Based on File and Path Names

Origin servers frequently make use of their local file system to manage the mapping from effective request URI to resource representations. Most file systems are not designed to protect against malicious file or path names. Therefore, an origin server needs to avoid accessing names that have a special significance to the system when mapping the request target to files, folders, or directories. For example, UNIX, Microsoft Windows, and other operating systems use ".." as a path component to indicate a directory level above the current one, and they use specially named paths or file names to send data to system devices. Similar naming conventions might exist within other types of storage systems. Likewise, local storage systems have an annoying tendency to prefer user-friendliness over security when handling invalid or unexpected characters, recomposition of decomposed characters, and case-normalization of case-insensitive names. Attacks based on such special names tend to focus on either denial- of-service (e.g., telling the server to read from a COM port) or disclosure of configuration and source files that are not meant to be served.

9.2. Attacks Based on Command, Code, or Query Injection

Origin servers often use parameters within the URI as a means of identifying system services, selecting database entries, or choosing a data source. However, data received in a request cannot be trusted. An attacker could construct any of the request data elements (method, request-target, header fields, or body) to contain data that might be misinterpreted as a command, code, or query when passed through a command invocation, language interpreter, or database interface. For example, SQL injection is a common attack wherein additional query language is inserted within some part of the request-target or header fields (e.g., Host, Referer, etc.). If the received data is used directly within a SELECT statement, the query language might be interpreted as a database command instead of a simple string value. This type of implementation vulnerability is extremely common, in spite of being easy to prevent.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 83
   In general, resource implementations ought to avoid use of request
   data in contexts that are processed or interpreted as instructions.
   Parameters ought to be compared to fixed strings and acted upon as a
   result of that comparison, rather than passed through an interface
   that is not prepared for untrusted data.  Received data that isn't
   based on fixed parameters ought to be carefully filtered or encoded
   to avoid being misinterpreted.

   Similar considerations apply to request data when it is stored and
   later processed, such as within log files, monitoring tools, or when
   included within a data format that allows embedded scripts.

9.3. Disclosure of Personal Information

Clients are often privy to large amounts of personal information, including both information provided by the user to interact with resources (e.g., the user's name, location, mail address, passwords, encryption keys, etc.) and information about the user's browsing activity over time (e.g., history, bookmarks, etc.). Implementations need to prevent unintentional disclosure of personal information.

9.4. Disclosure of Sensitive Information in URIs

URIs are intended to be shared, not secured, even when they identify secure resources. URIs are often shown on displays, added to templates when a page is printed, and stored in a variety of unprotected bookmark lists. It is therefore unwise to include information within a URI that is sensitive, personally identifiable, or a risk to disclose. Authors of services ought to avoid GET-based forms for the submission of sensitive data because that data will be placed in the request-target. Many existing servers, proxies, and user agents log or display the request-target in places where it might be visible to third parties. Such services ought to use POST-based form submission instead. Since the Referer header field tells a target site about the context that resulted in a request, it has the potential to reveal information about the user's immediate browsing history and any personal information that might be found in the referring resource's URI. Limitations on the Referer header field are described in Section 5.5.2 to address some of its security considerations.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 84

9.5. Disclosure of Fragment after Redirects

Although fragment identifiers used within URI references are not sent in requests, implementers ought to be aware that they will be visible to the user agent and any extensions or scripts running as a result of the response. In particular, when a redirect occurs and the original request's fragment identifier is inherited by the new reference in Location (Section 7.1.2), this might have the effect of disclosing one site's fragment to another site. If the first site uses personal information in fragments, it ought to ensure that redirects to other sites include a (possibly empty) fragment component in order to block that inheritance.

9.6. Disclosure of Product Information

The User-Agent (Section 5.5.3), Via (Section 5.7.1 of [RFC7230]), and Server (Section 7.4.2) header fields often reveal information about the respective sender's software systems. In theory, this can make it easier for an attacker to exploit known security holes; in practice, attackers tend to try all potential holes regardless of the apparent software versions being used. Proxies that serve as a portal through a network firewall ought to take special precautions regarding the transfer of header information that might identify hosts behind the firewall. The Via header field allows intermediaries to replace sensitive machine names with pseudonyms.

9.7. Browser Fingerprinting

Browser fingerprinting is a set of techniques for identifying a specific user agent over time through its unique set of characteristics. These characteristics might include information related to its TCP behavior, feature capabilities, and scripting environment, though of particular interest here is the set of unique characteristics that might be communicated via HTTP. Fingerprinting is considered a privacy concern because it enables tracking of a user agent's behavior over time without the corresponding controls that the user might have over other forms of data collection (e.g., cookies). Many general-purpose user agents (i.e., Web browsers) have taken steps to reduce their fingerprints. There are a number of request header fields that might reveal information to servers that is sufficiently unique to enable fingerprinting. The From header field is the most obvious, though it is expected that From will only be sent when self-identification is desired by the user. Likewise, Cookie header fields are deliberately
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 85
   designed to enable re-identification, so fingerprinting concerns only
   apply to situations where cookies are disabled or restricted by the
   user agent's configuration.

   The User-Agent header field might contain enough information to
   uniquely identify a specific device, usually when combined with other
   characteristics, particularly if the user agent sends excessive
   details about the user's system or extensions.  However, the source
   of unique information that is least expected by users is proactive
   negotiation (Section 5.3), including the Accept, Accept-Charset,
   Accept-Encoding, and Accept-Language header fields.

   In addition to the fingerprinting concern, detailed use of the
   Accept-Language header field can reveal information the user might
   consider to be of a private nature.  For example, understanding a
   given language set might be strongly correlated to membership in a
   particular ethnic group.  An approach that limits such loss of
   privacy would be for a user agent to omit the sending of
   Accept-Language except for sites that have been whitelisted, perhaps
   via interaction after detecting a Vary header field that indicates
   language negotiation might be useful.

   In environments where proxies are used to enhance privacy, user
   agents ought to be conservative in sending proactive negotiation
   header fields.  General-purpose user agents that provide a high
   degree of header field configurability ought to inform users about
   the loss of privacy that might result if too much detail is provided.
   As an extreme privacy measure, proxies could filter the proactive
   negotiation header fields in relayed requests.

10. Acknowledgments

See Section 10 of [RFC7230].

11. References

11.1. Normative References

[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996. [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 86
   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4647]  Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Matching of Language
              Tags", BCP 47, RFC 4647, September 2006.

   [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.

   [RFC6365]  Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
              Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
              September 2011.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, June 2014.

   [RFC7232]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232,
              June 2014.

   [RFC7233]  Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
              "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests",
              RFC 7233, June 2014.

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
              RFC 7234, June 2014.

   [RFC7235]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014.

11.2. Informative References

[BCP13] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, January 2013. [BCP178] Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham, "Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648, June 2012.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 87
   [BCP90]    Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
              Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
              September 2004.

   [OWASP]    van der Stock, A., Ed., "A Guide to Building Secure Web
              Applications and Web Services", The Open Web Application
              Security Project (OWASP) 2.0.1, July 2005,

   [REST]     Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
              Network-based Software Architectures",
              Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine,
              September 2000,

   [RFC1945]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Nielsen, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996.

   [RFC2049]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
              Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996.

   [RFC2068]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., and T.
              Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
              RFC 2068, January 1997.

   [RFC2295]  Holtman, K. and A. Mutz, "Transparent Content Negotiation
              in HTTP", RFC 2295, March 1998.

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

   [RFC2557]  Palme, F., Hopmann, A., Shelness, N., and E. Stefferud,
              "MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML
              (MHTML)", RFC 2557, March 1999.

   [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.

   [RFC2774]  Frystyk, H., Leach, P., and S. Lawrence, "An HTTP
              Extension Framework", RFC 2774, February 2000.

   [RFC2817]  Khare, R. and S. Lawrence, "Upgrading to TLS Within
              HTTP/1.1", RFC 2817, May 2000.

   [RFC2978]  Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
              Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 88
   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC5322]  Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
              October 2008.

   [RFC5789]  Dusseault, L. and J. Snell, "PATCH Method for HTTP",
              RFC 5789, March 2010.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.

   [RFC5987]  Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding for
              Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field
              Parameters", RFC 5987, August 2010.

   [RFC5988]  Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.

   [RFC6265]  Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
              April 2011.

   [RFC6266]  Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field
              in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)", RFC 6266,
              June 2011.

   [RFC7238]  Reschke, J., "The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
              Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)", RFC 7238,
              June 2014.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 89

Appendix A. Differences between HTTP and MIME

HTTP/1.1 uses many of the constructs defined for the Internet Message Format [RFC5322] and the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [RFC2045] to allow a message body to be transmitted in an open variety of representations and with extensible header fields. However, RFC 2045 is focused only on email; applications of HTTP have many characteristics that differ from email; hence, HTTP has features that differ from MIME. These differences were carefully chosen to optimize performance over binary connections, to allow greater freedom in the use of new media types, to make date comparisons easier, and to acknowledge the practice of some early HTTP servers and clients. This appendix describes specific areas where HTTP differs from MIME. Proxies and gateways to and from strict MIME environments need to be aware of these differences and provide the appropriate conversions where necessary.

A.1. MIME-Version

HTTP is not a MIME-compliant protocol. However, messages can include a single MIME-Version header field to indicate what version of the MIME protocol was used to construct the message. Use of the MIME-Version header field indicates that the message is in full conformance with the MIME protocol (as defined in [RFC2045]). Senders are responsible for ensuring full conformance (where possible) when exporting HTTP messages to strict MIME environments.

A.2. Conversion to Canonical Form

MIME requires that an Internet mail body part be converted to canonical form prior to being transferred, as described in Section 4 of [RFC2049]. Section of this document describes the forms allowed for subtypes of the "text" media type when transmitted over HTTP. [RFC2046] requires that content with a type of "text" represent line breaks as CRLF and forbids the use of CR or LF outside of line break sequences. HTTP allows CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF to indicate a line break within text content. A proxy or gateway from HTTP to a strict MIME environment ought to translate all line breaks within the text media types described in Section of this document to the RFC 2049 canonical form of CRLF. Note, however, this might be complicated by the presence of a Content-Encoding and by the fact that HTTP allows the use of some charsets that do not use octets 13 and 10 to represent CR and LF, respectively.
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 90
   Conversion will break any cryptographic checksums applied to the
   original content unless the original content is already in canonical
   form.  Therefore, the canonical form is recommended for any content
   that uses such checksums in HTTP.

A.3. Conversion of Date Formats

HTTP/1.1 uses a restricted set of date formats (Section to simplify the process of date comparison. Proxies and gateways from other protocols ought to ensure that any Date header field present in a message conforms to one of the HTTP/1.1 formats and rewrite the date if necessary.

A.4. Conversion of Content-Encoding

MIME does not include any concept equivalent to HTTP/1.1's Content-Encoding header field. Since this acts as a modifier on the media type, proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols ought to either change the value of the Content-Type header field or decode the representation before forwarding the message. (Some experimental applications of Content-Type for Internet mail have used a media-type parameter of ";conversions=<content-coding>" to perform a function equivalent to Content-Encoding. However, this parameter is not part of the MIME standards).

A.5. Conversion of Content-Transfer-Encoding

HTTP does not use the Content-Transfer-Encoding field of MIME. Proxies and gateways from MIME-compliant protocols to HTTP need to remove any Content-Transfer-Encoding prior to delivering the response message to an HTTP client. Proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols are responsible for ensuring that the message is in the correct format and encoding for safe transport on that protocol, where "safe transport" is defined by the limitations of the protocol being used. Such a proxy or gateway ought to transform and label the data with an appropriate Content-Transfer-Encoding if doing so will improve the likelihood of safe transport over the destination protocol.

A.6. MHTML and Line Length Limitations

HTTP implementations that share code with MHTML [RFC2557] implementations need to be aware of MIME line length limitations. Since HTTP does not have this limitation, HTTP does not fold long lines. MHTML messages being transported by HTTP follow all conventions of MHTML, including line length limitations and folding, canonicalization, etc., since HTTP transfers message-bodies as
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 91
   payload and, aside from the "multipart/byteranges" type (Appendix A
   of [RFC7233]), does not interpret the content or any MIME header
   lines that might be contained therein.

Appendix B. Changes from RFC 2616

The primary changes in this revision have been editorial in nature: extracting the messaging syntax and partitioning HTTP semantics into separate documents for the core features, conditional requests, partial requests, caching, and authentication. The conformance language has been revised to clearly target requirements and the terminology has been improved to distinguish payload from representations and representations from resources. A new requirement has been added that semantics embedded in a URI be disabled when those semantics are inconsistent with the request method, since this is a common cause of interoperability failure. (Section 2) An algorithm has been added for determining if a payload is associated with a specific identifier. (Section The default charset of ISO-8859-1 for text media types has been removed; the default is now whatever the media type definition says. Likewise, special treatment of ISO-8859-1 has been removed from the Accept-Charset header field. (Section and Section 5.3.3) The definition of Content-Location has been changed to no longer affect the base URI for resolving relative URI references, due to poor implementation support and the undesirable effect of potentially breaking relative links in content-negotiated resources. (Section To be consistent with the method-neutral parsing algorithm of [RFC7230], the definition of GET has been relaxed so that requests can have a body, even though a body has no meaning for GET. (Section 4.3.1) Servers are no longer required to handle all Content-* header fields and use of Content-Range has been explicitly banned in PUT requests. (Section 4.3.4) Definition of the CONNECT method has been moved from [RFC2817] to this specification. (Section 4.3.6) The OPTIONS and TRACE request methods have been defined as being safe. (Section 4.3.7 and Section 4.3.8)
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 92
   The Expect header field's extension mechanism has been removed due to
   widely-deployed broken implementations.  (Section 5.1.1)

   The Max-Forwards header field has been restricted to the OPTIONS and
   TRACE methods; previously, extension methods could have used it as
   well.  (Section 5.1.2)

   The "about:blank" URI has been suggested as a value for the Referer
   header field when no referring URI is applicable, which distinguishes
   that case from others where the Referer field is not sent or has been
   removed.  (Section 5.5.2)

   The following status codes are now cacheable (that is, they can be
   stored and reused by a cache without explicit freshness information
   present): 204, 404, 405, 414, 501.  (Section 6)

   The 201 (Created) status description has been changed to allow for
   the possibility that more than one resource has been created.
   (Section 6.3.2)

   The definition of 203 (Non-Authoritative Information) has been
   broadened to include cases of payload transformations as well.
   (Section 6.3.4)

   The set of request methods that are safe to automatically redirect is
   no longer closed; user agents are able to make that determination
   based upon the request method semantics.  The redirect status codes
   301, 302, and 307 no longer have normative requirements on response
   payloads and user interaction.  (Section 6.4)

   The status codes 301 and 302 have been changed to allow user agents
   to rewrite the method from POST to GET.  (Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3)

   The description of the 303 (See Other) status code has been changed
   to allow it to be cached if explicit freshness information is given,
   and a specific definition has been added for a 303 response to GET.
   (Section 6.4.4)

   The 305 (Use Proxy) status code has been deprecated due to security
   concerns regarding in-band configuration of a proxy.  (Section 6.4.5)

   The 400 (Bad Request) status code has been relaxed so that it isn't
   limited to syntax errors.  (Section 6.5.1)

   The 426 (Upgrade Required) status code has been incorporated from
   [RFC2817].  (Section 6.5.15)
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 93
   The target of requirements on HTTP-date and the Date header field
   have been reduced to those systems generating the date, rather than
   all systems sending a date.  (Section 7.1.1)

   The syntax of the Location header field has been changed to allow all
   URI references, including relative references and fragments, along
   with some clarifications as to when use of fragments would not be
   appropriate.  (Section 7.1.2)

   Allow has been reclassified as a response header field, removing the
   option to specify it in a PUT request.  Requirements relating to the
   content of Allow have been relaxed; correspondingly, clients are not
   required to always trust its value.  (Section 7.4.1)

   A Method Registry has been defined.  (Section 8.1)

   The Status Code Registry has been redefined by this specification;
   previously, it was defined in Section 7.1 of [RFC2817].
   (Section 8.2)

   Registration of content codings has been changed to require IETF
   Review.  (Section 8.4)

   The Content-Disposition header field has been removed since it is now
   defined by [RFC6266].

   The Content-MD5 header field has been removed because it was
   inconsistently implemented with respect to partial responses.

Appendix C. Imported ABNF

The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in Appendix B.1 of [RFC5234]: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), HTAB (horizontal tab), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII character). The rules below are defined in [RFC7230]: BWS = <BWS, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.3> OWS = <OWS, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.3> RWS = <RWS, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.3> URI-reference = <URI-reference, see [RFC7230], Section 2.7> absolute-URI = <absolute-URI, see [RFC7230], Section 2.7> comment = <comment, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6> field-name = <comment, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2> partial-URI = <partial-URI, see [RFC7230], Section 2.7>
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 94
     quoted-string = <quoted-string, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>
     token         = <token, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>

Appendix D. Collected ABNF

In the collected ABNF below, list rules are expanded as per Section 1.2 of [RFC7230]. Accept = [ ( "," / ( media-range [ accept-params ] ) ) *( OWS "," [ OWS ( media-range [ accept-params ] ) ] ) ] Accept-Charset = *( "," OWS ) ( ( charset / "*" ) [ weight ] ) *( OWS "," [ OWS ( ( charset / "*" ) [ weight ] ) ] ) Accept-Encoding = [ ( "," / ( codings [ weight ] ) ) *( OWS "," [ OWS ( codings [ weight ] ) ] ) ] Accept-Language = *( "," OWS ) ( language-range [ weight ] ) *( OWS "," [ OWS ( language-range [ weight ] ) ] ) Allow = [ ( "," / method ) *( OWS "," [ OWS method ] ) ] BWS = <BWS, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.3> Content-Encoding = *( "," OWS ) content-coding *( OWS "," [ OWS content-coding ] ) Content-Language = *( "," OWS ) language-tag *( OWS "," [ OWS language-tag ] ) Content-Location = absolute-URI / partial-URI Content-Type = media-type Date = HTTP-date Expect = "100-continue" From = mailbox GMT = %x47.4D.54 ; GMT HTTP-date = IMF-fixdate / obs-date IMF-fixdate = day-name "," SP date1 SP time-of-day SP GMT Location = URI-reference Max-Forwards = 1*DIGIT OWS = <OWS, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.3> RWS = <RWS, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.3> Referer = absolute-URI / partial-URI Retry-After = HTTP-date / delay-seconds
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 95
   Server = product *( RWS ( product / comment ) )

   URI-reference = <URI-reference, see [RFC7230], Section 2.7>
   User-Agent = product *( RWS ( product / comment ) )

   Vary = "*" / ( *( "," OWS ) field-name *( OWS "," [ OWS field-name ]
    ) )

   absolute-URI = <absolute-URI, see [RFC7230], Section 2.7>
   accept-ext = OWS ";" OWS token [ "=" ( token / quoted-string ) ]
   accept-params = weight *accept-ext
   asctime-date = day-name SP date3 SP time-of-day SP year

   charset = token
   codings = content-coding / "identity" / "*"
   comment = <comment, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>
   content-coding = token

   date1 = day SP month SP year
   date2 = day "-" month "-" 2DIGIT
   date3 = month SP ( 2DIGIT / ( SP DIGIT ) )
   day = 2DIGIT
   day-name = %x4D.6F.6E ; Mon
    / %x54.75.65 ; Tue
    / %x57.65.64 ; Wed
    / %x54.68.75 ; Thu
    / %x46.72.69 ; Fri
    / %x53.61.74 ; Sat
    / %x53.75.6E ; Sun
   day-name-l = %x4D.6F.6E.64.61.79 ; Monday
    / %x54. ; Tuesday
    / %x57.65.64.6E. ; Wednesday
    / %x54. ; Thursday
    / %x46. ; Friday
    / %x53. ; Saturday
    / %x53.75.6E.64.61.79 ; Sunday
   delay-seconds = 1*DIGIT

   field-name = <comment, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2>

   hour = 2DIGIT

   language-range = <language-range, see [RFC4647], Section 2.1>
   language-tag = <Language-Tag, see [RFC5646], Section 2.1>

   mailbox = <mailbox, see [RFC5322], Section 3.4>
   media-range = ( "*/*" / ( type "/*" ) / ( type "/" subtype ) ) *( OWS
    ";" OWS parameter )
Top   ToC   RFC7231 - Page 96
   media-type = type "/" subtype *( OWS ";" OWS parameter )
   method = token
   minute = 2DIGIT
   month = %x4A.61.6E ; Jan
    / %x46.65.62 ; Feb
    / %x4D.61.72 ; Mar
    / %x41.70.72 ; Apr
    / %x4D.61.79 ; May
    / %x4A.75.6E ; Jun
    / %x4A.75.6C ; Jul
    / %x41.75.67 ; Aug
    / %x53.65.70 ; Sep
    / %x4F.63.74 ; Oct
    / %x4E.6F.76 ; Nov
    / %x44.65.63 ; Dec

   obs-date = rfc850-date / asctime-date

   parameter = token "=" ( token / quoted-string )
   partial-URI = <partial-URI, see [RFC7230], Section 2.7>
   product = token [ "/" product-version ]
   product-version = token
   quoted-string = <quoted-string, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>
   qvalue = ( "0" [ "." *3DIGIT ] ) / ( "1" [ "." *3"0" ] )

   rfc850-date = day-name-l "," SP date2 SP time-of-day SP GMT

   second = 2DIGIT
   subtype = token

   time-of-day = hour ":" minute ":" second
   token = <token, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>
   type = token

   weight = OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue

   year = 4DIGIT

(next page on part 5)

Next Section