idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-00.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC5987, but the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (October 2, 2015) is 3128 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231,
RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7230 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110, RFC 9112)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7231 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110)
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'USASCII'
-- Duplicate reference: RFC2978, mentioned in 'Err1912', was also mentioned
in 'RFC2978'.
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2388
(Obsoleted by RFC 7578)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5987
(Obsoleted by RFC 8187)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5988
(Obsoleted by RFC 8288)
Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 7 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 HTTP Working Group J. Reschke
3 Internet-Draft greenbytes
4 Obsoletes: 5987 (if approved) October 2, 2015
5 Intended status: Standards Track
6 Expires: April 4, 2016
8 Indicating Character Encoding and Language for HTTP Header Field
9 Parameters
10 draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-00
12 Abstract
14 By default, message header field parameters in Hypertext Transfer
15 Protocol (HTTP) messages cannot carry characters outside the ISO-
16 8859-1 character set. RFC 2231 defines an encoding mechanism for use
17 in Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) headers. This
18 document specifies an encoding suitable for use in HTTP header fields
19 that is compatible with a profile of the encoding defined in RFC
20 2231.
22 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
24 Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group
25 mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
26 .
28 Working Group information can be found at
29 and ;
30 source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
31 .
33 The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.
35 Status of This Memo
37 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
38 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
40 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
41 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
42 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
43 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
45 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
46 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
47 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
48 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
49 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 4, 2016.
51 Copyright Notice
53 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
54 document authors. All rights reserved.
56 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
57 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
58 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
59 publication of this document. Please review these documents
60 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
61 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
62 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
63 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
64 described in the Simplified BSD License.
66 Table of Contents
68 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
69 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
70 3. Comparison to RFC 2231 and Definition of the Encoding . . . . 4
71 3.1. Parameter Continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
72 3.2. Parameter Value Character Encoding and Language
73 Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
74 3.2.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
75 3.2.2. Historical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
76 3.2.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
77 3.3. Language Specification in Encoded Words . . . . . . . . . 8
78 4. Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions . . . . 9
79 4.1. When to Use the Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
80 4.2. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
81 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
82 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
83 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
84 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
85 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
86 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
87 Appendix B. Implementation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
88 Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
89 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
90 C.1. Since RFC5987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
91 C.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
92 C.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
93 C.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
94 C.5. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
95 C.6. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
96 C.7. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
97 C.8. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
98 Appendix D. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
100 1. Introduction
102 By default, message header field parameters in HTTP ([RFC2616])
103 messages cannot carry characters outside the ISO-8859-1 coded
104 character set ([ISO-8859-1]). RFC 2231 ([RFC2231]) defines an
105 encoding mechanism for use in MIME headers. This document specifies
106 an encoding suitable for use in HTTP header fields that is compatible
107 with a profile of the encoding defined in RFC 2231.
109 This document obsoletes [RFC5987] and moves it to "historic" status;
110 the changes are summarized in Appendix A.
112 Note: in the remainder of this document, RFC 2231 is only
113 referenced for the purpose of explaining the choice of features
114 that were adopted; they are therefore purely informative.
116 Note: this encoding does not apply to message payloads transmitted
117 over HTTP, such as when using the media type "multipart/form-data"
118 ([RFC2388]).
120 2. Notational Conventions
122 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
123 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
124 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
126 This specification uses the ABNF (Augmented Backus-Naur Form)
127 notation defined in [RFC5234]. The following core rules are included
128 by reference, as defined in [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters),
129 DIGIT (decimal 0-9), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), and LWSP
130 (linear whitespace).
132 This specification uses terminology defined in [RFC6365], namely:
133 "character encoding scheme" (below abbreviated to "character
134 encoding"), "charset" and "coded character set".
136 Note that this differs from RFC 2231, which uses the term "character
137 set" for "character encoding scheme".
139 3. Comparison to RFC 2231 and Definition of the Encoding
141 RFC 2231 defines several extensions to MIME. The sections below
142 discuss if and how they apply to HTTP header fields.
144 In short:
146 o Parameter Continuations aren't needed (Section 3.1),
147 o Character Encoding and Language Information are useful, therefore
148 a simple subset is specified (Section 3.2), and
150 o Language Specifications in Encoded Words aren't needed
151 (Section 3.3).
153 3.1. Parameter Continuations
155 Section 3 of [RFC2231] defines a mechanism that deals with the length
156 limitations that apply to MIME headers. These limitations do not
157 apply to HTTP ([RFC7231], Appendix A.6).
159 Thus, parameter continuations are not part of the encoding defined by
160 this specification.
162 3.2. Parameter Value Character Encoding and Language Information
164 Section 4 of [RFC2231] specifies how to embed language information
165 into parameter values, and also how to encode non-ASCII characters,
166 dealing with restrictions both in MIME and HTTP header field
167 parameters.
169 However, RFC 2231 does not specify a mandatory-to-implement character
170 encoding, making it hard for senders to decide which encoding to use.
171 Thus, recipients implementing this specification MUST support the
172 "UTF-8" character encoding [RFC3629].
174 Furthermore, RFC 2231 allows the character encoding information to be
175 left out. The encoding defined by this specification does not allow
176 that.
178 3.2.1. Definition
180 The syntax for parameters is defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC2616]
181 (with RFC 2616 implied LWS translated to RFC 5234 LWSP):
183 parameter = attribute LWSP "=" LWSP value
185 attribute = token
186 value = token / quoted-string
188 quoted-string =
189 token =
191 In order to include character encoding and language information, this
192 specification modifies the RFC 2616 grammar to be:
194 parameter = reg-parameter / ext-parameter
196 reg-parameter = parmname LWSP "=" LWSP value
198 ext-parameter = parmname "*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value
200 parmname = 1*attr-char
202 ext-value = charset "'" [ language ] "'" value-chars
203 ; like RFC 2231's
204 ; (see [RFC2231], Section 7)
206 charset = "UTF-8" / mime-charset
208 mime-charset = 1*mime-charsetc
209 mime-charsetc = ALPHA / DIGIT
210 / "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&"
211 / "+" / "-" / "^" / "_" / "`"
212 / "{" / "}" / "~"
213 ; as in Section 2.3 of [RFC2978]
214 ; except that the single quote is not included
215 ; SHOULD be registered in the IANA charset registry
217 language =
219 value-chars = *( pct-encoded / attr-char )
221 pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
222 ; see [RFC3986], Section 2.1
224 attr-char = ALPHA / DIGIT
225 / "!" / "#" / "$" / "&" / "+" / "-" / "."
226 / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~"
227 ; token except ( "*" / "'" / "%" )
229 Thus, a parameter is either a regular parameter (reg-parameter), as
230 previously defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC2616], or an extended
231 parameter (ext-parameter).
233 Extended parameters are those where the left-hand side of the
234 assignment ends with an asterisk character.
236 The value part of an extended parameter (ext-value) is a token that
237 consists of three parts: the REQUIRED character encoding name
238 (charset), the OPTIONAL language information (language), and a
239 character sequence representing the actual value (value-chars),
240 separated by single quote characters. Note that both character
241 encoding names and language tags are restricted to the US-ASCII coded
242 character set, and are matched case-insensitively (see [RFC2978],
243 Section 2.3 and [RFC5646], Section 2.1.1).
245 Inside the value part, characters not contained in attr-char are
246 encoded into an octet sequence using the specified character
247 encoding. That octet sequence is then percent-encoded as specified
248 in Section 2.1 of [RFC3986].
250 Producers MUST use the "UTF-8" ([RFC3629]) character encoding.
251 Extension character encodings (mime-charset) are reserved for future
252 use.
254 Note: recipients should be prepared to handle encoding errors,
255 such as malformed or incomplete percent escape sequences, or non-
256 decodable octet sequences, in a robust manner. This specification
257 does not mandate any specific behavior, for instance, the
258 following strategies are all acceptable:
260 * ignoring the parameter,
262 * stripping a non-decodable octet sequence,
264 * substituting a non-decodable octet sequence by a replacement
265 character, such as the Unicode character U+FFFD (Replacement
266 Character).
268 3.2.2. Historical Notes
270 The RFC 7230 token production ([RFC7230], Section 3.2.6) differs from
271 the production used in RFC 2231 (imported from Section 5.1 of
272 [RFC2045]) in that curly braces ("{" and "}") are excluded. Thus,
273 these two characters are excluded from the attr-char production as
274 well.
276 The ABNF defined here differs from the one in Section
277 2.3 of [RFC2978] in that it does not allow the single quote character
278 (see also RFC Errata ID 1912 [Err1912]). In practice, no character
279 encoding names using that character have been registered at the time
280 of this writing.
282 For backwards compatibility with RFC 2231, the encoding defined by
283 this specification deviates from common parameter syntax in that the
284 quoted-string notation is not allowed. Implementations using generic
285 parser components might not be able to detect the use of quoted-
286 string notation and thus might accept that format, although invalid,
287 as well.
289 [RFC5987] did require support for ISO-8859-1, too; for compatibility
290 with legacy code, recipients are encouraged to support this encoding
291 as well.
293 3.2.3. Examples
295 Non-extended notation, using "token":
297 foo: bar; title=Economy
299 Non-extended notation, using "quoted-string":
301 foo: bar; title="US-$ rates"
303 Extended notation, using the Unicode character U+00A3 (POUND SIGN):
305 foo: bar; title*=utf-8'en'%C2%A3%20rates
307 Note: the Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded into the
308 octet sequence C2 A3 using the UTF-8 character encoding, then
309 percent-encoded. Also, note that the space character was encoded as
310 %20, as it is not contained in attr-char.
312 Extended notation, using the Unicode characters U+00A3 (POUND SIGN)
313 and U+20AC (EURO SIGN):
315 foo: bar; title*=UTF-8''%c2%a3%20and%20%e2%82%ac%20rates
317 Note: the Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded into the
318 octet sequence C2 A3 using the UTF-8 character encoding, then
319 percent-encoded. Likewise, the Unicode euro sign character U+20AC
320 was encoded into the octet sequence E2 82 AC, then percent-encoded.
321 Also note that HEXDIG allows both lowercase and uppercase characters,
322 so recipients must understand both, and that the language information
323 is optional, while the character encoding is not.
325 3.3. Language Specification in Encoded Words
327 Section 5 of [RFC2231] extends the encoding defined in [RFC2047] to
328 also support language specification in encoded words. RFC 2616, the
329 now-obsolete HTTP/1.1 specification, did refer to RFC 2047
330 ([RFC2616], Section 2.2). However, it wasn't clear to which header
331 field it applied. Consequently, the current revision of the HTTP/1.1
332 specification has deprecated use of the encoding forms defined in RFC
333 2047 (see Section 3.2.4 of [RFC7230]).
335 Thus, this specification does not include this feature.
337 4. Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions
339 Specifications of HTTP header fields that use the extensions defined
340 in Section 3.2 ought to clearly state that. A simple way to achieve
341 this is to normatively reference this specification, and to include
342 the ext-value production into the ABNF for that header field.
344 For instance:
346 foo-header = "foo" LWSP ":" LWSP token ";" LWSP title-param
347 title-param = "title" LWSP "=" LWSP value
348 / "title*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value
349 ext-value =
351 Note: The Parameter Value Continuation feature defined in Section
352 3 of [RFC2231] makes it impossible to have multiple instances of
353 extended parameters with identical parmname components, as the
354 processing of continuations would become ambiguous. Thus,
355 specifications using this extension are advised to disallow this
356 case for compatibility with RFC 2231.
358 Note: This specification does not automatically assign a new
359 interpretration to parameter names ending in an asterisk. As
360 pointed out above, it's up to the specification for the non-
361 extended parameter to "opt in" to the syntax defined here. That
362 being said, some existing implementations are known to
363 automatically switch to the use of this notation when a parameter
364 name ends with an asterisk, thus using parameter names ending in
365 an asterisk for something else is likely to cause interoperability
366 problems.
368 4.1. When to Use the Extension
370 Section 4.2 of [RFC2277] requires that protocol elements containing
371 human-readable text are able to carry language information. Thus,
372 the ext-value production ought to be always used when the parameter
373 value is of textual nature and its language is known.
375 Furthermore, the extension ought to also be used whenever the
376 parameter value needs to carry characters not present in the US-ASCII
377 ([USASCII]) coded character set (note that it would be unacceptable
378 to define a new parameter that would be restricted to a subset of the
379 Unicode character set).
381 4.2. Error Handling
383 Header field specifications need to define whether multiple instances
384 of parameters with identical parmname components are allowed, and how
385 they should be processed. This specification suggests that a
386 parameter using the extended syntax takes precedence. This would
387 allow producers to use both formats without breaking recipients that
388 do not understand the extended syntax yet.
390 Example:
392 foo: bar; title="EURO exchange rates";
393 title*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20exchange%20rates
395 In this case, the sender provides an ASCII version of the title for
396 legacy recipients, but also includes an internationalized version for
397 recipients understanding this specification -- the latter obviously
398 ought to prefer the new syntax over the old one.
400 Note: at the time of this writing, many implementations failed to
401 ignore the form they do not understand, or prioritize the ASCII
402 form although the extended syntax was present.
404 5. Security Considerations
406 The format described in this document makes it possible to transport
407 non-ASCII characters, and thus enables character "spoofing"
408 scenarios, in which a displayed value appears to be something other
409 than it is.
411 Furthermore, there are known attack scenarios relating to decoding
412 UTF-8.
414 See Section 10 of [RFC3629] for more information on both topics.
416 In addition, the extension specified in this document makes it
417 possible to transport multiple language variants for a single
418 parameter, and such use might allow spoofing attacks, where different
419 language versions of the same parameter are not equivalent. Whether
420 this attack is useful as an attack depends on the parameter
421 specified.
423 6. IANA Considerations
425 There are no IANA Considerations related to this specification.
427 7. References
429 7.1. Normative References
431 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
432 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
433 RFC2119, March 1997,
434 .
436 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
437 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
438 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, DOI 10.17487/
439 RFC2616, June 1999,
440 .
442 [RFC2978] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
443 Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, DOI 10.17487/RFC2978,
444 October 2000, .
446 [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
447 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629,
448 November 2003,
449 .
451 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
452 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
453 STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
454 .
456 [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
457 Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
458 DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
459 .
461 [RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for
462 Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/
463 RFC5646, September 2009,
464 .
466 [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
467 Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and
468 Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
469 .
471 [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
472 Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content",
473 RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
474 .
476 [USASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
477 Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
478 Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.
480 7.2. Informative References
482 [Err1912] RFC Errata, "Errata ID 1912, RFC 2978",
483 .
485 [ISO-8859-1] International Organization for Standardization,
486 "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded
487 graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No.
488 1", ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.
490 [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
491 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet
492 Message Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045,
493 November 1996,
494 .
496 [RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
497 Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for
498 Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, DOI 10.17487/RFC2047,
499 November 1996,
500 .
502 [RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and
503 Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
504 Continuations", RFC 2231, DOI 10.17487/RFC2231,
505 November 1997,
506 .
508 [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
509 Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
510 January 1998, .
512 [RFC2388] Masinter, L., "Returning Values from Forms: multipart/
513 form-data", RFC 2388, DOI 10.17487/RFC2388,
514 August 1998, .
516 [RFC5987] Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding for
517 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field
518 Parameters", RFC 5987, DOI 10.17487/RFC5987,
519 August 2010, .
521 [RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, DOI 10.17487/
522 RFC5988, October 2010,
523 .
525 [RFC6266] Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-Disposition Header
526 Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)",
527 RFC 6266, DOI 10.17487/RFC6266, June 2011,
528 .
530 [RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
531 Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
532 DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,
533 .
535 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5987
537 This section summarizes the changes compared to [RFC5987]:
539 o The document title was changed to "Indicating Character Encoding
540 and Language for HTTP Header Field Parameters".
542 o The requirement to support the "ISO-8859-1" encoding was removed.
544 Appendix B. Implementation Report
546 The encoding defined in this document currently is used for two
547 different HTTP header fields:
549 o "Content-Disposition", defined in [RFC6266], and
551 o "Link", defined in [RFC5988].
553 As the encoding is a profile/clarification of the one defined in
554 [RFC2231] in 1997, many user agents already supported it for use in
555 "Content-Disposition" when [RFC5987] got published.
557 Since the publication of [RFC5987], three more popular desktop user
558 agents have added support for this encoding; see for details.
560 At this time, the current versions of all major desktop user agents
561 support it.
563 Note that the implementation in Internet Explorer 9 does not support
564 the ISO-8859-1 character encoding; this document revision
565 acknowledges that UTF-8 is sufficient for expressing all code points,
566 and removes the requirement to support ISO-8859-1.
568 The "Link" header field, on the other hand, was only recently
569 specified in [RFC5988]. At the time of this writing, no shipping
570 User Agent except Firefox supported the "title*" parameter (starting
571 with release 15).
573 Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
575 C.1. Since RFC5987
577 Only editorial changes for the purpose of starting the revision
578 process (obs5987).
580 C.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-00
582 Resolved issues "iso-8859-1" and "title" (title simplified). Added
583 and resolved issue "historic5987".
585 C.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-01
587 Added issues "httpbis", "parmsyntax", "terminology" and
588 "valuesyntax". Closed issue "impls".
590 C.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-02
592 Resolved issue "terminology".
594 C.5. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-03
596 In Section 3.2, pull historical notes into a separate subsection.
597 Resolved issues "valuesyntax" and "parmsyntax".
599 C.6. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-04
601 Update status of Firefox support in HTTP Link Header field.
603 C.7. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-05
605 Update status of Firefox support in HTTP Link Header field.
607 C.8. Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-06
609 Update status with respect to Safari 6.
611 Started work on update with respect to RFC 723x.
613 Appendix D. Acknowledgements
615 Thanks to Martin Duerst and Frank Ellermann for help figuring out
616 ABNF details, to Graham Klyne and Alexey Melnikov for general review,
617 to Chris Newman for pointing out an RFC 2231 incompatibility, and to
618 Benjamin Carlyle, Roar Lauritzsen, Eric Lawrence, and James Manger
619 for implementer's feedback.
621 Author's Address
623 Julian F. Reschke
624 greenbytes GmbH
625 Hafenweg 16
626 Muenster, NW 48155
627 Germany
629 EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
630 URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/