idnits 2.17.1 draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.ii or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009 Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 12 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([2], [1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2616, 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 (Using the creation date from RFC2616, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-10-16) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 16, 2009) is 5306 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) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Reschke 3 Internet-Draft greenbytes 4 Updates: 2616 (if approved) October 16, 2009 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: April 19, 2010 8 Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the 9 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 10 draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 12 Status of this Memo 14 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 15 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2010. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 43 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 44 and restrictions with respect to this document. 46 Abstract 48 HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition Response Header, but points 49 out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard. This specification 50 takes over the definition and registration of Content-Disposition, as 51 used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization considerations. 53 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 55 This specification is expected to replace the definition of Content- 56 Disposition in the HTTP/1.1 specification, as currently revised by 57 the IETF HTTPbis working group. See also 58 . 60 Distribution of this document is unlimited. Although this is not a 61 work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to 62 the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) mailing list at 63 ietf-http-wg@w3.org [1], which may be joined by sending a message 64 with subject "subscribe" to ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [2]. 66 Discussions of the HTTPbis Working Group are archived at 67 . 69 XML versions, latest edits and the issues list for this document are 70 available from 71 . A 72 collection of test cases is available at 73 . 75 Table of Contents 77 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 78 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 3. Header Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 80 3.1. Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 81 3.2. Disposition Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 82 3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 84 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 85 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 86 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 87 6.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter . . . . . . . 6 88 6.2. Header Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 89 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 90 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 91 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 92 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 93 Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition . . . . . . . . . 7 94 Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 . . . . . . . . . . . 7 95 Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Filename Escaping . . . . . 8 96 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 97 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 99 1. Introduction 101 HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header in Section 102 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], but points out that is not part of the HTTP/1.1 103 Standard (Section 15.5): 105 Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP standard, but since it 106 is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for 107 implementors. 109 This specification takes over the definition and registration of 110 Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP. Based on interoperability 111 testing with existing User Agents, it defines a profile of the 112 features defined in the MIME variant ([RFC2183]) of the header, and 113 also clarifies internationalization considerations. 115 2. Notational Conventions 117 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 118 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 119 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 121 This specification uses the augmented BNF notation defined in Section 122 2.1 of [RFC2616], including its rules for linear whitespace (LWS). 124 3. Header Definition 126 3.1. Grammar 128 content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":" 129 disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm ) 131 disposition-type = "inline" | "attachment" | disp-ext-type 132 ; case-insensitive 133 disp-ext-type = token 135 disposition-parm = filename-parm | disp-ext-parm 137 filename-parm = "filename" "=" value 138 | "filename*" "=" ext-value 140 disp-ext-parm = token "=" value 141 | ext-token "=" ext-value 142 ext-token = 144 Defined in [RFC2616]: 146 token = 147 value = 149 Defined in [draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http]: 151 ext-value = 153 3.2. Disposition Type 155 If the disposition type matches "attachment" (case-insensitively), 156 the implied suggestion is that the user agent should not display the 157 response, but directly enter a "save response as..." dialog. 159 On the other hand, if it matches "inline", this implies regular 160 processing. Note that this type may be used when it is desirable to 161 transport filename information for the case of a subsequent, user- 162 initiated, save operation. 164 Other disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way as 165 "attachment" ([RFC2183], Section 2.8). 167 3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' 169 [[anchor3: Talk about expected behavior, mention security 170 considerations.]] 172 3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions 174 Parameters other then "filename" SHOULD be ignored ([RFC2183], 175 Section 2.8). 177 4. Examples 179 Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of "foo.html": 181 Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=foo.html 183 Direct UA to behave as if the Content-Disposition header wasn't 184 present, but to remember the filename "foo.html" for a subsequent 185 save operation: 187 Content-Disposition: INLINE; FILENAME= "foo.html" 189 5. Security Considerations 191 [[csec: Both refer to 2183, and also mention: long filenames, dot and 192 dotdot, absolute paths, mismatches between media type and extension]] 194 6. IANA Considerations 196 6.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter 198 Section 9 of [RFC2183] defines the registration procedure for new 199 disposition values and parameters. 201 6.2. Header Registration 203 This document updates the definition of the Content-Disposition HTTP 204 header in the permanent HTTP header registry (see [RFC3864]). 206 Header field name: Content-Disposition 208 Applicable protocol: http 210 Status: standard 212 Author/Change controller: IETF 214 Specification document: this specification (Section 3) 216 7. Acknowledgements 218 [[anchor6: TBD.]] 220 8. References 222 8.1. Normative References 224 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 225 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 227 [RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating 228 Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The 229 Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997. 231 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 232 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 233 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 235 [draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http] 236 Reschke, J., "Applicability of RFC 2231 Encoding to 237 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Headers", 238 draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-05 (work in progress), 239 October 2009. 241 8.2. Informative References 243 [RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration 244 Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864, 245 September 2004. 247 URIs 249 [1] 251 [2] 253 Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition 255 Compared to Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], the following normative 256 changes reflecting actual implementations have been made: 258 o According to RFC 2616, the disposition type "attachment" only 259 applies to content of type "application/octet-stream". This 260 restriction has been removed, because user agents in practice do 261 not check the content type, and it also discourages properly 262 declaring the media type. 264 o The definition for the disposition type "inline" ([RFC2183], 265 Section 2.1) has been re-added with a suggestion for its 266 processing. 268 o This specification requires support for the extended parameter 269 encoding defined in [draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http]. 271 Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 273 Section 2 of [RFC2183] defines several additional disposition 274 parameters: "creation-date", "modification-date", "quoted-date-time", 275 and "size". These do not appear to be implemented by any user agent, 276 thus have been ommitted from this specification. 278 Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Filename Escaping 280 [[anchor10: Mention: RFC 2047, IE, Safari]] 282 Index 284 C 285 Content-Disposition header 4 287 H 288 Headers 289 Content-Disposition 4 291 Author's Address 293 Julian F. Reschke 294 greenbytes GmbH 295 Hafenweg 16 296 Muenster, NW 48155 297 Germany 299 Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 300 URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/