idnits 2.17.1 draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 (July 27, 2010) is 5022 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: 3 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) July 27, 2010 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: January 28, 2011 8 Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the 9 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 10 draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01 12 Abstract 14 HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but 15 points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard. This 16 specification takes over the definition and registration of Content- 17 Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization 18 considerations. 20 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 22 This specification is expected to replace the definition of Content- 23 Disposition in the HTTP/1.1 specification, as currently revised by 24 the IETF HTTPbis working group. See also 25 . 27 Distribution of this document is unlimited. Although this is not a 28 work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to 29 the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) mailing list at 30 ietf-http-wg@w3.org [1], which may be joined by sending a message 31 with subject "subscribe" to ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [2]. 33 Discussions of the HTTPbis Working Group are archived at 34 . 36 XML versions, latest edits and the issues list for this document are 37 available from 38 . A 39 collection of test cases is available at 40 . 42 Status of this Memo 44 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 45 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 47 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 48 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 49 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 50 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 52 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 53 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 54 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 55 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 57 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2011. 59 Copyright Notice 61 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 62 document authors. All rights reserved. 64 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 65 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 66 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 67 publication of this document. Please review these documents 68 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 69 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 70 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 71 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 72 described in the Simplified BSD License. 74 Table of Contents 76 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 77 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 78 3. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 3.1. Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 80 3.2. Disposition Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 81 3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 82 3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 84 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 85 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 86 6.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter . . . . . . . 6 87 6.2. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 88 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 89 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 90 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 91 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 92 Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition . . . . . . . . . 7 93 Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 . . . . . . . . . . . 7 94 Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Filename Escaping . . . . . 8 95 Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before 96 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 97 D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 . . . . . . . . . . 8 98 Appendix E. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to 99 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 100 E.1. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 101 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 102 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 104 1. Introduction 106 HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field in 107 Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], but points out that it is not part of 108 the HTTP/1.1 Standard (Section 15.5): 110 Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP standard, but since it 111 is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for 112 implementors. 114 This specification takes over the definition and registration of 115 Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP. Based on interoperability 116 testing with existing User Agents, it defines a profile of the 117 features defined in the MIME variant ([RFC2183]) of the header field, 118 and also clarifies internationalization considerations. 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 augmented BNF notation defined in Section 127 2.1 of [RFC2616], including its rules for linear whitespace (LWS). 129 3. Header Field Definitions 131 3.1. Grammar 133 content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":" 134 disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm ) 136 disposition-type = "inline" | "attachment" | disp-ext-type 137 ; case-insensitive 138 disp-ext-type = token 140 disposition-parm = filename-parm | disp-ext-parm 142 filename-parm = "filename" "=" value 143 | "filename*" "=" ext-value 145 disp-ext-parm = token "=" value 146 | ext-token "=" ext-value 147 ext-token = 149 Defined in [RFC2616]: 151 token = 152 value = 154 Defined in [draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http]: 156 ext-value = 158 3.2. Disposition Type 160 If the disposition type matches "attachment" (case-insensitively), 161 the implied suggestion is that the user agent should not display the 162 response, but directly enter a "save response as..." dialog. 164 On the other hand, if it matches "inline", this implies regular 165 processing. Note that this type may be used when it is desirable to 166 transport filename information for the case of a subsequent, user- 167 initiated, save operation. 169 Other disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way as 170 "attachment" ([RFC2183], Section 2.8). 172 3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' 174 [[anchor3: Talk about expected behavior, mention security 175 considerations.]] 177 3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions 179 Parameters other than "filename" SHOULD be ignored ([RFC2183], 180 Section 2.8). 182 4. Examples 184 Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of "foo.html": 186 Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=foo.html 188 Direct UA to behave as if the Content-Disposition header field wasn't 189 present, but to remember the filename "foo.html" for a subsequent 190 save operation: 192 Content-Disposition: INLINE; FILENAME= "foo.html" 194 5. Security Considerations 196 [[csec: Both refer to 2183, and also mention: long filenames, dot and 197 dotdot, absolute paths, mismatches between media type and extension]] 199 6. IANA Considerations 201 6.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter 203 This specification does not introduce any changes to the registration 204 procedures for disposition values and parameters that are defined in 205 Section 9 of [RFC2183]. 207 6.2. Header Field Registration 209 This document updates the definition of the Content-Disposition HTTP 210 header field in the permanent HTTP header field registry (see 211 [RFC3864]). 213 Header field name: Content-Disposition 215 Applicable protocol: http 217 Status: standard 219 Author/Change controller: IETF 221 Specification document: this specification (Section 3) 223 7. Acknowledgements 225 [[anchor6: TBD.]] 227 8. References 229 8.1. Normative References 231 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 232 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 234 [RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating 235 Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The 236 Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997. 238 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 239 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 240 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 242 [draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http] 243 Reschke, J., "Applicability of RFC 2231 Encoding to 244 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Headers", 245 draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-12 (work in progress), 246 April 2010. 248 8.2. Informative References 250 [RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration 251 Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864, 252 September 2004. 254 URIs 256 [1] 258 [2] 260 Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition 262 Compared to Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], the following normative 263 changes reflecting actual implementations have been made: 265 o According to RFC 2616, the disposition type "attachment" only 266 applies to content of type "application/octet-stream". This 267 restriction has been removed, because user agents in practice do 268 not check the content type, and it also discourages properly 269 declaring the media type. 271 o The definition for the disposition type "inline" ([RFC2183], 272 Section 2.1) has been re-added with a suggestion for its 273 processing. 275 o This specification requires support for the extended parameter 276 encoding defined in [draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http]. 278 Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 280 Section 2 of [RFC2183] defines several additional disposition 281 parameters: "creation-date", "modification-date", "quoted-date-time", 282 and "size". These do not appear to be implemented by any user agent, 283 thus have been ommitted from this specification. 285 Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Filename Escaping 287 [[anchor10: Mention: RFC 2047, IE, Safari]] 289 Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 291 D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 293 Adjust terminology ("header" -> "header field"). Update rfc2231-in- 294 http reference. 296 Appendix E. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to 297 publication) 299 E.1. edit 301 Type: edit 303 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2009-10-16): Umbrella issue for 304 editorial fixes/enhancements. 306 Index 308 C 309 Content-Disposition header 4 311 H 312 Headers 313 Content-Disposition 4 315 Author's Address 317 Julian F. Reschke 318 greenbytes GmbH 319 Hafenweg 16 320 Muenster, NW 48155 321 Germany 323 Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 324 URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/