idnits 2.17.1
draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-10.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from
12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (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 :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The abstract seems to contain references ([2], [1]), which it shouldn't.
Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in
question.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- 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 (February 21, 2010) is 5178 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)
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO-8859-1'
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231,
RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235)
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'USASCII'
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2388
(Obsoleted by RFC 7578)
Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 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 Intended status: Standards Track February 21, 2010
5 Expires: August 25, 2010
7 Application of RFC 2231 Encoding to
8 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Fields
9 draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-10
11 Abstract
13 By default, message header field parameters in Hypertext Transfer
14 Protocol (HTTP) messages can not carry characters outside the ISO-
15 8859-1 character set. RFC 2231 defines an escaping mechanism for use
16 in Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) headers. This
17 document specifies a profile of that encoding suitable for use in
18 HTTP header fields.
20 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
22 There are multiple HTTP header fields that already use RFC 2231
23 encoding in practice (Content-Disposition) or might use it in the
24 future (Link). The purpose of this document is to provide a single
25 place where the generic aspects of RFC 2231 encoding in HTTP header
26 fields are defined.
28 Distribution of this document is unlimited. Although this is not a
29 work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to
30 the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) mailing list at
31 ietf-http-wg@w3.org [1], which may be joined by sending a message
32 with subject "subscribe" to ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [2].
34 Discussions of the HTTPbis Working Group are archived at
35 .
37 XML versions, latest edits and the issues list for this document are
38 available from
39 . A
40 collection of test cases is available at
41 .
43 Note: as of January 2010, there were at least three independent
44 implementations of the encoding defined in Section 3.2: Konqueror
45 (trunk), Mozilla Firefox, and Opera.
47 Status of this Memo
48 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
49 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
51 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
52 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
53 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
54 Drafts.
56 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
57 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
58 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
59 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
61 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
62 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
64 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
65 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
67 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2010.
69 Copyright Notice
71 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
72 document authors. All rights reserved.
74 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
75 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
76 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
77 publication of this document. Please review these documents
78 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
79 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
80 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
81 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
82 described in the BSD License.
84 Table of Contents
86 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
87 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
88 3. A Profile of RFC 2231 for Use in HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
89 3.1. Parameter Continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
90 3.2. Parameter Value Character Set and Language Information . . 5
91 3.2.1. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
92 3.3. Language specification in Encoded Words . . . . . . . . . 8
93 4. Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions . . . . 8
94 4.1. When to Use the Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
95 4.2. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
96 4.3. Using Multiple Instances for Internationalization . . . . 9
97 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
98 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
99 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
100 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
101 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
102 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
103 Appendix A. Document History and Future Plans (to be removed
104 by RFC Editor before publication) . . . . . . . . . . 12
105 Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
106 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
107 B.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00 . . . . . . . . . . 12
108 B.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-01 . . . . . . . . . . 12
109 B.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-02 . . . . . . . . . . 13
110 B.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-03 . . . . . . . . . . 13
111 B.5. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-04 . . . . . . . . . . 13
112 B.6. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-05 . . . . . . . . . . 13
113 B.7. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-06 . . . . . . . . . . 13
114 B.8. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-07 . . . . . . . . . . 13
115 B.9. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-08 . . . . . . . . . . 13
116 B.10. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-09 . . . . . . . . . . 13
117 Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor
118 before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
119 C.1. rfc2978-normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
120 C.2. rfc3986-normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
121 C.3. usascii-normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
122 Appendix D. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
123 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
124 D.1. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
125 D.2. parameter-abnf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
126 D.3. iso8859 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
127 D.4. when-ext-value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
128 D.5. i18n-spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
129 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
131 1. Introduction
133 By default, message header field parameters in HTTP ([RFC2616])
134 messages can not carry characters outside the ISO-8859-1 character
135 set ([ISO-8859-1]). RFC 2231 (Appendix of [RFC2231]) defines an
136 escaping mechanism for use in MIME headers. This document specifies
137 a profile of that encoding for use in HTTP header fields.
139 Note: this profile does not apply to message payloads transmitted
140 over HTTP, such as when using the media type "multipart/form-data"
141 ([RFC2388]).
143 2. Notational Conventions
145 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
146 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
147 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
149 This specification uses the ABNF (Augmented Backus-Naur Form)
150 notation defined in [RFC5234]. The following core rules are included
151 by reference, as defined in [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters),
152 DIGIT (decimal 0-9), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f) and LWSP
153 (linear white space).
155 Note that this specification uses the term "character set" for
156 consistency with other IETF specifications such as RFC 2277 (see
157 [RFC2277], Section 3). A more accurate term would be "character
158 encoding" (a mapping of code points to octet sequences).
160 3. A Profile of RFC 2231 for Use in HTTP
162 RFC 2231 defines several extensions to MIME. The sections below
163 discuss if and how they apply to HTTP.
165 In short:
167 o Parameter Continuations aren't needed (Section 3.1),
169 o Character Set and Language Information are useful, therefore a
170 simple subset is specified (Section 3.2), and
172 o Language Specifications in Encoded Words aren't needed
173 (Section 3.3).
175 3.1. Parameter Continuations
177 Section 3 of [RFC2231] defines a mechanism that deals with the length
178 limitations that apply to MIME headers. These limitations do not
179 apply to HTTP ([RFC2616], Section 19.4.7).
181 Thus in HTTP, senders MUST NOT use parameter continuations, and
182 therefore recipients do not need to support them.
184 3.2. Parameter Value Character Set and Language Information
186 Section 4 of [RFC2231] specifies how to embed language information
187 into parameter values, and also how to encode non-ASCII characters,
188 dealing with restrictions both in MIME and HTTP header parameters.
190 However, RFC 2231 does not specify a mandatory-to-implement character
191 set, making it hard for senders to decide which character set to use.
192 Thus, recipients implementing this specification MUST support the
193 character sets "ISO-8859-1" [ISO-8859-1] and "UTF-8" [RFC3629].
195 Furthermore, RFC 2231 allows leaving out the character set
196 information. The profile defined by this specification does not
197 allow that.
199 The syntax for parameters is defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC2616]
200 (with RFC 2616 implied LWS translated to RFC 5234 LWSP):
202 parameter = attribute LWSP "=" LWSP value
204 attribute = token
205 value = token / quoted-string
207 quoted-string =
208 token =
210 This specification extends the grammar to:
212 parameter = reg-parameter / ext-parameter
214 reg-parameter = attribute LWSP "=" LWSP value
216 ext-parameter = attribute "*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value
218 ext-value = charset "'" [ language ] "'" value-chars
219 ; extended-initial-value,
220 ; defined in [RFC2231], Section 7
222 charset = "UTF-8" / "ISO-8859-1" / mime-charset
224 mime-charset = 1*mime-charsetc
225 mime-charsetc = ALPHA / DIGIT
226 / "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&"
227 / "+" / "-" / "^" / "_" / "`"
228 / "{" / "}" / "~"
229 ; as in Section 2.3 of [RFC2978]
230 ; except that the single quote is not included
232 language =
234 value-chars = *( pct-encoded / attr-char )
236 pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
237 ; see [RFC3986], Section 2.1
239 attr-char = ALPHA / DIGIT
240 / "!" / "#" / "$" / "&" / "+" / "-" / "."
241 / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~"
242 ; token except ( "*" / "'" / "%" )
244 Thus, a parameter is either regular parameter (reg-parameter), as
245 previously defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC2616], or an extended
246 parameter (ext-parameter).
248 Extended parameters are those where the left hand side of the
249 assignment ends with an asterisk character.
251 The value part of an extended parameter (ext-value) is a token that
252 consists of three parts: the REQUIRED character set name (charset),
253 the OPTIONAL language information (language), and a character
254 sequence representing the actual value (value-chars), separated by
255 single quote characters. Note that both character set names and
256 language tags are restricted to the US-ASCII character set, and are
257 matched case-insensitively (see [RFC2978], Section 2.3 and [RFC5646],
258 Section 2.1.1).
260 Inside the value part, characters not contained in attr-char are
261 encoded into an octet sequence using the specified character set.
262 That octet sequence then is percent-encoded as specified in Section
263 2.1 of [RFC3986].
265 Producers MUST NOT use character sets other than "UTF-8" ([RFC3629])
266 or "ISO-8859-1" ([ISO-8859-1]). Extension character sets (ext-
267 charset) are reserved for future use.
269 Note: recipients should be prepared to handle encoding errors,
270 such as malformed or incomplete percent escape sequences, or non-
271 decodable octet sequences, in a robust manner. This specification
272 does not mandate any specific behavior, for instance the following
273 strategies are all acceptable:
275 * ignoring the parameter,
277 * stripping a non-decodable octet sequence,
279 * substituting a non-decodable octet sequence by a replacement
280 character, such as the Unicode character U+FFFD (Replacement
281 Character).
283 Note: the RFC 2616 token production ([RFC2616], Section 2.2)
284 differs from the production used in RFC 2231 (imported from
285 Section 5.1 of [RFC2045]) in that curly braces ("{" and "}") are
286 excluded. Thus, these two characters are excluded from the attr-
287 char production as well.
289 Note: the ABNF defined here differs from the one in
290 Section 2.3 of [RFC2978] in that it does not allow the single
291 quote character (see also RFC Editor Errata ID 1912 [3]). In
292 practice, no character set names using that character have been
293 registered at the time of this writing.
295 3.2.1. Examples
297 Non-extended notation, using "token":
299 foo: bar; title=Economy
301 Non-extended notation, using "quoted-string":
303 foo: bar; title="US-$ rates"
305 Extended notation, using the unicode character U+00A3 (POUND SIGN):
307 foo: bar; title*=iso-8859-1'en'%A3%20rates
309 Note: the Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded using ISO-
310 8859-1 into the single octet A3, then percent-encoded. Also note
311 that the space character was encoded as %20, as it is not contained
312 in attr-char.
314 Extended notation, using the unicode characters U+00A3 (POUND SIGN)
315 and U+20AC (EURO SIGN):
317 foo: bar; title*=UTF-8''%c2%a3%20and%20%e2%82%ac%20rates
319 Note: the unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded using UTF-8
320 into the octet sequence C2 A3, then percent-encoded. Likewise, the
321 unicode euro sign character U+20AC was encoded into the octet
322 sequence E2 82 AC, then percent-encoded. Also note that HEXDIG
323 allows both lower-case and upper-case character, so recipients must
324 understand both, and that the language information is optional, while
325 the character set is not.
327 3.3. Language specification in Encoded Words
329 Section 5 of [RFC2231] extends the encoding defined in [RFC2047] to
330 also support language specification in encoded words. Although the
331 HTTP/1.1 specification does refer to RFC 2047 ([RFC2616], Section
332 2.2), it's not clear to which header field exactly it applies, and
333 whether it is implemented in practice (see
334 for details).
336 Thus, the RFC 2231 profile defined by this specification does not
337 include this feature.
339 4. Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions
341 Specifications of HTTP header fields that use the extensions defined
342 in Section 3.2 should clearly state that. A simple way to achieve
343 this is to normatively reference this specification, and to include
344 the ext-value production into the ABNF for that header field.
346 For instance:
348 foo-header = "foo" LWSP ":" LWSP token ";" LWSP title-param
349 title-param = "title" LWSP "=" LWSP value
350 / "title*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value
351 ext-value =
353 [[rfcno: Note to RFC Editor: in the figure above, please replace
354 "xxxx" by the RFC number assigned to this specification.]]
356 4.1. When to Use the Extension
358 Section 4.2 of [RFC2277] requires that protocol elements containing
359 text are able to carry language information. Thus, the ext-value
360 production should always be used when the parameter value is of
361 textual nature.
363 Furthermore, the extension should also be used whenever the parameter
364 value needs to carry characters not present in the US-ASCII
365 ([USASCII]) character set (note that it would be unacceptable to
366 define a new parameter that would be restricted to a subset of the
367 Unicode character set).
369 4.2. Error Handling
371 Header specifications that include parameters should also specify
372 whether same-named parameters can occur multiple times. If
373 repetitions are not allowed (and this is believed to be the common
374 case), the specification should state whether regular or the extended
375 syntax takes precedence. In the latter case, this could be used by
376 producers to use both formats without breaking recipients that do not
377 understand the syntax.
379 Example:
381 foo: bar; title="EURO exchange rates";
382 title*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20exchange%20rates
384 In this case, the sender provides an ASCII version of the title for
385 legacy recipients, but also includes an internationalized version for
386 recipients understanding this specification -- the latter obviously
387 should prefer the new syntax over the old one.
389 Note: at the time of this writing, many implementations failed to
390 ignore the form they do not understand, or prioritize the ASCII
391 form although the extended syntax was present.
393 4.3. Using Multiple Instances for Internationalization
395 It is expected that in many cases, internationalization of parameters
396 in response headers is implemented using server driven content
397 negotiation ([RFC2616], Section 12.1) using the Accept-Language
398 header ([RFC2616], Section 14.4). However, the format described in
399 this specification also allows using multiple instances providing
400 multiple languages in a single header. Specifications that want to
401 take advantage of this should clearly specify the expected processing
402 by the recipient.
404 Example:
406 foo: bar; title*=utf-8'en'Document%20Title;
407 title*=utf-8'de'Titel%20des%20Dokuments
409 5. Security Considerations
411 This document does not discuss security issues and is not believed to
412 raise any security issues not already endemic in HTTP.
414 6. IANA Considerations
416 There are no IANA Considerations related to this specification.
418 7. Acknowledgements
420 Thanks to Martin Duerst and Frank Ellermann for help figuring out
421 ABNF details, to Graham Klyne and Alexey Melnikov for general review,
422 and to Benjamin Carlyle and Roar Lauritzsen for implementer's
423 feedback.
425 8. References
427 8.1. Normative References
429 [ISO-8859-1]
430 International Organization for Standardization,
431 "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic
432 character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1", ISO/
433 IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.
435 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
436 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
438 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
439 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
440 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
442 [RFC2978] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
443 Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000.
445 [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
446 10646", RFC 3629, STD 63, November 2003.
448 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
449 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986,
450 STD 66, January 2005.
452 [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
453 Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
455 [RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
456 Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.
458 [USASCII] American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
459 Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
460 Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.
462 8.2. Informative References
464 [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
465 Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
466 Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
468 [RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
469 Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
470 RFC 2047, November 1996.
472 [RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
473 Word Extensions:
474 Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations", RFC 2231,
475 November 1997.
477 [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
478 Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
480 [RFC2388] Masinter, L., "Returning Values from Forms: multipart/
481 form-data", RFC 2388, August 1998.
483 URIs
485 [1]
487 [2]
489 [3]
491 Appendix A. Document History and Future Plans (to be removed by RFC
492 Editor before publication)
494 Problems with the internationalization of the HTTP Content-
495 Disposition header field have been known for many years (see test
496 cases at ).
498 During IETF 72
499 (), the
500 HTTPbis Working Group shortly discussed how to deal with the
501 underspecification of (1) Content-Disposition, and its (2)
502 internationalization aspects. Back then, there was rough consensus
503 in the room to move the definition into a separate draft.
505 This specification addresses problem (2), by defining a simple subset
506 of the encoding format defined in RFC 2231. A separate
507 specification, draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http, is planned to address
508 problem (1). Note that this approach was chosen because Content-
509 Disposition is just an example for an HTTP header field using this
510 kind of encoding. Another example is the currently proposed Link
511 header field (draft-nottingham-http-link-header).
513 This document is planned to be published on the IETF Standards Track,
514 so that other standards-track level documents can depend on it, such
515 as the new specification of Content-Disposition, or potentially
516 future revisions of the HTTP Link Header specification.
518 Also note that this document specifies a proper subset of the
519 extensions defined in RFC 2231, but does not normatively refer to it.
520 Thus, RFC 2231 can be revised separately, should the email community
521 decide to.
523 Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
525 B.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00
527 Use RFC5234-style ABNF, closer to the one used in RFC 2231.
529 Make RFC 2231 dependency informative, so this specification can
530 evolve independently.
532 Explain the ABNF in prose.
534 B.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-01
536 Remove unneeded RFC5137 notation (code point vs character).
538 B.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-02
540 And and resolve issues "charset", "repeats" and "rfc4646".
542 B.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-03
544 And and resolve issue "charsetmatch".
546 B.5. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-04
548 Add and resolve issues "badseq" and "tokenquotcharset".
550 B.6. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-05
552 Say "header field" instead of "header" in the context of HTTP.
554 B.7. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-06
556 Add an appendix discussing document history and future plans, to be
557 removed before publication.
559 B.8. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-07
561 Add and resolve issues "impl" and "rel-2388".
563 B.9. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-08
565 Editorial improvements. Add and resolve issues "attrcharvstoken" and
566 "tokengrammar".
568 B.10. Since draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-09
570 Add issues "i18n-spoofing", "iso8859", "parameter-abnf", and "when-
571 ext-value". Add and resolve issues "rfc2978-normative", "rfc3986-
572 normative" and "usascii-normative".
574 Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before
575 publication)
577 Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this
578 document.
580 C.1. rfc2978-normative
582 In Section 3.2:
584 Type: change
585 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-20): The reference to RFC2978
586 needs to be normative (reported by Alexey Melnikov).
588 Resolution (2010-02-20): Done.
590 C.2. rfc3986-normative
592 In Section 3.2:
594 Type: change
596 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-20): The reference to percent-
597 encoding (RFC3986) needs to be normative (reported by Alexey
598 Melnikov).
600 Resolution (2010-02-20): Done.
602 C.3. usascii-normative
604 In Section 4.1:
606 Type: change
608 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-20): The reference to USASCII
609 needs to be normative.
611 Resolution (2010-02-20): Done.
613 Appendix D. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
614 publication)
616 D.1. edit
618 Type: edit
620 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2009-04-17): Umbrella issue for
621 editorial fixes/enhancements.
623 D.2. parameter-abnf
625 In Section 3.2:
627 Type: change
629 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-20): The ABNF for reg-parameter
630 and ext-parameter is ambiguous, as "*" is a valid token character;
631 furthermore, RFC 2616's "attribute" production allows "*" while RFC
632 2231's does not. (reported by Alexey Melnikov).
634 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-21): Proposal: destrict the
635 allowable character set in parameter names to exclude "*" (amd maybe
636 even more non-name characters?). Also, consider extending the set of
637 value characters (for the right hand side) to allow more characters
638 that can be umabigouously parsed outside quoted strings, such as "/".
640 D.3. iso8859
642 In Section 3.2:
644 Type: change
646 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-20): The protocol could be
647 further simplified by mandating UTF-8 only (reported by Alexey
648 Melnikov). On the other hand and not surprinsingly, testing shows
649 that ISO-8859-1 support is widely implemented. The author is looking
650 for community feedback on this choice.
652 D.4. when-ext-value
654 In Section 4.1:
656 Type: change
658 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2010-02-18): There's no point in using
659 ext-value when the language is unknown and no "special" characters
660 are present.
662 D.5. i18n-spoofing
664 In Section 5:
666 Type: change
668
671 GK@ninebynine.org (2010-02-20): I note that the security
672 considerations section says nothing about possible character
673 "spoofing" - i.e. making a displayed prompt or value appear to be
674 something other than it is. E.g. Non-ASCII characters have been
675 used to set up exploits involving dodgy URIs that may appear to a
676 user to be legitimate.
678 Author's Address
680 Julian F. Reschke
681 greenbytes GmbH
682 Hafenweg 16
683 Muenster, NW 48155
684 Germany
686 Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
687 URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/