idnits 2.17.1 draft-snell-http-prefer-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 181. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 192. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 199. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 205. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- 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 (December 7, 2007) is 5978 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: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Individual Submission J. Snell 3 Internet-Draft December 7, 2007 4 Expires: June 9, 2008 6 Prefer Header for HTTP 7 draft-snell-http-prefer-01 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 12 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 13 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 14 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 9, 2008. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 38 Abstract 40 This specification defines a new HTTP header that can be used by a 41 client to request that certain behaviors be implemented by a server 42 while processing a request. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. The Prefer Request Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 48 3. The "return-no-content" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 Appendix B. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 Appendix C. Notes to RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 Appendix D. Editorial Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 1. Introduction 61 This specification defines a new HTTP header that can be used by a 62 client to request that certain behaviors be implemented by a server 63 while processing a request. 65 In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", 66 "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", 67 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 69 2. The Prefer Request Header 71 The Prefer request-header is used to indicate that particular server 72 behaviors are preferred, but not required, by the client. Prefer is 73 similar in nature to the Expect header defined by [RFC2616] with the 74 exception that servers are allowed to ignore a clients stated 75 preferences. 77 Prefer = "Prefer" ":" 1#preference 79 preference = "return-no-content" | preference-extension 80 preference-extension = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) 81 *prefer-params ] 82 prefer-params = ";" token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ] 84 This header is defined with an extensible syntax to allow for future 85 extensions. A server that does not understand or is unable to comply 86 with any of the preference values in the Prefer field of a request 87 MUST ignore those values and MUST NOT stop processing or signal an 88 error. 90 Comparison of preference values is case-insensitive for unquoted 91 tokens and is case-sensitive for quoted-string preference-extensions. 93 The Prefer mechanism is hop-by-hop: that is, an HTTP proxy MAY choose 94 to honor a preference even if the origin server does not. However, 95 the Prefer request-header itself is end-to-end; it MUST be forwarded 96 if the request is forwarded. 98 3. The "return-no-content" Preference 100 The "return-no-content" token indicates that the client prefers that 101 the server not include an entity in the response to a successful 102 request. Typically, such responses would use the 204 No Content 103 status code as defined in Section 10.2.5 of [RFC2616], but other 104 status codes can be used as appropriate. 106 4. IANA Considerations 108 The 'Prefer' request header should be added to the permanent registry 109 (see [RFC3864]). 111 Header field name: Prefer 113 Applicable Protocol: HTTP 115 Status: standard 117 Author/Change controller: IETF 119 Specification document: this specification 121 5. Security Considerations 123 Specific preferences requested by a client can introduce security 124 considerations and concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC2616]. 125 Implementors must refer to the specifications and descriptions of 126 those preferences to determine the security considerations relevant 127 to each. 129 6. Normative References 131 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 132 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 134 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 135 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 136 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 138 [RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration 139 Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864, 140 September 2004. 142 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 144 The author greatfully acknowledges the input from the IETF HTTP 145 mailing list on the development of this document. 147 Appendix B. Changes 149 TODO 151 Appendix C. Notes to RFC Editor 153 The RFC Editor should remove this section and the Changes section. 155 Appendix D. Editorial Notes 157 We need to determine how new preference codes are created/registered 159 Author's Address 161 James M Snell 163 Phone: 164 Email: jasnell@gmail.com 165 URI: http://www.snellspace.com 167 Full Copyright Statement 169 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 171 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 172 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 173 retain all their rights. 175 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 176 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 177 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 178 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 179 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 180 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 181 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 183 Intellectual Property 185 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 186 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 187 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 188 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 189 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 190 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 191 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 192 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 194 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 195 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 196 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 197 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 198 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 199 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 201 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 202 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 203 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 204 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 205 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 207 Acknowledgment 209 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 210 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).