mirror of
https://git.friendi.ca/friendica/friendica-addons.git
synced 2024-08-20 20:50:21 +00:00
9859 lines
412 KiB
Text
9859 lines
412 KiB
Text
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Network Working Group R. Fielding
|
||
Request for Comments: 2616 UC Irvine
|
||
Obsoletes: 2068 J. Gettys
|
||
Category: Standards Track Compaq/W3C
|
||
J. Mogul
|
||
Compaq
|
||
H. Frystyk
|
||
W3C/MIT
|
||
L. Masinter
|
||
Xerox
|
||
P. Leach
|
||
Microsoft
|
||
T. Berners-Lee
|
||
W3C/MIT
|
||
June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
|
||
|
||
Status of this Memo
|
||
|
||
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
|
||
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
|
||
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
|
||
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
|
||
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
|
||
|
||
Copyright Notice
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
|
||
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
|
||
protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
|
||
systems. It is a generic, stateless, protocol which can be used for
|
||
many tasks beyond its use for hypertext, such as name servers and
|
||
distributed object management systems, through extension of its
|
||
request methods, error codes and headers [47]. A feature of HTTP is
|
||
the typing and negotiation of data representation, allowing systems
|
||
to be built independently of the data being transferred.
|
||
|
||
HTTP has been in use by the World-Wide Web global information
|
||
initiative since 1990. This specification defines the protocol
|
||
referred to as "HTTP/1.1", and is an update to RFC 2068 [33].
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
|
||
1 Introduction ...................................................7
|
||
1.1 Purpose......................................................7
|
||
1.2 Requirements .................................................8
|
||
1.3 Terminology ..................................................8
|
||
1.4 Overall Operation ...........................................12
|
||
2 Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar ....................14
|
||
2.1 Augmented BNF ...............................................14
|
||
2.2 Basic Rules .................................................15
|
||
3 Protocol Parameters ...........................................17
|
||
3.1 HTTP Version ................................................17
|
||
3.2 Uniform Resource Identifiers ................................18
|
||
3.2.1 General Syntax ...........................................19
|
||
3.2.2 http URL .................................................19
|
||
3.2.3 URI Comparison ...........................................20
|
||
3.3 Date/Time Formats ...........................................20
|
||
3.3.1 Full Date ................................................20
|
||
3.3.2 Delta Seconds ............................................21
|
||
3.4 Character Sets ..............................................21
|
||
3.4.1 Missing Charset ..........................................22
|
||
3.5 Content Codings .............................................23
|
||
3.6 Transfer Codings ............................................24
|
||
3.6.1 Chunked Transfer Coding ..................................25
|
||
3.7 Media Types .................................................26
|
||
3.7.1 Canonicalization and Text Defaults .......................27
|
||
3.7.2 Multipart Types ..........................................27
|
||
3.8 Product Tokens ..............................................28
|
||
3.9 Quality Values ..............................................29
|
||
3.10 Language Tags ...............................................29
|
||
3.11 Entity Tags .................................................30
|
||
3.12 Range Units .................................................30
|
||
4 HTTP Message ..................................................31
|
||
4.1 Message Types ...............................................31
|
||
4.2 Message Headers .............................................31
|
||
4.3 Message Body ................................................32
|
||
4.4 Message Length ..............................................33
|
||
4.5 General Header Fields .......................................34
|
||
5 Request .......................................................35
|
||
5.1 Request-Line ................................................35
|
||
5.1.1 Method ...................................................36
|
||
5.1.2 Request-URI ..............................................36
|
||
5.2 The Resource Identified by a Request ........................38
|
||
5.3 Request Header Fields .......................................38
|
||
6 Response ......................................................39
|
||
6.1 Status-Line .................................................39
|
||
6.1.1 Status Code and Reason Phrase ............................39
|
||
6.2 Response Header Fields ......................................41
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
7 Entity ........................................................42
|
||
7.1 Entity Header Fields ........................................42
|
||
7.2 Entity Body .................................................43
|
||
7.2.1 Type .....................................................43
|
||
7.2.2 Entity Length ............................................43
|
||
8 Connections ...................................................44
|
||
8.1 Persistent Connections ......................................44
|
||
8.1.1 Purpose ..................................................44
|
||
8.1.2 Overall Operation ........................................45
|
||
8.1.3 Proxy Servers ............................................46
|
||
8.1.4 Practical Considerations .................................46
|
||
8.2 Message Transmission Requirements ...........................47
|
||
8.2.1 Persistent Connections and Flow Control ..................47
|
||
8.2.2 Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages .........48
|
||
8.2.3 Use of the 100 (Continue) Status .........................48
|
||
8.2.4 Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes Connection ..50
|
||
9 Method Definitions ............................................51
|
||
9.1 Safe and Idempotent Methods .................................51
|
||
9.1.1 Safe Methods .............................................51
|
||
9.1.2 Idempotent Methods .......................................51
|
||
9.2 OPTIONS .....................................................52
|
||
9.3 GET .........................................................53
|
||
9.4 HEAD ........................................................54
|
||
9.5 POST ........................................................54
|
||
9.6 PUT .........................................................55
|
||
9.7 DELETE ......................................................56
|
||
9.8 TRACE .......................................................56
|
||
9.9 CONNECT .....................................................57
|
||
10 Status Code Definitions ......................................57
|
||
10.1 Informational 1xx ...........................................57
|
||
10.1.1 100 Continue .............................................58
|
||
10.1.2 101 Switching Protocols ..................................58
|
||
10.2 Successful 2xx ..............................................58
|
||
10.2.1 200 OK ...................................................58
|
||
10.2.2 201 Created ..............................................59
|
||
10.2.3 202 Accepted .............................................59
|
||
10.2.4 203 Non-Authoritative Information ........................59
|
||
10.2.5 204 No Content ...........................................60
|
||
10.2.6 205 Reset Content ........................................60
|
||
10.2.7 206 Partial Content ......................................60
|
||
10.3 Redirection 3xx .............................................61
|
||
10.3.1 300 Multiple Choices .....................................61
|
||
10.3.2 301 Moved Permanently ....................................62
|
||
10.3.3 302 Found ................................................62
|
||
10.3.4 303 See Other ............................................63
|
||
10.3.5 304 Not Modified .........................................63
|
||
10.3.6 305 Use Proxy ............................................64
|
||
10.3.7 306 (Unused) .............................................64
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
10.3.8 307 Temporary Redirect ...................................65
|
||
10.4 Client Error 4xx ............................................65
|
||
10.4.1 400 Bad Request .........................................65
|
||
10.4.2 401 Unauthorized ........................................66
|
||
10.4.3 402 Payment Required ....................................66
|
||
10.4.4 403 Forbidden ...........................................66
|
||
10.4.5 404 Not Found ...........................................66
|
||
10.4.6 405 Method Not Allowed ..................................66
|
||
10.4.7 406 Not Acceptable ......................................67
|
||
10.4.8 407 Proxy Authentication Required .......................67
|
||
10.4.9 408 Request Timeout .....................................67
|
||
10.4.10 409 Conflict ............................................67
|
||
10.4.11 410 Gone ................................................68
|
||
10.4.12 411 Length Required .....................................68
|
||
10.4.13 412 Precondition Failed .................................68
|
||
10.4.14 413 Request Entity Too Large ............................69
|
||
10.4.15 414 Request-URI Too Long ................................69
|
||
10.4.16 415 Unsupported Media Type ..............................69
|
||
10.4.17 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable .....................69
|
||
10.4.18 417 Expectation Failed ..................................70
|
||
10.5 Server Error 5xx ............................................70
|
||
10.5.1 500 Internal Server Error ................................70
|
||
10.5.2 501 Not Implemented ......................................70
|
||
10.5.3 502 Bad Gateway ..........................................70
|
||
10.5.4 503 Service Unavailable ..................................70
|
||
10.5.5 504 Gateway Timeout ......................................71
|
||
10.5.6 505 HTTP Version Not Supported ...........................71
|
||
11 Access Authentication ........................................71
|
||
12 Content Negotiation ..........................................71
|
||
12.1 Server-driven Negotiation ...................................72
|
||
12.2 Agent-driven Negotiation ....................................73
|
||
12.3 Transparent Negotiation .....................................74
|
||
13 Caching in HTTP ..............................................74
|
||
13.1.1 Cache Correctness ........................................75
|
||
13.1.2 Warnings .................................................76
|
||
13.1.3 Cache-control Mechanisms .................................77
|
||
13.1.4 Explicit User Agent Warnings .............................78
|
||
13.1.5 Exceptions to the Rules and Warnings .....................78
|
||
13.1.6 Client-controlled Behavior ...............................79
|
||
13.2 Expiration Model ............................................79
|
||
13.2.1 Server-Specified Expiration ..............................79
|
||
13.2.2 Heuristic Expiration .....................................80
|
||
13.2.3 Age Calculations .........................................80
|
||
13.2.4 Expiration Calculations ..................................83
|
||
13.2.5 Disambiguating Expiration Values .........................84
|
||
13.2.6 Disambiguating Multiple Responses ........................84
|
||
13.3 Validation Model ............................................85
|
||
13.3.1 Last-Modified Dates ......................................86
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
13.3.2 Entity Tag Cache Validators ..............................86
|
||
13.3.3 Weak and Strong Validators ...............................86
|
||
13.3.4 Rules for When to Use Entity Tags and Last-Modified Dates.89
|
||
13.3.5 Non-validating Conditionals ..............................90
|
||
13.4 Response Cacheability .......................................91
|
||
13.5 Constructing Responses From Caches ..........................92
|
||
13.5.1 End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Headers ........................92
|
||
13.5.2 Non-modifiable Headers ...................................92
|
||
13.5.3 Combining Headers ........................................94
|
||
13.5.4 Combining Byte Ranges ....................................95
|
||
13.6 Caching Negotiated Responses ................................95
|
||
13.7 Shared and Non-Shared Caches ................................96
|
||
13.8 Errors or Incomplete Response Cache Behavior ................97
|
||
13.9 Side Effects of GET and HEAD ................................97
|
||
13.10 Invalidation After Updates or Deletions ...................97
|
||
13.11 Write-Through Mandatory ...................................98
|
||
13.12 Cache Replacement .........................................99
|
||
13.13 History Lists .............................................99
|
||
14 Header Field Definitions ....................................100
|
||
14.1 Accept .....................................................100
|
||
14.2 Accept-Charset .............................................102
|
||
14.3 Accept-Encoding ............................................102
|
||
14.4 Accept-Language ............................................104
|
||
14.5 Accept-Ranges ..............................................105
|
||
14.6 Age ........................................................106
|
||
14.7 Allow ......................................................106
|
||
14.8 Authorization ..............................................107
|
||
14.9 Cache-Control ..............................................108
|
||
14.9.1 What is Cacheable .......................................109
|
||
14.9.2 What May be Stored by Caches ............................110
|
||
14.9.3 Modifications of the Basic Expiration Mechanism .........111
|
||
14.9.4 Cache Revalidation and Reload Controls ..................113
|
||
14.9.5 No-Transform Directive ..................................115
|
||
14.9.6 Cache Control Extensions ................................116
|
||
14.10 Connection ...............................................117
|
||
14.11 Content-Encoding .........................................118
|
||
14.12 Content-Language .........................................118
|
||
14.13 Content-Length ...........................................119
|
||
14.14 Content-Location .........................................120
|
||
14.15 Content-MD5 ..............................................121
|
||
14.16 Content-Range ............................................122
|
||
14.17 Content-Type .............................................124
|
||
14.18 Date .....................................................124
|
||
14.18.1 Clockless Origin Server Operation ......................125
|
||
14.19 ETag .....................................................126
|
||
14.20 Expect ...................................................126
|
||
14.21 Expires ..................................................127
|
||
14.22 From .....................................................128
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
14.23 Host .....................................................128
|
||
14.24 If-Match .................................................129
|
||
14.25 If-Modified-Since ........................................130
|
||
14.26 If-None-Match ............................................132
|
||
14.27 If-Range .................................................133
|
||
14.28 If-Unmodified-Since ......................................134
|
||
14.29 Last-Modified ............................................134
|
||
14.30 Location .................................................135
|
||
14.31 Max-Forwards .............................................136
|
||
14.32 Pragma ...................................................136
|
||
14.33 Proxy-Authenticate .......................................137
|
||
14.34 Proxy-Authorization ......................................137
|
||
14.35 Range ....................................................138
|
||
14.35.1 Byte Ranges ...........................................138
|
||
14.35.2 Range Retrieval Requests ..............................139
|
||
14.36 Referer ..................................................140
|
||
14.37 Retry-After ..............................................141
|
||
14.38 Server ...................................................141
|
||
14.39 TE .......................................................142
|
||
14.40 Trailer ..................................................143
|
||
14.41 Transfer-Encoding..........................................143
|
||
14.42 Upgrade ..................................................144
|
||
14.43 User-Agent ...............................................145
|
||
14.44 Vary .....................................................145
|
||
14.45 Via ......................................................146
|
||
14.46 Warning ..................................................148
|
||
14.47 WWW-Authenticate .........................................150
|
||
15 Security Considerations .......................................150
|
||
15.1 Personal Information....................................151
|
||
15.1.1 Abuse of Server Log Information .........................151
|
||
15.1.2 Transfer of Sensitive Information .......................151
|
||
15.1.3 Encoding Sensitive Information in URI's .................152
|
||
15.1.4 Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers ..............152
|
||
15.2 Attacks Based On File and Path Names .......................153
|
||
15.3 DNS Spoofing ...............................................154
|
||
15.4 Location Headers and Spoofing ..............................154
|
||
15.5 Content-Disposition Issues .................................154
|
||
15.6 Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients ................155
|
||
15.7 Proxies and Caching ........................................155
|
||
15.7.1 Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies....................156
|
||
16 Acknowledgments .............................................156
|
||
17 References ..................................................158
|
||
18 Authors' Addresses ..........................................162
|
||
19 Appendices ..................................................164
|
||
19.1 Internet Media Type message/http and application/http ......164
|
||
19.2 Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges ...................165
|
||
19.3 Tolerant Applications ......................................166
|
||
19.4 Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities ....167
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
19.4.1 MIME-Version ............................................167
|
||
19.4.2 Conversion to Canonical Form ............................167
|
||
19.4.3 Conversion of Date Formats ..............................168
|
||
19.4.4 Introduction of Content-Encoding ........................168
|
||
19.4.5 No Content-Transfer-Encoding ............................168
|
||
19.4.6 Introduction of Transfer-Encoding .......................169
|
||
19.4.7 MHTML and Line Length Limitations .......................169
|
||
19.5 Additional Features ........................................169
|
||
19.5.1 Content-Disposition .....................................170
|
||
19.6 Compatibility with Previous Versions .......................170
|
||
19.6.1 Changes from HTTP/1.0 ...................................171
|
||
19.6.2 Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections ......172
|
||
19.6.3 Changes from RFC 2068 ...................................172
|
||
20 Index .......................................................175
|
||
21 Full Copyright Statement ....................................176
|
||
|
||
1 Introduction
|
||
|
||
1.1 Purpose
|
||
|
||
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
|
||
protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
|
||
systems. HTTP has been in use by the World-Wide Web global
|
||
information initiative since 1990. The first version of HTTP,
|
||
referred to as HTTP/0.9, was a simple protocol for raw data transfer
|
||
across the Internet. HTTP/1.0, as defined by RFC 1945 [6], improved
|
||
the protocol by allowing messages to be in the format of MIME-like
|
||
messages, containing metainformation about the data transferred and
|
||
modifiers on the request/response semantics. However, HTTP/1.0 does
|
||
not sufficiently take into consideration the effects of hierarchical
|
||
proxies, caching, the need for persistent connections, or virtual
|
||
hosts. In addition, the proliferation of incompletely-implemented
|
||
applications calling themselves "HTTP/1.0" has necessitated a
|
||
protocol version change in order for two communicating applications
|
||
to determine each other's true capabilities.
|
||
|
||
This specification defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1".
|
||
This protocol includes more stringent requirements than HTTP/1.0 in
|
||
order to ensure reliable implementation of its features.
|
||
|
||
Practical information systems require more functionality than simple
|
||
retrieval, including search, front-end update, and annotation. HTTP
|
||
allows an open-ended set of methods and headers that indicate the
|
||
purpose of a request [47]. It builds on the discipline of reference
|
||
provided by the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [3], as a location
|
||
(URL) [4] or name (URN) [20], for indicating the resource to which a
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
method is to be applied. Messages are passed in a format similar to
|
||
that used by Internet mail [9] as defined by the Multipurpose
|
||
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [7].
|
||
|
||
HTTP is also used as a generic protocol for communication between
|
||
user agents and proxies/gateways to other Internet systems, including
|
||
those supported by the SMTP [16], NNTP [13], FTP [18], Gopher [2],
|
||
and WAIS [10] protocols. In this way, HTTP allows basic hypermedia
|
||
access to resources available from diverse applications.
|
||
|
||
1.2 Requirements
|
||
|
||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
|
||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
|
||
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [34].
|
||
|
||
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
|
||
of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it
|
||
implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED
|
||
level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said
|
||
to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST
|
||
level requirements but not all the SHOULD level requirements for its
|
||
protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
|
||
|
||
1.3 Terminology
|
||
|
||
This specification uses a number of terms to refer to the roles
|
||
played by participants in, and objects of, the HTTP communication.
|
||
|
||
connection
|
||
A transport layer virtual circuit established between two programs
|
||
for the purpose of communication.
|
||
|
||
message
|
||
The basic unit of HTTP communication, consisting of a structured
|
||
sequence of octets matching the syntax defined in section 4 and
|
||
transmitted via the connection.
|
||
|
||
request
|
||
An HTTP request message, as defined in section 5.
|
||
|
||
response
|
||
An HTTP response message, as defined in section 6.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
resource
|
||
A network data object or service that can be identified by a URI,
|
||
as defined in section 3.2. Resources may be available in multiple
|
||
representations (e.g. multiple languages, data formats, size, and
|
||
resolutions) or vary in other ways.
|
||
|
||
entity
|
||
The information transferred as the payload of a request or
|
||
response. An entity consists of metainformation in the form of
|
||
entity-header fields and content in the form of an entity-body, as
|
||
described in section 7.
|
||
|
||
representation
|
||
An entity included with a response that is subject to content
|
||
negotiation, as described in section 12. There may exist multiple
|
||
representations associated with a particular response status.
|
||
|
||
content negotiation
|
||
The mechanism for selecting the appropriate representation when
|
||
servicing a request, as described in section 12. The
|
||
representation of entities in any response can be negotiated
|
||
(including error responses).
|
||
|
||
variant
|
||
A resource may have one, or more than one, representation(s)
|
||
associated with it at any given instant. Each of these
|
||
representations is termed a `varriant'. Use of the term `variant'
|
||
does not necessarily imply that the resource is subject to content
|
||
negotiation.
|
||
|
||
client
|
||
A program that establishes connections for the purpose of sending
|
||
requests.
|
||
|
||
user agent
|
||
The client which initiates a request. These are often browsers,
|
||
editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end user tools.
|
||
|
||
server
|
||
An application program that accepts connections in order to
|
||
service requests by sending back responses. Any given program may
|
||
be capable of being both a client and a server; our use of these
|
||
terms refers only to the role being performed by the program for a
|
||
particular connection, rather than to the program's capabilities
|
||
in general. Likewise, any server may act as an origin server,
|
||
proxy, gateway, or tunnel, switching behavior based on the nature
|
||
of each request.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
origin server
|
||
The server on which a given resource resides or is to be created.
|
||
|
||
proxy
|
||
An intermediary program which acts as both a server and a client
|
||
for the purpose of making requests on behalf of other clients.
|
||
Requests are serviced internally or by passing them on, with
|
||
possible translation, to other servers. A proxy MUST implement
|
||
both the client and server requirements of this specification. A
|
||
"transparent proxy" is a proxy that does not modify the request or
|
||
response beyond what is required for proxy authentication and
|
||
identification. A "non-transparent proxy" is a proxy that modifies
|
||
the request or response in order to provide some added service to
|
||
the user agent, such as group annotation services, media type
|
||
transformation, protocol reduction, or anonymity filtering. Except
|
||
where either transparent or non-transparent behavior is explicitly
|
||
stated, the HTTP proxy requirements apply to both types of
|
||
proxies.
|
||
|
||
gateway
|
||
A server which acts as an intermediary for some other server.
|
||
Unlike a proxy, a gateway receives requests as if it were the
|
||
origin server for the requested resource; the requesting client
|
||
may not be aware that it is communicating with a gateway.
|
||
|
||
tunnel
|
||
An intermediary program which is acting as a blind relay between
|
||
two connections. Once active, a tunnel is not considered a party
|
||
to the HTTP communication, though the tunnel may have been
|
||
initiated by an HTTP request. The tunnel ceases to exist when both
|
||
ends of the relayed connections are closed.
|
||
|
||
cache
|
||
A program's local store of response messages and the subsystem
|
||
that controls its message storage, retrieval, and deletion. A
|
||
cache stores cacheable responses in order to reduce the response
|
||
time and network bandwidth consumption on future, equivalent
|
||
requests. Any client or server may include a cache, though a cache
|
||
cannot be used by a server that is acting as a tunnel.
|
||
|
||
cacheable
|
||
A response is cacheable if a cache is allowed to store a copy of
|
||
the response message for use in answering subsequent requests. The
|
||
rules for determining the cacheability of HTTP responses are
|
||
defined in section 13. Even if a resource is cacheable, there may
|
||
be additional constraints on whether a cache can use the cached
|
||
copy for a particular request.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
first-hand
|
||
A response is first-hand if it comes directly and without
|
||
unnecessary delay from the origin server, perhaps via one or more
|
||
proxies. A response is also first-hand if its validity has just
|
||
been checked directly with the origin server.
|
||
|
||
explicit expiration time
|
||
The time at which the origin server intends that an entity should
|
||
no longer be returned by a cache without further validation.
|
||
|
||
heuristic expiration time
|
||
An expiration time assigned by a cache when no explicit expiration
|
||
time is available.
|
||
|
||
age
|
||
The age of a response is the time since it was sent by, or
|
||
successfully validated with, the origin server.
|
||
|
||
freshness lifetime
|
||
The length of time between the generation of a response and its
|
||
expiration time.
|
||
|
||
fresh
|
||
A response is fresh if its age has not yet exceeded its freshness
|
||
lifetime.
|
||
|
||
stale
|
||
A response is stale if its age has passed its freshness lifetime.
|
||
|
||
semantically transparent
|
||
A cache behaves in a "semantically transparent" manner, with
|
||
respect to a particular response, when its use affects neither the
|
||
requesting client nor the origin server, except to improve
|
||
performance. When a cache is semantically transparent, the client
|
||
receives exactly the same response (except for hop-by-hop headers)
|
||
that it would have received had its request been handled directly
|
||
by the origin server.
|
||
|
||
validator
|
||
A protocol element (e.g., an entity tag or a Last-Modified time)
|
||
that is used to find out whether a cache entry is an equivalent
|
||
copy of an entity.
|
||
|
||
upstream/downstream
|
||
Upstream and downstream describe the flow of a message: all
|
||
messages flow from upstream to downstream.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
inbound/outbound
|
||
Inbound and outbound refer to the request and response paths for
|
||
messages: "inbound" means "traveling toward the origin server",
|
||
and "outbound" means "traveling toward the user agent"
|
||
|
||
1.4 Overall Operation
|
||
|
||
The HTTP protocol is a request/response protocol. A client sends a
|
||
request to the server in the form of a request method, URI, and
|
||
protocol version, followed by a MIME-like message containing request
|
||
modifiers, client information, and possible body content over a
|
||
connection with a server. The server responds with a status line,
|
||
including the message's protocol version and a success or error code,
|
||
followed by a MIME-like message containing server information, entity
|
||
metainformation, and possible entity-body content. The relationship
|
||
between HTTP and MIME is described in appendix 19.4.
|
||
|
||
Most HTTP communication is initiated by a user agent and consists of
|
||
a request to be applied to a resource on some origin server. In the
|
||
simplest case, this may be accomplished via a single connection (v)
|
||
between the user agent (UA) and the origin server (O).
|
||
|
||
request chain ------------------------>
|
||
UA -------------------v------------------- O
|
||
<----------------------- response chain
|
||
|
||
A more complicated situation occurs when one or more intermediaries
|
||
are present in the request/response chain. There are three common
|
||
forms of intermediary: proxy, gateway, and tunnel. A proxy is a
|
||
forwarding agent, receiving requests for a URI in its absolute form,
|
||
rewriting all or part of the message, and forwarding the reformatted
|
||
request toward the server identified by the URI. A gateway is a
|
||
receiving agent, acting as a layer above some other server(s) and, if
|
||
necessary, translating the requests to the underlying server's
|
||
protocol. A tunnel acts as a relay point between two connections
|
||
without changing the messages; tunnels are used when the
|
||
communication needs to pass through an intermediary (such as a
|
||
firewall) even when the intermediary cannot understand the contents
|
||
of the messages.
|
||
|
||
request chain -------------------------------------->
|
||
UA -----v----- A -----v----- B -----v----- C -----v----- O
|
||
<------------------------------------- response chain
|
||
|
||
The figure above shows three intermediaries (A, B, and C) between the
|
||
user agent and origin server. A request or response message that
|
||
travels the whole chain will pass through four separate connections.
|
||
This distinction is important because some HTTP communication options
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
may apply only to the connection with the nearest, non-tunnel
|
||
neighbor, only to the end-points of the chain, or to all connections
|
||
along the chain. Although the diagram is linear, each participant may
|
||
be engaged in multiple, simultaneous communications. For example, B
|
||
may be receiving requests from many clients other than A, and/or
|
||
forwarding requests to servers other than C, at the same time that it
|
||
is handling A's request.
|
||
|
||
Any party to the communication which is not acting as a tunnel may
|
||
employ an internal cache for handling requests. The effect of a cache
|
||
is that the request/response chain is shortened if one of the
|
||
participants along the chain has a cached response applicable to that
|
||
request. The following illustrates the resulting chain if B has a
|
||
cached copy of an earlier response from O (via C) for a request which
|
||
has not been cached by UA or A.
|
||
|
||
request chain ---------->
|
||
UA -----v----- A -----v----- B - - - - - - C - - - - - - O
|
||
<--------- response chain
|
||
|
||
Not all responses are usefully cacheable, and some requests may
|
||
contain modifiers which place special requirements on cache behavior.
|
||
HTTP requirements for cache behavior and cacheable responses are
|
||
defined in section 13.
|
||
|
||
In fact, there are a wide variety of architectures and configurations
|
||
of caches and proxies currently being experimented with or deployed
|
||
across the World Wide Web. These systems include national hierarchies
|
||
of proxy caches to save transoceanic bandwidth, systems that
|
||
broadcast or multicast cache entries, organizations that distribute
|
||
subsets of cached data via CD-ROM, and so on. HTTP systems are used
|
||
in corporate intranets over high-bandwidth links, and for access via
|
||
PDAs with low-power radio links and intermittent connectivity. The
|
||
goal of HTTP/1.1 is to support the wide diversity of configurations
|
||
already deployed while introducing protocol constructs that meet the
|
||
needs of those who build web applications that require high
|
||
reliability and, failing that, at least reliable indications of
|
||
failure.
|
||
|
||
HTTP communication usually takes place over TCP/IP connections. The
|
||
default port is TCP 80 [19], but other ports can be used. This does
|
||
not preclude HTTP from being implemented on top of any other protocol
|
||
on the Internet, or on other networks. HTTP only presumes a reliable
|
||
transport; any protocol that provides such guarantees can be used;
|
||
the mapping of the HTTP/1.1 request and response structures onto the
|
||
transport data units of the protocol in question is outside the scope
|
||
of this specification.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
In HTTP/1.0, most implementations used a new connection for each
|
||
request/response exchange. In HTTP/1.1, a connection may be used for
|
||
one or more request/response exchanges, although connections may be
|
||
closed for a variety of reasons (see section 8.1).
|
||
|
||
2 Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar
|
||
|
||
2.1 Augmented BNF
|
||
|
||
All of the mechanisms specified in this document are described in
|
||
both prose and an augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) similar to that
|
||
used by RFC 822 [9]. Implementors will need to be familiar with the
|
||
notation in order to understand this specification. The augmented BNF
|
||
includes the following constructs:
|
||
|
||
name = definition
|
||
The name of a rule is simply the name itself (without any
|
||
enclosing "<" and ">") and is separated from its definition by the
|
||
equal "=" character. White space is only significant in that
|
||
indentation of continuation lines is used to indicate a rule
|
||
definition that spans more than one line. Certain basic rules are
|
||
in uppercase, such as SP, LWS, HT, CRLF, DIGIT, ALPHA, etc. Angle
|
||
brackets are used within definitions whenever their presence will
|
||
facilitate discerning the use of rule names.
|
||
|
||
"literal"
|
||
Quotation marks surround literal text. Unless stated otherwise,
|
||
the text is case-insensitive.
|
||
|
||
rule1 | rule2
|
||
Elements separated by a bar ("|") are alternatives, e.g., "yes |
|
||
no" will accept yes or no.
|
||
|
||
(rule1 rule2)
|
||
Elements enclosed in parentheses are treated as a single element.
|
||
Thus, "(elem (foo | bar) elem)" allows the token sequences "elem
|
||
foo elem" and "elem bar elem".
|
||
|
||
*rule
|
||
The character "*" preceding an element indicates repetition. The
|
||
full form is "<n>*<m>element" indicating at least <n> and at most
|
||
<m> occurrences of element. Default values are 0 and infinity so
|
||
that "*(element)" allows any number, including zero; "1*element"
|
||
requires at least one; and "1*2element" allows one or two.
|
||
|
||
[rule]
|
||
Square brackets enclose optional elements; "[foo bar]" is
|
||
equivalent to "*1(foo bar)".
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
N rule
|
||
Specific repetition: "<n>(element)" is equivalent to
|
||
"<n>*<n>(element)"; that is, exactly <n> occurrences of (element).
|
||
Thus 2DIGIT is a 2-digit number, and 3ALPHA is a string of three
|
||
alphabetic characters.
|
||
|
||
#rule
|
||
A construct "#" is defined, similar to "*", for defining lists of
|
||
elements. The full form is "<n>#<m>element" indicating at least
|
||
<n> and at most <m> elements, each separated by one or more commas
|
||
(",") and OPTIONAL linear white space (LWS). This makes the usual
|
||
form of lists very easy; a rule such as
|
||
( *LWS element *( *LWS "," *LWS element ))
|
||
can be shown as
|
||
1#element
|
||
Wherever this construct is used, null elements are allowed, but do
|
||
not contribute to the count of elements present. That is,
|
||
"(element), , (element) " is permitted, but counts as only two
|
||
elements. Therefore, where at least one element is required, at
|
||
least one non-null element MUST be present. Default values are 0
|
||
and infinity so that "#element" allows any number, including zero;
|
||
"1#element" requires at least one; and "1#2element" allows one or
|
||
two.
|
||
|
||
; comment
|
||
A semi-colon, set off some distance to the right of rule text,
|
||
starts a comment that continues to the end of line. This is a
|
||
simple way of including useful notes in parallel with the
|
||
specifications.
|
||
|
||
implied *LWS
|
||
The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except
|
||
where noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included
|
||
between any two adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and
|
||
between adjacent words and separators, without changing the
|
||
interpretation of a field. At least one delimiter (LWS and/or
|
||
|
||
separators) MUST exist between any two tokens (for the definition
|
||
of "token" below), since they would otherwise be interpreted as a
|
||
single token.
|
||
|
||
2.2 Basic Rules
|
||
|
||
The following rules are used throughout this specification to
|
||
describe basic parsing constructs. The US-ASCII coded character set
|
||
is defined by ANSI X3.4-1986 [21].
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
OCTET = <any 8-bit sequence of data>
|
||
CHAR = <any US-ASCII character (octets 0 - 127)>
|
||
UPALPHA = <any US-ASCII uppercase letter "A".."Z">
|
||
LOALPHA = <any US-ASCII lowercase letter "a".."z">
|
||
ALPHA = UPALPHA | LOALPHA
|
||
DIGIT = <any US-ASCII digit "0".."9">
|
||
CTL = <any US-ASCII control character
|
||
(octets 0 - 31) and DEL (127)>
|
||
CR = <US-ASCII CR, carriage return (13)>
|
||
LF = <US-ASCII LF, linefeed (10)>
|
||
SP = <US-ASCII SP, space (32)>
|
||
HT = <US-ASCII HT, horizontal-tab (9)>
|
||
<"> = <US-ASCII double-quote mark (34)>
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 defines the sequence CR LF as the end-of-line marker for all
|
||
protocol elements except the entity-body (see appendix 19.3 for
|
||
tolerant applications). The end-of-line marker within an entity-body
|
||
is defined by its associated media type, as described in section 3.7.
|
||
|
||
CRLF = CR LF
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 header field values can be folded onto multiple lines if the
|
||
continuation line begins with a space or horizontal tab. All linear
|
||
white space, including folding, has the same semantics as SP. A
|
||
recipient MAY replace any linear white space with a single SP before
|
||
interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream.
|
||
|
||
LWS = [CRLF] 1*( SP | HT )
|
||
|
||
The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and values
|
||
that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser. Words
|
||
of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than ISO-
|
||
8859-1 [22] only when encoded according to the rules of RFC 2047
|
||
[14].
|
||
|
||
TEXT = <any OCTET except CTLs,
|
||
but including LWS>
|
||
|
||
A CRLF is allowed in the definition of TEXT only as part of a header
|
||
field continuation. It is expected that the folding LWS will be
|
||
replaced with a single SP before interpretation of the TEXT value.
|
||
|
||
Hexadecimal numeric characters are used in several protocol elements.
|
||
|
||
HEX = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F"
|
||
| "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | DIGIT
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Many HTTP/1.1 header field values consist of words separated by LWS
|
||
or special characters. These special characters MUST be in a quoted
|
||
string to be used within a parameter value (as defined in section
|
||
3.6).
|
||
|
||
token = 1*<any CHAR except CTLs or separators>
|
||
separators = "(" | ")" | "<" | ">" | "@"
|
||
| "," | ";" | ":" | "\" | <">
|
||
| "/" | "[" | "]" | "?" | "="
|
||
| "{" | "}" | SP | HT
|
||
|
||
Comments can be included in some HTTP header fields by surrounding
|
||
the comment text with parentheses. Comments are only allowed in
|
||
fields containing "comment" as part of their field value definition.
|
||
In all other fields, parentheses are considered part of the field
|
||
value.
|
||
|
||
comment = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")"
|
||
ctext = <any TEXT excluding "(" and ")">
|
||
|
||
A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using
|
||
double-quote marks.
|
||
|
||
quoted-string = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> )
|
||
qdtext = <any TEXT except <">>
|
||
|
||
The backslash character ("\") MAY be used as a single-character
|
||
quoting mechanism only within quoted-string and comment constructs.
|
||
|
||
quoted-pair = "\" CHAR
|
||
|
||
3 Protocol Parameters
|
||
|
||
3.1 HTTP Version
|
||
|
||
HTTP uses a "<major>.<minor>" numbering scheme to indicate versions
|
||
of the protocol. The protocol versioning policy is intended to allow
|
||
the sender to indicate the format of a message and its capacity for
|
||
understanding further HTTP communication, rather than the features
|
||
obtained via that communication. No change is made to the version
|
||
number for the addition of message components which do not affect
|
||
communication behavior or which only add to extensible field values.
|
||
The <minor> number is incremented when the changes made to the
|
||
protocol add features which do not change the general message parsing
|
||
algorithm, but which may add to the message semantics and imply
|
||
additional capabilities of the sender. The <major> number is
|
||
incremented when the format of a message within the protocol is
|
||
changed. See RFC 2145 [36] for a fuller explanation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The version of an HTTP message is indicated by an HTTP-Version field
|
||
in the first line of the message.
|
||
|
||
HTTP-Version = "HTTP" "/" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
|
||
|
||
Note that the major and minor numbers MUST be treated as separate
|
||
integers and that each MAY be incremented higher than a single digit.
|
||
Thus, HTTP/2.4 is a lower version than HTTP/2.13, which in turn is
|
||
lower than HTTP/12.3. Leading zeros MUST be ignored by recipients and
|
||
MUST NOT be sent.
|
||
|
||
An application that sends a request or response message that includes
|
||
HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" MUST be at least conditionally compliant
|
||
with this specification. Applications that are at least conditionally
|
||
compliant with this specification SHOULD use an HTTP-Version of
|
||
"HTTP/1.1" in their messages, and MUST do so for any message that is
|
||
not compatible with HTTP/1.0. For more details on when to send
|
||
specific HTTP-Version values, see RFC 2145 [36].
|
||
|
||
The HTTP version of an application is the highest HTTP version for
|
||
which the application is at least conditionally compliant.
|
||
|
||
Proxy and gateway applications need to be careful when forwarding
|
||
messages in protocol versions different from that of the application.
|
||
Since the protocol version indicates the protocol capability of the
|
||
sender, a proxy/gateway MUST NOT send a message with a version
|
||
indicator which is greater than its actual version. If a higher
|
||
version request is received, the proxy/gateway MUST either downgrade
|
||
the request version, or respond with an error, or switch to tunnel
|
||
behavior.
|
||
|
||
Due to interoperability problems with HTTP/1.0 proxies discovered
|
||
since the publication of RFC 2068[33], caching proxies MUST, gateways
|
||
MAY, and tunnels MUST NOT upgrade the request to the highest version
|
||
they support. The proxy/gateway's response to that request MUST be in
|
||
the same major version as the request.
|
||
|
||
Note: Converting between versions of HTTP may involve modification
|
||
of header fields required or forbidden by the versions involved.
|
||
|
||
3.2 Uniform Resource Identifiers
|
||
|
||
URIs have been known by many names: WWW addresses, Universal Document
|
||
Identifiers, Universal Resource Identifiers [3], and finally the
|
||
combination of Uniform Resource Locators (URL) [4] and Names (URN)
|
||
[20]. As far as HTTP is concerned, Uniform Resource Identifiers are
|
||
simply formatted strings which identify--via name, location, or any
|
||
other characteristic--a resource.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.2.1 General Syntax
|
||
|
||
URIs in HTTP can be represented in absolute form or relative to some
|
||
known base URI [11], depending upon the context of their use. The two
|
||
forms are differentiated by the fact that absolute URIs always begin
|
||
with a scheme name followed by a colon. For definitive information on
|
||
URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI):
|
||
Generic Syntax and Semantics," RFC 2396 [42] (which replaces RFCs
|
||
1738 [4] and RFC 1808 [11]). This specification adopts the
|
||
definitions of "URI-reference", "absoluteURI", "relativeURI", "port",
|
||
"host","abs_path", "rel_path", and "authority" from that
|
||
specification.
|
||
|
||
The HTTP protocol does not place any a priori limit on the length of
|
||
a URI. Servers MUST be able to handle the URI of any resource they
|
||
serve, and SHOULD be able to handle URIs of unbounded length if they
|
||
provide GET-based forms that could generate such URIs. A server
|
||
SHOULD return 414 (Request-URI Too Long) status if a URI is longer
|
||
than the server can handle (see section 10.4.15).
|
||
|
||
Note: Servers ought to be cautious about depending on URI lengths
|
||
above 255 bytes, because some older client or proxy
|
||
implementations might not properly support these lengths.
|
||
|
||
3.2.2 http URL
|
||
|
||
The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the HTTP
|
||
protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax and
|
||
semantics for http URLs.
|
||
|
||
http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
|
||
|
||
If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The semantics
|
||
are that the identified resource is located at the server listening
|
||
for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the Request-URI
|
||
for the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2). The use of IP addresses
|
||
in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible (see RFC 1900 [24]). If
|
||
the abs_path is not present in the URL, it MUST be given as "/" when
|
||
used as a Request-URI for a resource (section 5.1.2). If a proxy
|
||
receives a host name which is not a fully qualified domain name, it
|
||
MAY add its domain to the host name it received. If a proxy receives
|
||
a fully qualified domain name, the proxy MUST NOT change the host
|
||
name.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.2.3 URI Comparison
|
||
|
||
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
|
||
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
|
||
URIs, with these exceptions:
|
||
|
||
- A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the default
|
||
port for that URI-reference;
|
||
|
||
- Comparisons of host names MUST be case-insensitive;
|
||
|
||
- Comparisons of scheme names MUST be case-insensitive;
|
||
|
||
- An empty abs_path is equivalent to an abs_path of "/".
|
||
|
||
Characters other than those in the "reserved" and "unsafe" sets (see
|
||
RFC 2396 [42]) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX" encoding.
|
||
|
||
For example, the following three URIs are equivalent:
|
||
|
||
http://abc.com:80/~smith/home.html
|
||
http://ABC.com/%7Esmith/home.html
|
||
http://ABC.com:/%7esmith/home.html
|
||
|
||
3.3 Date/Time Formats
|
||
|
||
3.3.1 Full Date
|
||
|
||
HTTP applications have historically allowed three different formats
|
||
for the representation of date/time stamps:
|
||
|
||
Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 822, updated by RFC 1123
|
||
Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 850, obsoleted by RFC 1036
|
||
Sun Nov 6 08:49:37 1994 ; ANSI C's asctime() format
|
||
|
||
The first format is preferred as an Internet standard and represents
|
||
a fixed-length subset of that defined by RFC 1123 [8] (an update to
|
||
RFC 822 [9]). The second format is in common use, but is based on the
|
||
obsolete RFC 850 [12] date format and lacks a four-digit year.
|
||
HTTP/1.1 clients and servers that parse the date value MUST accept
|
||
all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they MUST
|
||
only generate the RFC 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values
|
||
in header fields. See section 19.3 for further information.
|
||
|
||
Note: Recipients of date values are encouraged to be robust in
|
||
accepting date values that may have been sent by non-HTTP
|
||
applications, as is sometimes the case when retrieving or posting
|
||
messages via proxies/gateways to SMTP or NNTP.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
All HTTP date/time stamps MUST be represented in Greenwich Mean Time
|
||
(GMT), without exception. For the purposes of HTTP, GMT is exactly
|
||
equal to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). This is indicated in the
|
||
first two formats by the inclusion of "GMT" as the three-letter
|
||
abbreviation for time zone, and MUST be assumed when reading the
|
||
asctime format. HTTP-date is case sensitive and MUST NOT include
|
||
additional LWS beyond that specifically included as SP in the
|
||
grammar.
|
||
|
||
HTTP-date = rfc1123-date | rfc850-date | asctime-date
|
||
rfc1123-date = wkday "," SP date1 SP time SP "GMT"
|
||
rfc850-date = weekday "," SP date2 SP time SP "GMT"
|
||
asctime-date = wkday SP date3 SP time SP 4DIGIT
|
||
date1 = 2DIGIT SP month SP 4DIGIT
|
||
; day month year (e.g., 02 Jun 1982)
|
||
date2 = 2DIGIT "-" month "-" 2DIGIT
|
||
; day-month-year (e.g., 02-Jun-82)
|
||
date3 = month SP ( 2DIGIT | ( SP 1DIGIT ))
|
||
; month day (e.g., Jun 2)
|
||
time = 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT
|
||
; 00:00:00 - 23:59:59
|
||
wkday = "Mon" | "Tue" | "Wed"
|
||
| "Thu" | "Fri" | "Sat" | "Sun"
|
||
weekday = "Monday" | "Tuesday" | "Wednesday"
|
||
| "Thursday" | "Friday" | "Saturday" | "Sunday"
|
||
month = "Jan" | "Feb" | "Mar" | "Apr"
|
||
| "May" | "Jun" | "Jul" | "Aug"
|
||
| "Sep" | "Oct" | "Nov" | "Dec"
|
||
|
||
Note: HTTP requirements for the date/time stamp format apply only
|
||
to their usage within the protocol stream. Clients and servers are
|
||
not required to use these formats for user presentation, request
|
||
logging, etc.
|
||
|
||
3.3.2 Delta Seconds
|
||
|
||
Some HTTP header fields allow a time value to be specified as an
|
||
integer number of seconds, represented in decimal, after the time
|
||
that the message was received.
|
||
|
||
delta-seconds = 1*DIGIT
|
||
|
||
3.4 Character Sets
|
||
|
||
HTTP uses the same definition of the term "character set" as that
|
||
described for MIME:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The term "character set" is used in this document to refer to a
|
||
method used with one or more tables to convert a sequence of octets
|
||
into a sequence of characters. Note that unconditional conversion in
|
||
the other direction is not required, in that not all characters may
|
||
be available in a given character set and a character set may provide
|
||
more than one sequence of octets to represent a particular character.
|
||
This definition is intended to allow various kinds of character
|
||
encoding, from simple single-table mappings such as US-ASCII to
|
||
complex table switching methods such as those that use ISO-2022's
|
||
techniques. However, the definition associated with a MIME character
|
||
set name MUST fully specify the mapping to be performed from octets
|
||
to characters. In particular, use of external profiling information
|
||
to determine the exact mapping is not permitted.
|
||
|
||
Note: This use of the term "character set" is more commonly
|
||
referred to as a "character encoding." However, since HTTP and
|
||
MIME share the same registry, it is important that the terminology
|
||
also be shared.
|
||
|
||
HTTP character sets are identified by case-insensitive tokens. The
|
||
complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character Set registry
|
||
[19].
|
||
|
||
charset = token
|
||
|
||
Although HTTP allows an arbitrary token to be used as a charset
|
||
value, any token that has a predefined value within the IANA
|
||
Character Set registry [19] MUST represent the character set defined
|
||
by that registry. Applications SHOULD limit their use of character
|
||
sets to those defined by the IANA registry.
|
||
|
||
Implementors should be aware of IETF character set requirements [38]
|
||
[41].
|
||
|
||
3.4.1 Missing Charset
|
||
|
||
Some HTTP/1.0 software has interpreted a Content-Type header without
|
||
charset parameter incorrectly to mean "recipient should guess."
|
||
Senders wishing to defeat this behavior MAY include a charset
|
||
parameter even when the charset is ISO-8859-1 and SHOULD do so when
|
||
it is known that it will not confuse the recipient.
|
||
|
||
Unfortunately, some older HTTP/1.0 clients did not deal properly with
|
||
an explicit charset parameter. HTTP/1.1 recipients MUST respect the
|
||
charset label provided by the sender; and those user agents that have
|
||
a provision to "guess" a charset MUST use the charset from the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
content-type field if they support that charset, rather than the
|
||
recipient's preference, when initially displaying a document. See
|
||
section 3.7.1.
|
||
|
||
3.5 Content Codings
|
||
|
||
Content coding values indicate an encoding transformation that has
|
||
been or can be applied to an entity. Content codings are primarily
|
||
used to allow a document to be compressed or otherwise usefully
|
||
transformed without losing the identity of its underlying media type
|
||
and without loss of information. Frequently, the entity is stored in
|
||
coded form, transmitted directly, and only decoded by the recipient.
|
||
|
||
content-coding = token
|
||
|
||
All content-coding values are case-insensitive. HTTP/1.1 uses
|
||
content-coding values in the Accept-Encoding (section 14.3) and
|
||
Content-Encoding (section 14.11) header fields. Although the value
|
||
describes the content-coding, what is more important is that it
|
||
indicates what decoding mechanism will be required to remove the
|
||
encoding.
|
||
|
||
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for
|
||
content-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry contains the
|
||
following tokens:
|
||
|
||
gzip An encoding format produced by the file compression program
|
||
"gzip" (GNU zip) as described in RFC 1952 [25]. This format is a
|
||
Lempel-Ziv coding (LZ77) with a 32 bit CRC.
|
||
|
||
compress
|
||
The encoding format produced by the common UNIX file compression
|
||
program "compress". This format is an adaptive Lempel-Ziv-Welch
|
||
coding (LZW).
|
||
|
||
Use of program names for the identification of encoding formats
|
||
is not desirable and is discouraged for future encodings. Their
|
||
use here is representative of historical practice, not good
|
||
design. For compatibility with previous implementations of HTTP,
|
||
applications SHOULD consider "x-gzip" and "x-compress" to be
|
||
equivalent to "gzip" and "compress" respectively.
|
||
|
||
deflate
|
||
The "zlib" format defined in RFC 1950 [31] in combination with
|
||
the "deflate" compression mechanism described in RFC 1951 [29].
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
identity
|
||
The default (identity) encoding; the use of no transformation
|
||
whatsoever. This content-coding is used only in the Accept-
|
||
Encoding header, and SHOULD NOT be used in the Content-Encoding
|
||
header.
|
||
|
||
New content-coding value tokens SHOULD be registered; to allow
|
||
interoperability between clients and servers, specifications of the
|
||
content coding algorithms needed to implement a new value SHOULD be
|
||
publicly available and adequate for independent implementation, and
|
||
conform to the purpose of content coding defined in this section.
|
||
|
||
3.6 Transfer Codings
|
||
|
||
Transfer-coding values are used to indicate an encoding
|
||
transformation that has been, can be, or may need to be applied to an
|
||
entity-body in order to ensure "safe transport" through the network.
|
||
This differs from a content coding in that the transfer-coding is a
|
||
property of the message, not of the original entity.
|
||
|
||
transfer-coding = "chunked" | transfer-extension
|
||
transfer-extension = token *( ";" parameter )
|
||
|
||
Parameters are in the form of attribute/value pairs.
|
||
|
||
parameter = attribute "=" value
|
||
attribute = token
|
||
value = token | quoted-string
|
||
|
||
All transfer-coding values are case-insensitive. HTTP/1.1 uses
|
||
transfer-coding values in the TE header field (section 14.39) and in
|
||
the Transfer-Encoding header field (section 14.41).
|
||
|
||
Whenever a transfer-coding is applied to a message-body, the set of
|
||
transfer-codings MUST include "chunked", unless the message is
|
||
terminated by closing the connection. When the "chunked" transfer-
|
||
coding is used, it MUST be the last transfer-coding applied to the
|
||
message-body. The "chunked" transfer-coding MUST NOT be applied more
|
||
than once to a message-body. These rules allow the recipient to
|
||
determine the transfer-length of the message (section 4.4).
|
||
|
||
Transfer-codings are analogous to the Content-Transfer-Encoding
|
||
values of MIME [7], which were designed to enable safe transport of
|
||
binary data over a 7-bit transport service. However, safe transport
|
||
has a different focus for an 8bit-clean transfer protocol. In HTTP,
|
||
the only unsafe characteristic of message-bodies is the difficulty in
|
||
determining the exact body length (section 7.2.2), or the desire to
|
||
encrypt data over a shared transport.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for
|
||
transfer-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry contains the
|
||
following tokens: "chunked" (section 3.6.1), "identity" (section
|
||
3.6.2), "gzip" (section 3.5), "compress" (section 3.5), and "deflate"
|
||
(section 3.5).
|
||
|
||
New transfer-coding value tokens SHOULD be registered in the same way
|
||
as new content-coding value tokens (section 3.5).
|
||
|
||
A server which receives an entity-body with a transfer-coding it does
|
||
not understand SHOULD return 501 (Unimplemented), and close the
|
||
connection. A server MUST NOT send transfer-codings to an HTTP/1.0
|
||
client.
|
||
|
||
3.6.1 Chunked Transfer Coding
|
||
|
||
The chunked encoding modifies the body of a message in order to
|
||
transfer it as a series of chunks, each with its own size indicator,
|
||
followed by an OPTIONAL trailer containing entity-header fields. This
|
||
allows dynamically produced content to be transferred along with the
|
||
information necessary for the recipient to verify that it has
|
||
received the full message.
|
||
|
||
Chunked-Body = *chunk
|
||
last-chunk
|
||
trailer
|
||
CRLF
|
||
|
||
chunk = chunk-size [ chunk-extension ] CRLF
|
||
chunk-data CRLF
|
||
chunk-size = 1*HEX
|
||
last-chunk = 1*("0") [ chunk-extension ] CRLF
|
||
|
||
chunk-extension= *( ";" chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] )
|
||
chunk-ext-name = token
|
||
chunk-ext-val = token | quoted-string
|
||
chunk-data = chunk-size(OCTET)
|
||
trailer = *(entity-header CRLF)
|
||
|
||
The chunk-size field is a string of hex digits indicating the size of
|
||
the chunk. The chunked encoding is ended by any chunk whose size is
|
||
zero, followed by the trailer, which is terminated by an empty line.
|
||
|
||
The trailer allows the sender to include additional HTTP header
|
||
fields at the end of the message. The Trailer header field can be
|
||
used to indicate which header fields are included in a trailer (see
|
||
section 14.40).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
A server using chunked transfer-coding in a response MUST NOT use the
|
||
trailer for any header fields unless at least one of the following is
|
||
true:
|
||
|
||
a)the request included a TE header field that indicates "trailers" is
|
||
acceptable in the transfer-coding of the response, as described in
|
||
section 14.39; or,
|
||
|
||
b)the server is the origin server for the response, the trailer
|
||
fields consist entirely of optional metadata, and the recipient
|
||
could use the message (in a manner acceptable to the origin server)
|
||
without receiving this metadata. In other words, the origin server
|
||
is willing to accept the possibility that the trailer fields might
|
||
be silently discarded along the path to the client.
|
||
|
||
This requirement prevents an interoperability failure when the
|
||
message is being received by an HTTP/1.1 (or later) proxy and
|
||
forwarded to an HTTP/1.0 recipient. It avoids a situation where
|
||
compliance with the protocol would have necessitated a possibly
|
||
infinite buffer on the proxy.
|
||
|
||
An example process for decoding a Chunked-Body is presented in
|
||
appendix 19.4.6.
|
||
|
||
All HTTP/1.1 applications MUST be able to receive and decode the
|
||
"chunked" transfer-coding, and MUST ignore chunk-extension extensions
|
||
they do not understand.
|
||
|
||
3.7 Media Types
|
||
|
||
HTTP uses Internet Media Types [17] in the Content-Type (section
|
||
14.17) and Accept (section 14.1) header fields in order to provide
|
||
open and extensible data typing and type negotiation.
|
||
|
||
media-type = type "/" subtype *( ";" parameter )
|
||
type = token
|
||
subtype = token
|
||
|
||
Parameters MAY follow the type/subtype in the form of attribute/value
|
||
pairs (as defined in section 3.6).
|
||
|
||
The type, subtype, and parameter attribute names are case-
|
||
insensitive. Parameter values might or might not be case-sensitive,
|
||
depending on the semantics of the parameter name. Linear white space
|
||
(LWS) MUST NOT be used between the type and subtype, nor between an
|
||
attribute and its value. The presence or absence of a parameter might
|
||
be significant to the processing of a media-type, depending on its
|
||
definition within the media type registry.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type
|
||
parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications,
|
||
implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are
|
||
required by that type/subtype definition.
|
||
|
||
Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number
|
||
Authority (IANA [19]). The media type registration process is
|
||
outlined in RFC 1590 [17]. Use of non-registered media types is
|
||
discouraged.
|
||
|
||
3.7.1 Canonicalization and Text Defaults
|
||
|
||
Internet media types are registered with a canonical form. An
|
||
entity-body transferred via HTTP messages MUST be represented in the
|
||
appropriate canonical form prior to its transmission except for
|
||
"text" types, as defined in the next paragraph.
|
||
|
||
When in canonical form, media subtypes of the "text" type use CRLF as
|
||
the text line break. HTTP relaxes this requirement and allows the
|
||
transport of text media with plain CR or LF alone representing a line
|
||
break when it is done consistently for an entire entity-body. HTTP
|
||
applications MUST accept CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF as being
|
||
representative of a line break in text media received via HTTP. In
|
||
addition, if the text is represented in a character set that does not
|
||
use octets 13 and 10 for CR and LF respectively, as is the case for
|
||
some multi-byte character sets, HTTP allows the use of whatever octet
|
||
sequences are defined by that character set to represent the
|
||
equivalent of CR and LF for line breaks. This flexibility regarding
|
||
line breaks applies only to text media in the entity-body; a bare CR
|
||
or LF MUST NOT be substituted for CRLF within any of the HTTP control
|
||
structures (such as header fields and multipart boundaries).
|
||
|
||
If an entity-body is encoded with a content-coding, the underlying
|
||
data MUST be in a form defined above prior to being encoded.
|
||
|
||
The "charset" parameter is used with some media types to define the
|
||
character set (section 3.4) of the data. When no explicit charset
|
||
parameter is provided by the sender, media subtypes of the "text"
|
||
type are defined to have a default charset value of "ISO-8859-1" when
|
||
received via HTTP. Data in character sets other than "ISO-8859-1" or
|
||
its subsets MUST be labeled with an appropriate charset value. See
|
||
section 3.4.1 for compatibility problems.
|
||
|
||
3.7.2 Multipart Types
|
||
|
||
MIME provides for a number of "multipart" types -- encapsulations of
|
||
one or more entities within a single message-body. All multipart
|
||
types share a common syntax, as defined in section 5.1.1 of RFC 2046
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
[40], and MUST include a boundary parameter as part of the media type
|
||
value. The message body is itself a protocol element and MUST
|
||
therefore use only CRLF to represent line breaks between body-parts.
|
||
Unlike in RFC 2046, the epilogue of any multipart message MUST be
|
||
empty; HTTP applications MUST NOT transmit the epilogue (even if the
|
||
original multipart contains an epilogue). These restrictions exist in
|
||
order to preserve the self-delimiting nature of a multipart message-
|
||
body, wherein the "end" of the message-body is indicated by the
|
||
ending multipart boundary.
|
||
|
||
In general, HTTP treats a multipart message-body no differently than
|
||
any other media type: strictly as payload. The one exception is the
|
||
"multipart/byteranges" type (appendix 19.2) when it appears in a 206
|
||
(Partial Content) response, which will be interpreted by some HTTP
|
||
caching mechanisms as described in sections 13.5.4 and 14.16. In all
|
||
other cases, an HTTP user agent SHOULD follow the same or similar
|
||
behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type.
|
||
The MIME header fields within each body-part of a multipart message-
|
||
body do not have any significance to HTTP beyond that defined by
|
||
their MIME semantics.
|
||
|
||
In general, an HTTP user agent SHOULD follow the same or similar
|
||
behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type.
|
||
If an application receives an unrecognized multipart subtype, the
|
||
application MUST treat it as being equivalent to "multipart/mixed".
|
||
|
||
Note: The "multipart/form-data" type has been specifically defined
|
||
for carrying form data suitable for processing via the POST
|
||
request method, as described in RFC 1867 [15].
|
||
|
||
3.8 Product Tokens
|
||
|
||
Product tokens are used to allow communicating applications to
|
||
identify themselves by software name and version. Most fields using
|
||
product tokens also allow sub-products which form a significant part
|
||
of the application to be listed, separated by white space. By
|
||
convention, the products are listed in order of their significance
|
||
for identifying the application.
|
||
|
||
product = token ["/" product-version]
|
||
product-version = token
|
||
|
||
Examples:
|
||
|
||
User-Agent: CERN-LineMode/2.15 libwww/2.17b3
|
||
Server: Apache/0.8.4
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Product tokens SHOULD be short and to the point. They MUST NOT be
|
||
used for advertising or other non-essential information. Although any
|
||
token character MAY appear in a product-version, this token SHOULD
|
||
only be used for a version identifier (i.e., successive versions of
|
||
the same product SHOULD only differ in the product-version portion of
|
||
the product value).
|
||
|
||
3.9 Quality Values
|
||
|
||
HTTP content negotiation (section 12) uses short "floating point"
|
||
numbers to indicate the relative importance ("weight") of various
|
||
negotiable parameters. A weight is normalized to a real number in
|
||
the range 0 through 1, where 0 is the minimum and 1 the maximum
|
||
value. If a parameter has a quality value of 0, then content with
|
||
this parameter is `not acceptable' for the client. HTTP/1.1
|
||
applications MUST NOT generate more than three digits after the
|
||
decimal point. User configuration of these values SHOULD also be
|
||
limited in this fashion.
|
||
|
||
qvalue = ( "0" [ "." 0*3DIGIT ] )
|
||
| ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] )
|
||
|
||
"Quality values" is a misnomer, since these values merely represent
|
||
relative degradation in desired quality.
|
||
|
||
3.10 Language Tags
|
||
|
||
A language tag identifies a natural language spoken, written, or
|
||
otherwise conveyed by human beings for communication of information
|
||
to other human beings. Computer languages are explicitly excluded.
|
||
HTTP uses language tags within the Accept-Language and Content-
|
||
Language fields.
|
||
|
||
The syntax and registry of HTTP language tags is the same as that
|
||
defined by RFC 1766 [1]. In summary, a language tag is composed of 1
|
||
or more parts: A primary language tag and a possibly empty series of
|
||
subtags:
|
||
|
||
language-tag = primary-tag *( "-" subtag )
|
||
primary-tag = 1*8ALPHA
|
||
subtag = 1*8ALPHA
|
||
|
||
White space is not allowed within the tag and all tags are case-
|
||
insensitive. The name space of language tags is administered by the
|
||
IANA. Example tags include:
|
||
|
||
en, en-US, en-cockney, i-cherokee, x-pig-latin
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
where any two-letter primary-tag is an ISO-639 language abbreviation
|
||
and any two-letter initial subtag is an ISO-3166 country code. (The
|
||
last three tags above are not registered tags; all but the last are
|
||
examples of tags which could be registered in future.)
|
||
|
||
3.11 Entity Tags
|
||
|
||
Entity tags are used for comparing two or more entities from the same
|
||
requested resource. HTTP/1.1 uses entity tags in the ETag (section
|
||
14.19), If-Match (section 14.24), If-None-Match (section 14.26), and
|
||
If-Range (section 14.27) header fields. The definition of how they
|
||
are used and compared as cache validators is in section 13.3.3. An
|
||
entity tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by
|
||
a weakness indicator.
|
||
|
||
entity-tag = [ weak ] opaque-tag
|
||
weak = "W/"
|
||
opaque-tag = quoted-string
|
||
|
||
A "strong entity tag" MAY be shared by two entities of a resource
|
||
only if they are equivalent by octet equality.
|
||
|
||
A "weak entity tag," indicated by the "W/" prefix, MAY be shared by
|
||
two entities of a resource only if the entities are equivalent and
|
||
could be substituted for each other with no significant change in
|
||
semantics. A weak entity tag can only be used for weak comparison.
|
||
|
||
An entity tag MUST be unique across all versions of all entities
|
||
associated with a particular resource. A given entity tag value MAY
|
||
be used for entities obtained by requests on different URIs. The use
|
||
of the same entity tag value in conjunction with entities obtained by
|
||
requests on different URIs does not imply the equivalence of those
|
||
entities.
|
||
|
||
3.12 Range Units
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 allows a client to request that only part (a range of) the
|
||
response entity be included within the response. HTTP/1.1 uses range
|
||
units in the Range (section 14.35) and Content-Range (section 14.16)
|
||
header fields. An entity can be broken down into subranges according
|
||
to various structural units.
|
||
|
||
range-unit = bytes-unit | other-range-unit
|
||
bytes-unit = "bytes"
|
||
other-range-unit = token
|
||
|
||
The only range unit defined by HTTP/1.1 is "bytes". HTTP/1.1
|
||
implementations MAY ignore ranges specified using other units.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 has been designed to allow implementations of applications
|
||
that do not depend on knowledge of ranges.
|
||
|
||
4 HTTP Message
|
||
|
||
4.1 Message Types
|
||
|
||
HTTP messages consist of requests from client to server and responses
|
||
from server to client.
|
||
|
||
HTTP-message = Request | Response ; HTTP/1.1 messages
|
||
|
||
Request (section 5) and Response (section 6) messages use the generic
|
||
message format of RFC 822 [9] for transferring entities (the payload
|
||
of the message). Both types of message consist of a start-line, zero
|
||
or more header fields (also known as "headers"), an empty line (i.e.,
|
||
a line with nothing preceding the CRLF) indicating the end of the
|
||
header fields, and possibly a message-body.
|
||
|
||
generic-message = start-line
|
||
*(message-header CRLF)
|
||
CRLF
|
||
[ message-body ]
|
||
start-line = Request-Line | Status-Line
|
||
|
||
In the interest of robustness, servers SHOULD ignore any empty
|
||
line(s) received where a Request-Line is expected. In other words, if
|
||
the server is reading the protocol stream at the beginning of a
|
||
message and receives a CRLF first, it should ignore the CRLF.
|
||
|
||
Certain buggy HTTP/1.0 client implementations generate extra CRLF's
|
||
after a POST request. To restate what is explicitly forbidden by the
|
||
BNF, an HTTP/1.1 client MUST NOT preface or follow a request with an
|
||
extra CRLF.
|
||
|
||
4.2 Message Headers
|
||
|
||
HTTP header fields, which include general-header (section 4.5),
|
||
request-header (section 5.3), response-header (section 6.2), and
|
||
entity-header (section 7.1) fields, follow the same generic format as
|
||
that given in Section 3.1 of RFC 822 [9]. Each header field consists
|
||
of a name followed by a colon (":") and the field value. Field names
|
||
are case-insensitive. The field value MAY be preceded by any amount
|
||
of LWS, though a single SP is preferred. Header fields can be
|
||
extended over multiple lines by preceding each extra line with at
|
||
least one SP or HT. Applications ought to follow "common form", where
|
||
one is known or indicated, when generating HTTP constructs, since
|
||
there might exist some implementations that fail to accept anything
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
beyond the common forms.
|
||
|
||
message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ]
|
||
field-name = token
|
||
field-value = *( field-content | LWS )
|
||
field-content = <the OCTETs making up the field-value
|
||
and consisting of either *TEXT or combinations
|
||
of token, separators, and quoted-string>
|
||
|
||
The field-content does not include any leading or trailing LWS:
|
||
linear white space occurring before the first non-whitespace
|
||
character of the field-value or after the last non-whitespace
|
||
character of the field-value. Such leading or trailing LWS MAY be
|
||
removed without changing the semantics of the field value. Any LWS
|
||
that occurs between field-content MAY be replaced with a single SP
|
||
before interpreting the field value or forwarding the message
|
||
downstream.
|
||
|
||
The order in which header fields with differing field names are
|
||
received is not significant. However, it is "good practice" to send
|
||
general-header fields first, followed by request-header or response-
|
||
header fields, and ending with the entity-header fields.
|
||
|
||
Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MAY be
|
||
present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that
|
||
header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)].
|
||
It MUST be possible to combine the multiple header fields into one
|
||
"field-name: field-value" pair, without changing the semantics of the
|
||
message, by appending each subsequent field-value to the first, each
|
||
separated by a comma. The order in which header fields with the same
|
||
field-name are received is therefore significant to the
|
||
interpretation of the combined field value, and thus a proxy MUST NOT
|
||
change the order of these field values when a message is forwarded.
|
||
|
||
4.3 Message Body
|
||
|
||
The message-body (if any) of an HTTP message is used to carry the
|
||
entity-body associated with the request or response. The message-body
|
||
differs from the entity-body only when a transfer-coding has been
|
||
applied, as indicated by the Transfer-Encoding header field (section
|
||
14.41).
|
||
|
||
message-body = entity-body
|
||
| <entity-body encoded as per Transfer-Encoding>
|
||
|
||
Transfer-Encoding MUST be used to indicate any transfer-codings
|
||
applied by an application to ensure safe and proper transfer of the
|
||
message. Transfer-Encoding is a property of the message, not of the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
entity, and thus MAY be added or removed by any application along the
|
||
request/response chain. (However, section 3.6 places restrictions on
|
||
when certain transfer-codings may be used.)
|
||
|
||
The rules for when a message-body is allowed in a message differ for
|
||
requests and responses.
|
||
|
||
The presence of a message-body in a request is signaled by the
|
||
inclusion of a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header field in
|
||
the request's message-headers. A message-body MUST NOT be included in
|
||
a request if the specification of the request method (section 5.1.1)
|
||
does not allow sending an entity-body in requests. A server SHOULD
|
||
read and forward a message-body on any request; if the request method
|
||
does not include defined semantics for an entity-body, then the
|
||
message-body SHOULD be ignored when handling the request.
|
||
|
||
For response messages, whether or not a message-body is included with
|
||
a message is dependent on both the request method and the response
|
||
status code (section 6.1.1). All responses to the HEAD request method
|
||
MUST NOT include a message-body, even though the presence of entity-
|
||
header fields might lead one to believe they do. All 1xx
|
||
(informational), 204 (no content), and 304 (not modified) responses
|
||
MUST NOT include a message-body. All other responses do include a
|
||
message-body, although it MAY be of zero length.
|
||
|
||
4.4 Message Length
|
||
|
||
The transfer-length of a message is the length of the message-body as
|
||
it appears in the message; that is, after any transfer-codings have
|
||
been applied. When a message-body is included with a message, the
|
||
transfer-length of that body is determined by one of the following
|
||
(in order of precedence):
|
||
|
||
1.Any response message which "MUST NOT" include a message-body (such
|
||
as the 1xx, 204, and 304 responses and any response to a HEAD
|
||
request) is always terminated by the first empty line after the
|
||
header fields, regardless of the entity-header fields present in
|
||
the message.
|
||
|
||
2.If a Transfer-Encoding header field (section 14.41) is present and
|
||
has any value other than "identity", then the transfer-length is
|
||
defined by use of the "chunked" transfer-coding (section 3.6),
|
||
unless the message is terminated by closing the connection.
|
||
|
||
3.If a Content-Length header field (section 14.13) is present, its
|
||
decimal value in OCTETs represents both the entity-length and the
|
||
transfer-length. The Content-Length header field MUST NOT be sent
|
||
if these two lengths are different (i.e., if a Transfer-Encoding
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
header field is present). If a message is received with both a
|
||
Transfer-Encoding header field and a Content-Length header field,
|
||
the latter MUST be ignored.
|
||
|
||
4.If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the
|
||
ransfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-
|
||
elimiting media type defines the transfer-length. This media type
|
||
UST NOT be used unless the sender knows that the recipient can arse
|
||
it; the presence in a request of a Range header with ultiple byte-
|
||
range specifiers from a 1.1 client implies that the lient can parse
|
||
multipart/byteranges responses.
|
||
|
||
A range header might be forwarded by a 1.0 proxy that does not
|
||
understand multipart/byteranges; in this case the server MUST
|
||
delimit the message using methods defined in items 1,3 or 5 of
|
||
this section.
|
||
|
||
5.By the server closing the connection. (Closing the connection
|
||
cannot be used to indicate the end of a request body, since that
|
||
would leave no possibility for the server to send back a response.)
|
||
|
||
For compatibility with HTTP/1.0 applications, HTTP/1.1 requests
|
||
containing a message-body MUST include a valid Content-Length header
|
||
field unless the server is known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant. If a
|
||
request contains a message-body and a Content-Length is not given,
|
||
the server SHOULD respond with 400 (bad request) if it cannot
|
||
determine the length of the message, or with 411 (length required) if
|
||
it wishes to insist on receiving a valid Content-Length.
|
||
|
||
All HTTP/1.1 applications that receive entities MUST accept the
|
||
"chunked" transfer-coding (section 3.6), thus allowing this mechanism
|
||
to be used for messages when the message length cannot be determined
|
||
in advance.
|
||
|
||
Messages MUST NOT include both a Content-Length header field and a
|
||
non-identity transfer-coding. If the message does include a non-
|
||
identity transfer-coding, the Content-Length MUST be ignored.
|
||
|
||
When a Content-Length is given in a message where a message-body is
|
||
allowed, its field value MUST exactly match the number of OCTETs in
|
||
the message-body. HTTP/1.1 user agents MUST notify the user when an
|
||
invalid length is received and detected.
|
||
|
||
4.5 General Header Fields
|
||
|
||
There are a few header fields which have general applicability for
|
||
both request and response messages, but which do not apply to the
|
||
entity being transferred. These header fields apply only to the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
message being transmitted.
|
||
|
||
general-header = Cache-Control ; Section 14.9
|
||
| Connection ; Section 14.10
|
||
| Date ; Section 14.18
|
||
| Pragma ; Section 14.32
|
||
| Trailer ; Section 14.40
|
||
| Transfer-Encoding ; Section 14.41
|
||
| Upgrade ; Section 14.42
|
||
| Via ; Section 14.45
|
||
| Warning ; Section 14.46
|
||
|
||
General-header field names can be extended reliably only in
|
||
combination with a change in the protocol version. However, new or
|
||
experimental header fields may be given the semantics of general
|
||
header fields if all parties in the communication recognize them to
|
||
be general-header fields. Unrecognized header fields are treated as
|
||
entity-header fields.
|
||
|
||
5 Request
|
||
|
||
A request message from a client to a server includes, within the
|
||
first line of that message, the method to be applied to the resource,
|
||
the identifier of the resource, and the protocol version in use.
|
||
|
||
Request = Request-Line ; Section 5.1
|
||
*(( general-header ; Section 4.5
|
||
| request-header ; Section 5.3
|
||
| entity-header ) CRLF) ; Section 7.1
|
||
CRLF
|
||
[ message-body ] ; Section 4.3
|
||
|
||
5.1 Request-Line
|
||
|
||
The Request-Line begins with a method token, followed by the
|
||
Request-URI and the protocol version, and ending with CRLF. The
|
||
elements are separated by SP characters. No CR or LF is allowed
|
||
except in the final CRLF sequence.
|
||
|
||
Request-Line = Method SP Request-URI SP HTTP-Version CRLF
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.1.1 Method
|
||
|
||
The Method token indicates the method to be performed on the
|
||
resource identified by the Request-URI. The method is case-sensitive.
|
||
|
||
Method = "OPTIONS" ; Section 9.2
|
||
| "GET" ; Section 9.3
|
||
| "HEAD" ; Section 9.4
|
||
| "POST" ; Section 9.5
|
||
| "PUT" ; Section 9.6
|
||
| "DELETE" ; Section 9.7
|
||
| "TRACE" ; Section 9.8
|
||
| "CONNECT" ; Section 9.9
|
||
| extension-method
|
||
extension-method = token
|
||
|
||
The list of methods allowed by a resource can be specified in an
|
||
Allow header field (section 14.7). The return code of the response
|
||
always notifies the client whether a method is currently allowed on a
|
||
resource, since the set of allowed methods can change dynamically. An
|
||
origin server SHOULD return the status code 405 (Method Not Allowed)
|
||
if the method is known by the origin server but not allowed for the
|
||
requested resource, and 501 (Not Implemented) if the method is
|
||
unrecognized or not implemented by the origin server. The methods GET
|
||
and HEAD MUST be supported by all general-purpose servers. All other
|
||
methods are OPTIONAL; however, if the above methods are implemented,
|
||
they MUST be implemented with the same semantics as those specified
|
||
in section 9.
|
||
|
||
5.1.2 Request-URI
|
||
|
||
The Request-URI is a Uniform Resource Identifier (section 3.2) and
|
||
identifies the resource upon which to apply the request.
|
||
|
||
Request-URI = "*" | absoluteURI | abs_path | authority
|
||
|
||
The four options for Request-URI are dependent on the nature of the
|
||
request. The asterisk "*" means that the request does not apply to a
|
||
particular resource, but to the server itself, and is only allowed
|
||
when the method used does not necessarily apply to a resource. One
|
||
example would be
|
||
|
||
OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
|
||
|
||
The absoluteURI form is REQUIRED when the request is being made to a
|
||
proxy. The proxy is requested to forward the request or service it
|
||
from a valid cache, and return the response. Note that the proxy MAY
|
||
forward the request on to another proxy or directly to the server
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
specified by the absoluteURI. In order to avoid request loops, a
|
||
proxy MUST be able to recognize all of its server names, including
|
||
any aliases, local variations, and the numeric IP address. An example
|
||
Request-Line would be:
|
||
|
||
GET http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1
|
||
|
||
To allow for transition to absoluteURIs in all requests in future
|
||
versions of HTTP, all HTTP/1.1 servers MUST accept the absoluteURI
|
||
form in requests, even though HTTP/1.1 clients will only generate
|
||
them in requests to proxies.
|
||
|
||
The authority form is only used by the CONNECT method (section 9.9).
|
||
|
||
The most common form of Request-URI is that used to identify a
|
||
resource on an origin server or gateway. In this case the absolute
|
||
path of the URI MUST be transmitted (see section 3.2.1, abs_path) as
|
||
the Request-URI, and the network location of the URI (authority) MUST
|
||
be transmitted in a Host header field. For example, a client wishing
|
||
to retrieve the resource above directly from the origin server would
|
||
create a TCP connection to port 80 of the host "www.w3.org" and send
|
||
the lines:
|
||
|
||
GET /pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1
|
||
Host: www.w3.org
|
||
|
||
followed by the remainder of the Request. Note that the absolute path
|
||
cannot be empty; if none is present in the original URI, it MUST be
|
||
given as "/" (the server root).
|
||
|
||
The Request-URI is transmitted in the format specified in section
|
||
3.2.1. If the Request-URI is encoded using the "% HEX HEX" encoding
|
||
[42], the origin server MUST decode the Request-URI in order to
|
||
properly interpret the request. Servers SHOULD respond to invalid
|
||
Request-URIs with an appropriate status code.
|
||
|
||
A transparent proxy MUST NOT rewrite the "abs_path" part of the
|
||
received Request-URI when forwarding it to the next inbound server,
|
||
except as noted above to replace a null abs_path with "/".
|
||
|
||
Note: The "no rewrite" rule prevents the proxy from changing the
|
||
meaning of the request when the origin server is improperly using
|
||
a non-reserved URI character for a reserved purpose. Implementors
|
||
should be aware that some pre-HTTP/1.1 proxies have been known to
|
||
rewrite the Request-URI.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.2 The Resource Identified by a Request
|
||
|
||
The exact resource identified by an Internet request is determined by
|
||
examining both the Request-URI and the Host header field.
|
||
|
||
An origin server that does not allow resources to differ by the
|
||
requested host MAY ignore the Host header field value when
|
||
determining the resource identified by an HTTP/1.1 request. (But see
|
||
section 19.6.1.1 for other requirements on Host support in HTTP/1.1.)
|
||
|
||
An origin server that does differentiate resources based on the host
|
||
requested (sometimes referred to as virtual hosts or vanity host
|
||
names) MUST use the following rules for determining the requested
|
||
resource on an HTTP/1.1 request:
|
||
|
||
1. If Request-URI is an absoluteURI, the host is part of the
|
||
Request-URI. Any Host header field value in the request MUST be
|
||
ignored.
|
||
|
||
2. If the Request-URI is not an absoluteURI, and the request includes
|
||
a Host header field, the host is determined by the Host header
|
||
field value.
|
||
|
||
3. If the host as determined by rule 1 or 2 is not a valid host on
|
||
the server, the response MUST be a 400 (Bad Request) error message.
|
||
|
||
Recipients of an HTTP/1.0 request that lacks a Host header field MAY
|
||
attempt to use heuristics (e.g., examination of the URI path for
|
||
something unique to a particular host) in order to determine what
|
||
exact resource is being requested.
|
||
|
||
5.3 Request Header Fields
|
||
|
||
The request-header fields allow the client to pass additional
|
||
information about the request, and about the client itself, to the
|
||
server. These fields act as request modifiers, with semantics
|
||
equivalent to the parameters on a programming language method
|
||
invocation.
|
||
|
||
request-header = Accept ; Section 14.1
|
||
| Accept-Charset ; Section 14.2
|
||
| Accept-Encoding ; Section 14.3
|
||
| Accept-Language ; Section 14.4
|
||
| Authorization ; Section 14.8
|
||
| Expect ; Section 14.20
|
||
| From ; Section 14.22
|
||
| Host ; Section 14.23
|
||
| If-Match ; Section 14.24
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
| If-Modified-Since ; Section 14.25
|
||
| If-None-Match ; Section 14.26
|
||
| If-Range ; Section 14.27
|
||
| If-Unmodified-Since ; Section 14.28
|
||
| Max-Forwards ; Section 14.31
|
||
| Proxy-Authorization ; Section 14.34
|
||
| Range ; Section 14.35
|
||
| Referer ; Section 14.36
|
||
| TE ; Section 14.39
|
||
| User-Agent ; Section 14.43
|
||
|
||
Request-header field names can be extended reliably only in
|
||
combination with a change in the protocol version. However, new or
|
||
experimental header fields MAY be given the semantics of request-
|
||
header fields if all parties in the communication recognize them to
|
||
be request-header fields. Unrecognized header fields are treated as
|
||
entity-header fields.
|
||
|
||
6 Response
|
||
|
||
After receiving and interpreting a request message, a server responds
|
||
with an HTTP response message.
|
||
|
||
Response = Status-Line ; Section 6.1
|
||
*(( general-header ; Section 4.5
|
||
| response-header ; Section 6.2
|
||
| entity-header ) CRLF) ; Section 7.1
|
||
CRLF
|
||
[ message-body ] ; Section 7.2
|
||
|
||
6.1 Status-Line
|
||
|
||
The first line of a Response message is the Status-Line, consisting
|
||
of the protocol version followed by a numeric status code and its
|
||
associated textual phrase, with each element separated by SP
|
||
characters. No CR or LF is allowed except in the final CRLF sequence.
|
||
|
||
Status-Line = HTTP-Version SP Status-Code SP Reason-Phrase CRLF
|
||
|
||
6.1.1 Status Code and Reason Phrase
|
||
|
||
The Status-Code element is a 3-digit integer result code of the
|
||
attempt to understand and satisfy the request. These codes are fully
|
||
defined in section 10. The Reason-Phrase is intended to give a short
|
||
textual description of the Status-Code. The Status-Code is intended
|
||
for use by automata and the Reason-Phrase is intended for the human
|
||
user. The client is not required to examine or display the Reason-
|
||
Phrase.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The first digit of the Status-Code defines the class of response. The
|
||
last two digits do not have any categorization role. There are 5
|
||
values for the first digit:
|
||
|
||
- 1xx: Informational - Request received, continuing process
|
||
|
||
- 2xx: Success - The action was successfully received,
|
||
understood, and accepted
|
||
|
||
- 3xx: Redirection - Further action must be taken in order to
|
||
complete the request
|
||
|
||
- 4xx: Client Error - The request contains bad syntax or cannot
|
||
be fulfilled
|
||
|
||
- 5xx: Server Error - The server failed to fulfill an apparently
|
||
valid request
|
||
|
||
The individual values of the numeric status codes defined for
|
||
HTTP/1.1, and an example set of corresponding Reason-Phrase's, are
|
||
presented below. The reason phrases listed here are only
|
||
recommendations -- they MAY be replaced by local equivalents without
|
||
affecting the protocol.
|
||
|
||
Status-Code =
|
||
"100" ; Section 10.1.1: Continue
|
||
| "101" ; Section 10.1.2: Switching Protocols
|
||
| "200" ; Section 10.2.1: OK
|
||
| "201" ; Section 10.2.2: Created
|
||
| "202" ; Section 10.2.3: Accepted
|
||
| "203" ; Section 10.2.4: Non-Authoritative Information
|
||
| "204" ; Section 10.2.5: No Content
|
||
| "205" ; Section 10.2.6: Reset Content
|
||
| "206" ; Section 10.2.7: Partial Content
|
||
| "300" ; Section 10.3.1: Multiple Choices
|
||
| "301" ; Section 10.3.2: Moved Permanently
|
||
| "302" ; Section 10.3.3: Found
|
||
| "303" ; Section 10.3.4: See Other
|
||
| "304" ; Section 10.3.5: Not Modified
|
||
| "305" ; Section 10.3.6: Use Proxy
|
||
| "307" ; Section 10.3.8: Temporary Redirect
|
||
| "400" ; Section 10.4.1: Bad Request
|
||
| "401" ; Section 10.4.2: Unauthorized
|
||
| "402" ; Section 10.4.3: Payment Required
|
||
| "403" ; Section 10.4.4: Forbidden
|
||
| "404" ; Section 10.4.5: Not Found
|
||
| "405" ; Section 10.4.6: Method Not Allowed
|
||
| "406" ; Section 10.4.7: Not Acceptable
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
| "407" ; Section 10.4.8: Proxy Authentication Required
|
||
| "408" ; Section 10.4.9: Request Time-out
|
||
| "409" ; Section 10.4.10: Conflict
|
||
| "410" ; Section 10.4.11: Gone
|
||
| "411" ; Section 10.4.12: Length Required
|
||
| "412" ; Section 10.4.13: Precondition Failed
|
||
| "413" ; Section 10.4.14: Request Entity Too Large
|
||
| "414" ; Section 10.4.15: Request-URI Too Large
|
||
| "415" ; Section 10.4.16: Unsupported Media Type
|
||
| "416" ; Section 10.4.17: Requested range not satisfiable
|
||
| "417" ; Section 10.4.18: Expectation Failed
|
||
| "500" ; Section 10.5.1: Internal Server Error
|
||
| "501" ; Section 10.5.2: Not Implemented
|
||
| "502" ; Section 10.5.3: Bad Gateway
|
||
| "503" ; Section 10.5.4: Service Unavailable
|
||
| "504" ; Section 10.5.5: Gateway Time-out
|
||
| "505" ; Section 10.5.6: HTTP Version not supported
|
||
| extension-code
|
||
|
||
extension-code = 3DIGIT
|
||
Reason-Phrase = *<TEXT, excluding CR, LF>
|
||
|
||
HTTP status codes are extensible. HTTP applications are not required
|
||
to understand the meaning of all registered status codes, though such
|
||
understanding is obviously desirable. However, applications MUST
|
||
understand the class of any status code, as indicated by the first
|
||
digit, and treat any unrecognized response as being equivalent to the
|
||
x00 status code of that class, with the exception that an
|
||
unrecognized response MUST NOT be cached. For example, if an
|
||
unrecognized status code of 431 is received by the client, it can
|
||
safely assume that there was something wrong with its request and
|
||
treat the response as if it had received a 400 status code. In such
|
||
cases, user agents SHOULD present to the user the entity returned
|
||
with the response, since that entity is likely to include human-
|
||
readable information which will explain the unusual status.
|
||
|
||
6.2 Response Header Fields
|
||
|
||
The response-header fields allow the server to pass additional
|
||
information about the response which cannot be placed in the Status-
|
||
Line. These header fields give information about the server and about
|
||
further access to the resource identified by the Request-URI.
|
||
|
||
response-header = Accept-Ranges ; Section 14.5
|
||
| Age ; Section 14.6
|
||
| ETag ; Section 14.19
|
||
| Location ; Section 14.30
|
||
| Proxy-Authenticate ; Section 14.33
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Retry-After ; Section 14.37
|
||
| Server ; Section 14.38
|
||
| Vary ; Section 14.44
|
||
| WWW-Authenticate ; Section 14.47
|
||
|
||
Response-header field names can be extended reliably only in
|
||
combination with a change in the protocol version. However, new or
|
||
experimental header fields MAY be given the semantics of response-
|
||
header fields if all parties in the communication recognize them to
|
||
be response-header fields. Unrecognized header fields are treated as
|
||
entity-header fields.
|
||
|
||
7 Entity
|
||
|
||
Request and Response messages MAY transfer an entity if not otherwise
|
||
restricted by the request method or response status code. An entity
|
||
consists of entity-header fields and an entity-body, although some
|
||
responses will only include the entity-headers.
|
||
|
||
In this section, both sender and recipient refer to either the client
|
||
or the server, depending on who sends and who receives the entity.
|
||
|
||
7.1 Entity Header Fields
|
||
|
||
Entity-header fields define metainformation about the entity-body or,
|
||
if no body is present, about the resource identified by the request.
|
||
Some of this metainformation is OPTIONAL; some might be REQUIRED by
|
||
portions of this specification.
|
||
|
||
entity-header = Allow ; Section 14.7
|
||
| Content-Encoding ; Section 14.11
|
||
| Content-Language ; Section 14.12
|
||
| Content-Length ; Section 14.13
|
||
| Content-Location ; Section 14.14
|
||
| Content-MD5 ; Section 14.15
|
||
| Content-Range ; Section 14.16
|
||
| Content-Type ; Section 14.17
|
||
| Expires ; Section 14.21
|
||
| Last-Modified ; Section 14.29
|
||
| extension-header
|
||
|
||
extension-header = message-header
|
||
|
||
The extension-header mechanism allows additional entity-header fields
|
||
to be defined without changing the protocol, but these fields cannot
|
||
be assumed to be recognizable by the recipient. Unrecognized header
|
||
fields SHOULD be ignored by the recipient and MUST be forwarded by
|
||
transparent proxies.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.2 Entity Body
|
||
|
||
The entity-body (if any) sent with an HTTP request or response is in
|
||
a format and encoding defined by the entity-header fields.
|
||
|
||
entity-body = *OCTET
|
||
|
||
An entity-body is only present in a message when a message-body is
|
||
present, as described in section 4.3. The entity-body is obtained
|
||
from the message-body by decoding any Transfer-Encoding that might
|
||
have been applied to ensure safe and proper transfer of the message.
|
||
|
||
7.2.1 Type
|
||
|
||
When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that
|
||
body is determined via the header fields Content-Type and Content-
|
||
Encoding. These define a two-layer, ordered encoding model:
|
||
|
||
entity-body := Content-Encoding( Content-Type( data ) )
|
||
|
||
Content-Type specifies the media type of the underlying data.
|
||
Content-Encoding may be used to indicate any additional content
|
||
codings applied to the data, usually for the purpose of data
|
||
compression, that are a property of the requested resource. There is
|
||
no default encoding.
|
||
|
||
Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a
|
||
Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If
|
||
and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the
|
||
recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its
|
||
content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the
|
||
resource. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient SHOULD
|
||
treat it as type "application/octet-stream".
|
||
|
||
7.2.2 Entity Length
|
||
|
||
The entity-length of a message is the length of the message-body
|
||
before any transfer-codings have been applied. Section 4.4 defines
|
||
how the transfer-length of a message-body is determined.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
8 Connections
|
||
|
||
8.1 Persistent Connections
|
||
|
||
8.1.1 Purpose
|
||
|
||
Prior to persistent connections, a separate TCP connection was
|
||
established to fetch each URL, increasing the load on HTTP servers
|
||
and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and
|
||
other associated data often require a client to make multiple
|
||
requests of the same server in a short amount of time. Analysis of
|
||
these performance problems and results from a prototype
|
||
implementation are available [26] [30]. Implementation experience and
|
||
measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2068) implementations show good
|
||
results [39]. Alternatives have also been explored, for example,
|
||
T/TCP [27].
|
||
|
||
Persistent HTTP connections have a number of advantages:
|
||
|
||
- By opening and closing fewer TCP connections, CPU time is saved
|
||
in routers and hosts (clients, servers, proxies, gateways,
|
||
tunnels, or caches), and memory used for TCP protocol control
|
||
blocks can be saved in hosts.
|
||
|
||
- HTTP requests and responses can be pipelined on a connection.
|
||
Pipelining allows a client to make multiple requests without
|
||
waiting for each response, allowing a single TCP connection to
|
||
be used much more efficiently, with much lower elapsed time.
|
||
|
||
- Network congestion is reduced by reducing the number of packets
|
||
caused by TCP opens, and by allowing TCP sufficient time to
|
||
determine the congestion state of the network.
|
||
|
||
- Latency on subsequent requests is reduced since there is no time
|
||
spent in TCP's connection opening handshake.
|
||
|
||
- HTTP can evolve more gracefully, since errors can be reported
|
||
without the penalty of closing the TCP connection. Clients using
|
||
future versions of HTTP might optimistically try a new feature,
|
||
but if communicating with an older server, retry with old
|
||
semantics after an error is reported.
|
||
|
||
HTTP implementations SHOULD implement persistent connections.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
8.1.2 Overall Operation
|
||
|
||
A significant difference between HTTP/1.1 and earlier versions of
|
||
HTTP is that persistent connections are the default behavior of any
|
||
HTTP connection. That is, unless otherwise indicated, the client
|
||
SHOULD assume that the server will maintain a persistent connection,
|
||
even after error responses from the server.
|
||
|
||
Persistent connections provide a mechanism by which a client and a
|
||
server can signal the close of a TCP connection. This signaling takes
|
||
place using the Connection header field (section 14.10). Once a close
|
||
has been signaled, the client MUST NOT send any more requests on that
|
||
connection.
|
||
|
||
8.1.2.1 Negotiation
|
||
|
||
An HTTP/1.1 server MAY assume that a HTTP/1.1 client intends to
|
||
maintain a persistent connection unless a Connection header including
|
||
the connection-token "close" was sent in the request. If the server
|
||
chooses to close the connection immediately after sending the
|
||
response, it SHOULD send a Connection header including the
|
||
connection-token close.
|
||
|
||
An HTTP/1.1 client MAY expect a connection to remain open, but would
|
||
decide to keep it open based on whether the response from a server
|
||
contains a Connection header with the connection-token close. In case
|
||
the client does not want to maintain a connection for more than that
|
||
request, it SHOULD send a Connection header including the
|
||
connection-token close.
|
||
|
||
If either the client or the server sends the close token in the
|
||
Connection header, that request becomes the last one for the
|
||
connection.
|
||
|
||
Clients and servers SHOULD NOT assume that a persistent connection is
|
||
maintained for HTTP versions less than 1.1 unless it is explicitly
|
||
signaled. See section 19.6.2 for more information on backward
|
||
compatibility with HTTP/1.0 clients.
|
||
|
||
In order to remain persistent, all messages on the connection MUST
|
||
have a self-defined message length (i.e., one not defined by closure
|
||
of the connection), as described in section 4.4.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
8.1.2.2 Pipelining
|
||
|
||
A client that supports persistent connections MAY "pipeline" its
|
||
requests (i.e., send multiple requests without waiting for each
|
||
response). A server MUST send its responses to those requests in the
|
||
same order that the requests were received.
|
||
|
||
Clients which assume persistent connections and pipeline immediately
|
||
after connection establishment SHOULD be prepared to retry their
|
||
connection if the first pipelined attempt fails. If a client does
|
||
such a retry, it MUST NOT pipeline before it knows the connection is
|
||
persistent. Clients MUST also be prepared to resend their requests if
|
||
the server closes the connection before sending all of the
|
||
corresponding responses.
|
||
|
||
Clients SHOULD NOT pipeline requests using non-idempotent methods or
|
||
non-idempotent sequences of methods (see section 9.1.2). Otherwise, a
|
||
premature termination of the transport connection could lead to
|
||
indeterminate results. A client wishing to send a non-idempotent
|
||
request SHOULD wait to send that request until it has received the
|
||
response status for the previous request.
|
||
|
||
8.1.3 Proxy Servers
|
||
|
||
It is especially important that proxies correctly implement the
|
||
properties of the Connection header field as specified in section
|
||
14.10.
|
||
|
||
The proxy server MUST signal persistent connections separately with
|
||
its clients and the origin servers (or other proxy servers) that it
|
||
connects to. Each persistent connection applies to only one transport
|
||
link.
|
||
|
||
A proxy server MUST NOT establish a HTTP/1.1 persistent connection
|
||
with an HTTP/1.0 client (but see RFC 2068 [33] for information and
|
||
discussion of the problems with the Keep-Alive header implemented by
|
||
many HTTP/1.0 clients).
|
||
|
||
8.1.4 Practical Considerations
|
||
|
||
Servers will usually have some time-out value beyond which they will
|
||
no longer maintain an inactive connection. Proxy servers might make
|
||
this a higher value since it is likely that the client will be making
|
||
more connections through the same server. The use of persistent
|
||
connections places no requirements on the length (or existence) of
|
||
this time-out for either the client or the server.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
When a client or server wishes to time-out it SHOULD issue a graceful
|
||
close on the transport connection. Clients and servers SHOULD both
|
||
constantly watch for the other side of the transport close, and
|
||
respond to it as appropriate. If a client or server does not detect
|
||
the other side's close promptly it could cause unnecessary resource
|
||
drain on the network.
|
||
|
||
A client, server, or proxy MAY close the transport connection at any
|
||
time. For example, a client might have started to send a new request
|
||
at the same time that the server has decided to close the "idle"
|
||
connection. From the server's point of view, the connection is being
|
||
closed while it was idle, but from the client's point of view, a
|
||
request is in progress.
|
||
|
||
This means that clients, servers, and proxies MUST be able to recover
|
||
from asynchronous close events. Client software SHOULD reopen the
|
||
transport connection and retransmit the aborted sequence of requests
|
||
without user interaction so long as the request sequence is
|
||
idempotent (see section 9.1.2). Non-idempotent methods or sequences
|
||
MUST NOT be automatically retried, although user agents MAY offer a
|
||
human operator the choice of retrying the request(s). Confirmation by
|
||
user-agent software with semantic understanding of the application
|
||
MAY substitute for user confirmation. The automatic retry SHOULD NOT
|
||
be repeated if the second sequence of requests fails.
|
||
|
||
Servers SHOULD always respond to at least one request per connection,
|
||
if at all possible. Servers SHOULD NOT close a connection in the
|
||
middle of transmitting a response, unless a network or client failure
|
||
is suspected.
|
||
|
||
Clients that use persistent connections SHOULD limit the number of
|
||
simultaneous connections that they maintain to a given server. A
|
||
single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2 connections with
|
||
any server or proxy. A proxy SHOULD use up to 2*N connections to
|
||
another server or proxy, where N is the number of simultaneously
|
||
active users. These guidelines are intended to improve HTTP response
|
||
times and avoid congestion.
|
||
|
||
8.2 Message Transmission Requirements
|
||
|
||
8.2.1 Persistent Connections and Flow Control
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 servers SHOULD maintain persistent connections and use TCP's
|
||
flow control mechanisms to resolve temporary overloads, rather than
|
||
terminating connections with the expectation that clients will retry.
|
||
The latter technique can exacerbate network congestion.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
8.2.2 Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages
|
||
|
||
An HTTP/1.1 (or later) client sending a message-body SHOULD monitor
|
||
the network connection for an error status while it is transmitting
|
||
the request. If the client sees an error status, it SHOULD
|
||
immediately cease transmitting the body. If the body is being sent
|
||
using a "chunked" encoding (section 3.6), a zero length chunk and
|
||
empty trailer MAY be used to prematurely mark the end of the message.
|
||
If the body was preceded by a Content-Length header, the client MUST
|
||
close the connection.
|
||
|
||
8.2.3 Use of the 100 (Continue) Status
|
||
|
||
The purpose of the 100 (Continue) status (see section 10.1.1) is to
|
||
allow a client that is sending a request message with a request body
|
||
to determine if the origin server is willing to accept the request
|
||
(based on the request headers) before the client sends the request
|
||
body. In some cases, it might either be inappropriate or highly
|
||
inefficient for the client to send the body if the server will reject
|
||
the message without looking at the body.
|
||
|
||
Requirements for HTTP/1.1 clients:
|
||
|
||
- If a client will wait for a 100 (Continue) response before
|
||
sending the request body, it MUST send an Expect request-header
|
||
field (section 14.20) with the "100-continue" expectation.
|
||
|
||
- A client MUST NOT send an Expect request-header field (section
|
||
14.20) with the "100-continue" expectation if it does not intend
|
||
to send a request body.
|
||
|
||
Because of the presence of older implementations, the protocol allows
|
||
ambiguous situations in which a client may send "Expect: 100-
|
||
continue" without receiving either a 417 (Expectation Failed) status
|
||
or a 100 (Continue) status. Therefore, when a client sends this
|
||
header field to an origin server (possibly via a proxy) from which it
|
||
has never seen a 100 (Continue) status, the client SHOULD NOT wait
|
||
for an indefinite period before sending the request body.
|
||
|
||
Requirements for HTTP/1.1 origin servers:
|
||
|
||
- Upon receiving a request which includes an Expect request-header
|
||
field with the "100-continue" expectation, an origin server MUST
|
||
either respond with 100 (Continue) status and continue to read
|
||
from the input stream, or respond with a final status code. The
|
||
origin server MUST NOT wait for the request body before sending
|
||
the 100 (Continue) response. If it responds with a final status
|
||
code, it MAY close the transport connection or it MAY continue
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
to read and discard the rest of the request. It MUST NOT
|
||
perform the requested method if it returns a final status code.
|
||
|
||
- An origin server SHOULD NOT send a 100 (Continue) response if
|
||
the request message does not include an Expect request-header
|
||
field with the "100-continue" expectation, and MUST NOT send a
|
||
100 (Continue) response if such a request comes from an HTTP/1.0
|
||
(or earlier) client. There is an exception to this rule: for
|
||
compatibility with RFC 2068, a server MAY send a 100 (Continue)
|
||
status in response to an HTTP/1.1 PUT or POST request that does
|
||
not include an Expect request-header field with the "100-
|
||
continue" expectation. This exception, the purpose of which is
|
||
to minimize any client processing delays associated with an
|
||
undeclared wait for 100 (Continue) status, applies only to
|
||
HTTP/1.1 requests, and not to requests with any other HTTP-
|
||
version value.
|
||
|
||
- An origin server MAY omit a 100 (Continue) response if it has
|
||
already received some or all of the request body for the
|
||
corresponding request.
|
||
|
||
- An origin server that sends a 100 (Continue) response MUST
|
||
ultimately send a final status code, once the request body is
|
||
received and processed, unless it terminates the transport
|
||
connection prematurely.
|
||
|
||
- If an origin server receives a request that does not include an
|
||
Expect request-header field with the "100-continue" expectation,
|
||
the request includes a request body, and the server responds
|
||
with a final status code before reading the entire request body
|
||
from the transport connection, then the server SHOULD NOT close
|
||
the transport connection until it has read the entire request,
|
||
or until the client closes the connection. Otherwise, the client
|
||
might not reliably receive the response message. However, this
|
||
requirement is not be construed as preventing a server from
|
||
defending itself against denial-of-service attacks, or from
|
||
badly broken client implementations.
|
||
|
||
Requirements for HTTP/1.1 proxies:
|
||
|
||
- If a proxy receives a request that includes an Expect request-
|
||
header field with the "100-continue" expectation, and the proxy
|
||
either knows that the next-hop server complies with HTTP/1.1 or
|
||
higher, or does not know the HTTP version of the next-hop
|
||
server, it MUST forward the request, including the Expect header
|
||
field.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
- If the proxy knows that the version of the next-hop server is
|
||
HTTP/1.0 or lower, it MUST NOT forward the request, and it MUST
|
||
respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status.
|
||
|
||
- Proxies SHOULD maintain a cache recording the HTTP version
|
||
numbers received from recently-referenced next-hop servers.
|
||
|
||
- A proxy MUST NOT forward a 100 (Continue) response if the
|
||
request message was received from an HTTP/1.0 (or earlier)
|
||
client and did not include an Expect request-header field with
|
||
the "100-continue" expectation. This requirement overrides the
|
||
general rule for forwarding of 1xx responses (see section 10.1).
|
||
|
||
8.2.4 Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes Connection
|
||
|
||
If an HTTP/1.1 client sends a request which includes a request body,
|
||
but which does not include an Expect request-header field with the
|
||
"100-continue" expectation, and if the client is not directly
|
||
connected to an HTTP/1.1 origin server, and if the client sees the
|
||
connection close before receiving any status from the server, the
|
||
client SHOULD retry the request. If the client does retry this
|
||
request, it MAY use the following "binary exponential backoff"
|
||
algorithm to be assured of obtaining a reliable response:
|
||
|
||
1. Initiate a new connection to the server
|
||
|
||
2. Transmit the request-headers
|
||
|
||
3. Initialize a variable R to the estimated round-trip time to the
|
||
server (e.g., based on the time it took to establish the
|
||
connection), or to a constant value of 5 seconds if the round-
|
||
trip time is not available.
|
||
|
||
4. Compute T = R * (2**N), where N is the number of previous
|
||
retries of this request.
|
||
|
||
5. Wait either for an error response from the server, or for T
|
||
seconds (whichever comes first)
|
||
|
||
6. If no error response is received, after T seconds transmit the
|
||
body of the request.
|
||
|
||
7. If client sees that the connection is closed prematurely,
|
||
repeat from step 1 until the request is accepted, an error
|
||
response is received, or the user becomes impatient and
|
||
terminates the retry process.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If at any point an error status is received, the client
|
||
|
||
- SHOULD NOT continue and
|
||
|
||
- SHOULD close the connection if it has not completed sending the
|
||
request message.
|
||
|
||
9 Method Definitions
|
||
|
||
The set of common methods for HTTP/1.1 is defined below. Although
|
||
this set can be expanded, additional methods cannot be assumed to
|
||
share the same semantics for separately extended clients and servers.
|
||
|
||
The Host request-header field (section 14.23) MUST accompany all
|
||
HTTP/1.1 requests.
|
||
|
||
9.1 Safe and Idempotent Methods
|
||
|
||
9.1.1 Safe Methods
|
||
|
||
Implementors should be aware that the software represents the user in
|
||
their interactions over the Internet, and should be careful to allow
|
||
the user to be aware of any actions they might take which may have an
|
||
unexpected significance to themselves or others.
|
||
|
||
In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
|
||
HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action
|
||
other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe".
|
||
This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT
|
||
and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the
|
||
fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
|
||
|
||
Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not
|
||
generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; in
|
||
fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important
|
||
distinction here is that the user did not request the side-effects,
|
||
so therefore cannot be held accountable for them.
|
||
|
||
9.1.2 Idempotent Methods
|
||
|
||
Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside
|
||
from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical
|
||
requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD,
|
||
PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, the methods OPTIONS and
|
||
TRACE SHOULD NOT have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
However, it is possible that a sequence of several requests is non-
|
||
idempotent, even if all of the methods executed in that sequence are
|
||
idempotent. (A sequence is idempotent if a single execution of the
|
||
entire sequence always yields a result that is not changed by a
|
||
reexecution of all, or part, of that sequence.) For example, a
|
||
sequence is non-idempotent if its result depends on a value that is
|
||
later modified in the same sequence.
|
||
|
||
A sequence that never has side effects is idempotent, by definition
|
||
(provided that no concurrent operations are being executed on the
|
||
same set of resources).
|
||
|
||
9.2 OPTIONS
|
||
|
||
The OPTIONS method represents a request for information about the
|
||
communication options available on the request/response chain
|
||
identified by the Request-URI. This method allows the client to
|
||
determine the options and/or requirements associated with a resource,
|
||
or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action
|
||
or initiating a resource retrieval.
|
||
|
||
Responses to this method are not cacheable.
|
||
|
||
If the OPTIONS request includes an entity-body (as indicated by the
|
||
presence of Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding), then the media type
|
||
MUST be indicated by a Content-Type field. Although this
|
||
specification does not define any use for such a body, future
|
||
extensions to HTTP might use the OPTIONS body to make more detailed
|
||
queries on the server. A server that does not support such an
|
||
extension MAY discard the request body.
|
||
|
||
If the Request-URI is an asterisk ("*"), the OPTIONS request is
|
||
intended to apply to the server in general rather than to a specific
|
||
resource. Since a server's communication options typically depend on
|
||
the resource, the "*" request is only useful as a "ping" or "no-op"
|
||
type of method; it does nothing beyond allowing the client to test
|
||
the capabilities of the server. For example, this can be used to test
|
||
a proxy for HTTP/1.1 compliance (or lack thereof).
|
||
|
||
If the Request-URI is not an asterisk, the OPTIONS request applies
|
||
only to the options that are available when communicating with that
|
||
resource.
|
||
|
||
A 200 response SHOULD include any header fields that indicate
|
||
optional features implemented by the server and applicable to that
|
||
resource (e.g., Allow), possibly including extensions not defined by
|
||
this specification. The response body, if any, SHOULD also include
|
||
information about the communication options. The format for such a
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
body is not defined by this specification, but might be defined by
|
||
future extensions to HTTP. Content negotiation MAY be used to select
|
||
the appropriate response format. If no response body is included, the
|
||
response MUST include a Content-Length field with a field-value of
|
||
"0".
|
||
|
||
The Max-Forwards request-header field MAY be used to target a
|
||
specific proxy in the request chain. When a proxy receives an OPTIONS
|
||
request on an absoluteURI for which request forwarding is permitted,
|
||
the proxy MUST check for a Max-Forwards field. If the Max-Forwards
|
||
field-value is zero ("0"), the proxy MUST NOT forward the message;
|
||
instead, the proxy SHOULD respond with its own communication options.
|
||
If the Max-Forwards field-value is an integer greater than zero, the
|
||
proxy MUST decrement the field-value when it forwards the request. If
|
||
no Max-Forwards field is present in the request, then the forwarded
|
||
request MUST NOT include a Max-Forwards field.
|
||
|
||
9.3 GET
|
||
|
||
The GET method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of an
|
||
entity) is identified by the Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers
|
||
to a data-producing process, it is the produced data which shall be
|
||
returned as the entity in the response and not the source text of the
|
||
process, unless that text happens to be the output of the process.
|
||
|
||
The semantics of the GET method change to a "conditional GET" if the
|
||
request message includes an If-Modified-Since, If-Unmodified-Since,
|
||
If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range header field. A conditional GET
|
||
method requests that the entity be transferred only under the
|
||
circumstances described by the conditional header field(s). The
|
||
conditional GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary network
|
||
usage by allowing cached entities to be refreshed without requiring
|
||
multiple requests or transferring data already held by the client.
|
||
|
||
The semantics of the GET method change to a "partial GET" if the
|
||
request message includes a Range header field. A partial GET requests
|
||
that only part of the entity be transferred, as described in section
|
||
14.35. The partial GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary
|
||
network usage by allowing partially-retrieved entities to be
|
||
completed without transferring data already held by the client.
|
||
|
||
The response to a GET request is cacheable if and only if it meets
|
||
the requirements for HTTP caching described in section 13.
|
||
|
||
See section 15.1.3 for security considerations when used for forms.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
9.4 HEAD
|
||
|
||
The HEAD method is identical to GET except that the server MUST NOT
|
||
return a message-body in the response. The metainformation contained
|
||
in the HTTP headers in response to a HEAD request SHOULD be identical
|
||
to the information sent in response to a GET request. This method can
|
||
be used for obtaining metainformation about the entity implied by the
|
||
request without transferring the entity-body itself. This method is
|
||
often used for testing hypertext links for validity, accessibility,
|
||
and recent modification.
|
||
|
||
The response to a HEAD request MAY be cacheable in the sense that the
|
||
information contained in the response MAY be used to update a
|
||
previously cached entity from that resource. If the new field values
|
||
indicate that the cached entity differs from the current entity (as
|
||
would be indicated by a change in Content-Length, Content-MD5, ETag
|
||
or Last-Modified), then the cache MUST treat the cache entry as
|
||
stale.
|
||
|
||
9.5 POST
|
||
|
||
The POST method is used to request that the origin server accept the
|
||
entity enclosed in the request as a new subordinate of the resource
|
||
identified by the Request-URI in the Request-Line. POST is designed
|
||
to allow a uniform method to cover the following functions:
|
||
|
||
- Annotation of existing resources;
|
||
|
||
- Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list,
|
||
or similar group of articles;
|
||
|
||
- Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a
|
||
form, to a data-handling process;
|
||
|
||
- Extending a database through an append operation.
|
||
|
||
The actual function performed by the POST method is determined by the
|
||
server and is usually dependent on the Request-URI. The posted entity
|
||
is subordinate to that URI in the same way that a file is subordinate
|
||
to a directory containing it, a news article is subordinate to a
|
||
newsgroup to which it is posted, or a record is subordinate to a
|
||
database.
|
||
|
||
The action performed by the POST method might not result in a
|
||
resource that can be identified by a URI. In this case, either 200
|
||
(OK) or 204 (No Content) is the appropriate response status,
|
||
depending on whether or not the response includes an entity that
|
||
describes the result.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response
|
||
SHOULD be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the
|
||
status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a Location
|
||
header (see section 14.30).
|
||
|
||
Responses to this method are not cacheable, unless the response
|
||
includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields. However,
|
||
the 303 (See Other) response can be used to direct the user agent to
|
||
retrieve a cacheable resource.
|
||
|
||
POST requests MUST obey the message transmission requirements set out
|
||
in section 8.2.
|
||
|
||
See section 15.1.3 for security considerations.
|
||
|
||
9.6 PUT
|
||
|
||
The PUT method requests that the enclosed entity be stored under the
|
||
supplied Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers to an already
|
||
existing resource, the enclosed entity SHOULD be considered as a
|
||
modified version of the one residing on the origin server. If the
|
||
Request-URI does not point to an existing resource, and that URI is
|
||
capable of being defined as a new resource by the requesting user
|
||
agent, the origin server can create the resource with that URI. If a
|
||
new resource is created, the origin server MUST inform the user agent
|
||
via the 201 (Created) response. If an existing resource is modified,
|
||
either the 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) response codes SHOULD be sent
|
||
to indicate successful completion of the request. If the resource
|
||
could not be created or modified with the Request-URI, an appropriate
|
||
error response SHOULD be given that reflects the nature of the
|
||
problem. The recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-*
|
||
(e.g. Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement
|
||
and MUST return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases.
|
||
|
||
If the request passes through a cache and the Request-URI identifies
|
||
one or more currently cached entities, those entries SHOULD be
|
||
treated as stale. Responses to this method are not cacheable.
|
||
|
||
The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is
|
||
reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a
|
||
POST request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed
|
||
entity. That resource might be a data-accepting process, a gateway to
|
||
some other protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations.
|
||
In contrast, the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed
|
||
with the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the
|
||
server MUST NOT attempt to apply the request to some other resource.
|
||
If the server desires that the request be applied to a different URI,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
it MUST send a 301 (Moved Permanently) response; the user agent MAY
|
||
then make its own decision regarding whether or not to redirect the
|
||
request.
|
||
|
||
A single resource MAY be identified by many different URIs. For
|
||
example, an article might have a URI for identifying "the current
|
||
version" which is separate from the URI identifying each particular
|
||
version. In this case, a PUT request on a general URI might result in
|
||
several other URIs being defined by the origin server.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an
|
||
origin server.
|
||
|
||
PUT requests MUST obey the message transmission requirements set out
|
||
in section 8.2.
|
||
|
||
Unless otherwise specified for a particular entity-header, the
|
||
entity-headers in the PUT request SHOULD be applied to the resource
|
||
created or modified by the PUT.
|
||
|
||
9.7 DELETE
|
||
|
||
The DELETE method requests that the origin server delete the resource
|
||
identified by the Request-URI. This method MAY be overridden by human
|
||
intervention (or other means) on the origin server. The client cannot
|
||
be guaranteed that the operation has been carried out, even if the
|
||
status code returned from the origin server indicates that the action
|
||
has been completed successfully. However, the server SHOULD NOT
|
||
indicate success unless, at the time the response is given, it
|
||
intends to delete the resource or move it to an inaccessible
|
||
location.
|
||
|
||
A successful response SHOULD be 200 (OK) if the response includes an
|
||
entity describing the status, 202 (Accepted) if the action has not
|
||
yet been enacted, or 204 (No Content) if the action has been enacted
|
||
but the response does not include an entity.
|
||
|
||
If the request passes through a cache and the Request-URI identifies
|
||
one or more currently cached entities, those entries SHOULD be
|
||
treated as stale. Responses to this method are not cacheable.
|
||
|
||
9.8 TRACE
|
||
|
||
The TRACE method is used to invoke a remote, application-layer loop-
|
||
back of the request message. The final recipient of the request
|
||
SHOULD reflect the message received back to the client as the
|
||
entity-body of a 200 (OK) response. The final recipient is either the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
origin server or the first proxy or gateway to receive a Max-Forwards
|
||
value of zero (0) in the request (see section 14.31). A TRACE request
|
||
MUST NOT include an entity.
|
||
|
||
TRACE allows the client to see what is being received at the other
|
||
end of the request chain and use that data for testing or diagnostic
|
||
information. The value of the Via header field (section 14.45) is of
|
||
particular interest, since it acts as a trace of the request chain.
|
||
Use of the Max-Forwards header field allows the client to limit the
|
||
length of the request chain, which is useful for testing a chain of
|
||
proxies forwarding messages in an infinite loop.
|
||
|
||
If the request is valid, the response SHOULD contain the entire
|
||
request message in the entity-body, with a Content-Type of
|
||
"message/http". Responses to this method MUST NOT be cached.
|
||
|
||
9.9 CONNECT
|
||
|
||
This specification reserves the method name CONNECT for use with a
|
||
proxy that can dynamically switch to being a tunnel (e.g. SSL
|
||
tunneling [44]).
|
||
|
||
10 Status Code Definitions
|
||
|
||
Each Status-Code is described below, including a description of which
|
||
method(s) it can follow and any metainformation required in the
|
||
response.
|
||
|
||
10.1 Informational 1xx
|
||
|
||
This class of status code indicates a provisional response,
|
||
consisting only of the Status-Line and optional headers, and is
|
||
terminated by an empty line. There are no required headers for this
|
||
class of status code. Since HTTP/1.0 did not define any 1xx status
|
||
codes, servers MUST NOT send a 1xx response to an HTTP/1.0 client
|
||
except under experimental conditions.
|
||
|
||
A client MUST be prepared to accept one or more 1xx status responses
|
||
prior to a regular response, even if the client does not expect a 100
|
||
(Continue) status message. Unexpected 1xx status responses MAY be
|
||
ignored by a user agent.
|
||
|
||
Proxies MUST forward 1xx responses, unless the connection between the
|
||
proxy and its client has been closed, or unless the proxy itself
|
||
requested the generation of the 1xx response. (For example, if a
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
proxy adds a "Expect: 100-continue" field when it forwards a request,
|
||
then it need not forward the corresponding 100 (Continue)
|
||
response(s).)
|
||
|
||
10.1.1 100 Continue
|
||
|
||
The client SHOULD continue with its request. This interim response is
|
||
used to inform the client that the initial part of the request has
|
||
been received and has not yet been rejected by the server. The client
|
||
SHOULD continue by sending the remainder of the request or, if the
|
||
request has already been completed, ignore this response. The server
|
||
MUST send a final response after the request has been completed. See
|
||
section 8.2.3 for detailed discussion of the use and handling of this
|
||
status code.
|
||
|
||
10.1.2 101 Switching Protocols
|
||
|
||
The server understands and is willing to comply with the client's
|
||
request, via the Upgrade message header field (section 14.42), for a
|
||
change in the application protocol being used on this connection. The
|
||
server will switch protocols to those defined by the response's
|
||
Upgrade header field immediately after the empty line which
|
||
terminates the 101 response.
|
||
|
||
The protocol SHOULD be switched only when it is advantageous to do
|
||
so. For example, switching to a newer version of HTTP is advantageous
|
||
over older versions, and switching to a real-time, synchronous
|
||
protocol might be advantageous when delivering resources that use
|
||
such features.
|
||
|
||
10.2 Successful 2xx
|
||
|
||
This class of status code indicates that the client's request was
|
||
successfully received, understood, and accepted.
|
||
|
||
10.2.1 200 OK
|
||
|
||
The request has succeeded. The information returned with the response
|
||
is dependent on the method used in the request, for example:
|
||
|
||
GET an entity corresponding to the requested resource is sent in
|
||
the response;
|
||
|
||
HEAD the entity-header fields corresponding to the requested
|
||
resource are sent in the response without any message-body;
|
||
|
||
POST an entity describing or containing the result of the action;
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
TRACE an entity containing the request message as received by the
|
||
end server.
|
||
|
||
10.2.2 201 Created
|
||
|
||
The request has been fulfilled and resulted in a new resource being
|
||
created. The newly created resource can be referenced by the URI(s)
|
||
returned in the entity of the response, with the most specific URI
|
||
for the resource given by a Location header field. The response
|
||
SHOULD include an entity containing a list of resource
|
||
characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can
|
||
choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by
|
||
the media type given in the Content-Type header field. The origin
|
||
server MUST create the resource before returning the 201 status code.
|
||
If the action cannot be carried out immediately, the server SHOULD
|
||
respond with 202 (Accepted) response instead.
|
||
|
||
A 201 response MAY contain an ETag response header field indicating
|
||
the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just
|
||
created, see section 14.19.
|
||
|
||
10.2.3 202 Accepted
|
||
|
||
The request has been accepted for processing, but the processing has
|
||
not been completed. The request might or might not eventually be
|
||
acted upon, as it might be disallowed when processing actually takes
|
||
place. There is no facility for re-sending a status code from an
|
||
asynchronous operation such as this.
|
||
|
||
The 202 response is intentionally non-committal. Its purpose is to
|
||
allow a server to accept a request for some other process (perhaps a
|
||
batch-oriented process that is only run once per day) without
|
||
requiring that the user agent's connection to the server persist
|
||
until the process is completed. The entity returned with this
|
||
response SHOULD include an indication of the request's current status
|
||
and either a pointer to a status monitor or some estimate of when the
|
||
user can expect the request to be fulfilled.
|
||
|
||
10.2.4 203 Non-Authoritative Information
|
||
|
||
The returned metainformation in the entity-header is not the
|
||
definitive set as available from the origin server, but is gathered
|
||
from a local or a third-party copy. The set presented MAY be a subset
|
||
or superset of the original version. For example, including local
|
||
annotation information about the resource might result in a superset
|
||
of the metainformation known by the origin server. Use of this
|
||
response code is not required and is only appropriate when the
|
||
response would otherwise be 200 (OK).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
10.2.5 204 No Content
|
||
|
||
The server has fulfilled the request but does not need to return an
|
||
entity-body, and might want to return updated metainformation. The
|
||
response MAY include new or updated metainformation in the form of
|
||
entity-headers, which if present SHOULD be associated with the
|
||
requested variant.
|
||
|
||
If the client is a user agent, it SHOULD NOT change its document view
|
||
from that which caused the request to be sent. This response is
|
||
primarily intended to allow input for actions to take place without
|
||
causing a change to the user agent's active document view, although
|
||
any new or updated metainformation SHOULD be applied to the document
|
||
currently in the user agent's active view.
|
||
|
||
The 204 response MUST NOT include a message-body, and thus is always
|
||
terminated by the first empty line after the header fields.
|
||
|
||
10.2.6 205 Reset Content
|
||
|
||
The server has fulfilled the request and the user agent SHOULD reset
|
||
the document view which caused the request to be sent. This response
|
||
is primarily intended to allow input for actions to take place via
|
||
user input, followed by a clearing of the form in which the input is
|
||
given so that the user can easily initiate another input action. The
|
||
response MUST NOT include an entity.
|
||
|
||
10.2.7 206 Partial Content
|
||
|
||
The server has fulfilled the partial GET request for the resource.
|
||
The request MUST have included a Range header field (section 14.35)
|
||
indicating the desired range, and MAY have included an If-Range
|
||
header field (section 14.27) to make the request conditional.
|
||
|
||
The response MUST include the following header fields:
|
||
|
||
- Either a Content-Range header field (section 14.16) indicating
|
||
the range included with this response, or a multipart/byteranges
|
||
Content-Type including Content-Range fields for each part. If a
|
||
Content-Length header field is present in the response, its
|
||
value MUST match the actual number of OCTETs transmitted in the
|
||
message-body.
|
||
|
||
- Date
|
||
|
||
- ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent
|
||
in a 200 response to the same request
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
- Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might
|
||
differ from that sent in any previous response for the same
|
||
variant
|
||
|
||
If the 206 response is the result of an If-Range request that used a
|
||
strong cache validator (see section 13.3.3), the response SHOULD NOT
|
||
include other entity-headers. If the response is the result of an
|
||
If-Range request that used a weak validator, the response MUST NOT
|
||
include other entity-headers; this prevents inconsistencies between
|
||
cached entity-bodies and updated headers. Otherwise, the response
|
||
MUST include all of the entity-headers that would have been returned
|
||
with a 200 (OK) response to the same request.
|
||
|
||
A cache MUST NOT combine a 206 response with other previously cached
|
||
content if the ETag or Last-Modified headers do not match exactly,
|
||
see 13.5.4.
|
||
|
||
A cache that does not support the Range and Content-Range headers
|
||
MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial) responses.
|
||
|
||
10.3 Redirection 3xx
|
||
|
||
This class of status code indicates that further action needs to be
|
||
taken by the user agent in order to fulfill the request. The action
|
||
required MAY be carried out by the user agent without interaction
|
||
with the user if and only if the method used in the second request is
|
||
GET or HEAD. A client SHOULD detect infinite redirection loops, since
|
||
such loops generate network traffic for each redirection.
|
||
|
||
Note: previous versions of this specification recommended a
|
||
maximum of five redirections. Content developers should be aware
|
||
that there might be clients that implement such a fixed
|
||
limitation.
|
||
|
||
10.3.1 300 Multiple Choices
|
||
|
||
The requested resource corresponds to any one of a set of
|
||
representations, each with its own specific location, and agent-
|
||
driven negotiation information (section 12) is being provided so that
|
||
the user (or user agent) can select a preferred representation and
|
||
redirect its request to that location.
|
||
|
||
Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include an entity
|
||
containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from
|
||
which the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate. The
|
||
entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-
|
||
Type header field. Depending upon the format and the capabilities of
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
the user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice MAY be
|
||
performed automatically. However, this specification does not define
|
||
any standard for such automatic selection.
|
||
|
||
If the server has a preferred choice of representation, it SHOULD
|
||
include the specific URI for that representation in the Location
|
||
field; user agents MAY use the Location field value for automatic
|
||
redirection. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.
|
||
|
||
10.3.2 301 Moved Permanently
|
||
|
||
The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any
|
||
future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned
|
||
URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically
|
||
re-link references to the Request-URI to one or more of the new
|
||
references returned by the server, where possible. This response is
|
||
cacheable unless indicated otherwise.
|
||
|
||
The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
|
||
response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the
|
||
response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to
|
||
the new URI(s).
|
||
|
||
If the 301 status code is received in response to a request other
|
||
than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the
|
||
request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might
|
||
change the conditions under which the request was issued.
|
||
|
||
Note: When automatically redirecting a POST request after
|
||
receiving a 301 status code, some existing HTTP/1.0 user agents
|
||
will erroneously change it into a GET request.
|
||
|
||
10.3.3 302 Found
|
||
|
||
The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI.
|
||
Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD
|
||
continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response
|
||
is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header
|
||
field.
|
||
|
||
The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
|
||
response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the
|
||
response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to
|
||
the new URI(s).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 62]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If the 302 status code is received in response to a request other
|
||
than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the
|
||
request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might
|
||
change the conditions under which the request was issued.
|
||
|
||
Note: RFC 1945 and RFC 2068 specify that the client is not allowed
|
||
to change the method on the redirected request. However, most
|
||
existing user agent implementations treat 302 as if it were a 303
|
||
response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless
|
||
of the original request method. The status codes 303 and 307 have
|
||
been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear which
|
||
kind of reaction is expected of the client.
|
||
|
||
10.3.4 303 See Other
|
||
|
||
The response to the request can be found under a different URI and
|
||
SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method
|
||
exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to
|
||
redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a
|
||
substitute reference for the originally requested resource. The 303
|
||
response MUST NOT be cached, but the response to the second
|
||
(redirected) request might be cacheable.
|
||
|
||
The different URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
|
||
response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the
|
||
response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to
|
||
the new URI(s).
|
||
|
||
Note: Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303
|
||
status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the
|
||
302 status code may be used instead, since most user agents react
|
||
to a 302 response as described here for 303.
|
||
|
||
10.3.5 304 Not Modified
|
||
|
||
If the client has performed a conditional GET request and access is
|
||
allowed, but the document has not been modified, the server SHOULD
|
||
respond with this status code. The 304 response MUST NOT contain a
|
||
message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line
|
||
after the header fields.
|
||
|
||
The response MUST include the following header fields:
|
||
|
||
- Date, unless its omission is required by section 14.18.1
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 63]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If a clockless origin server obeys these rules, and proxies and
|
||
clients add their own Date to any response received without one (as
|
||
already specified by [RFC 2068], section 14.19), caches will operate
|
||
correctly.
|
||
|
||
- ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent
|
||
in a 200 response to the same request
|
||
|
||
- Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might
|
||
differ from that sent in any previous response for the same
|
||
variant
|
||
|
||
If the conditional GET used a strong cache validator (see section
|
||
13.3.3), the response SHOULD NOT include other entity-headers.
|
||
Otherwise (i.e., the conditional GET used a weak validator), the
|
||
response MUST NOT include other entity-headers; this prevents
|
||
inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies and updated headers.
|
||
|
||
If a 304 response indicates an entity not currently cached, then the
|
||
cache MUST disregard the response and repeat the request without the
|
||
conditional.
|
||
|
||
If a cache uses a received 304 response to update a cache entry, the
|
||
cache MUST update the entry to reflect any new field values given in
|
||
the response.
|
||
|
||
10.3.6 305 Use Proxy
|
||
|
||
The requested resource MUST be accessed through the proxy given by
|
||
the Location field. The Location field gives the URI of the proxy.
|
||
The recipient is expected to repeat this single request via the
|
||
proxy. 305 responses MUST only be generated by origin servers.
|
||
|
||
Note: RFC 2068 was not clear that 305 was intended to redirect a
|
||
single request, and to be generated by origin servers only. Not
|
||
observing these limitations has significant security consequences.
|
||
|
||
10.3.7 306 (Unused)
|
||
|
||
The 306 status code was used in a previous version of the
|
||
specification, is no longer used, and the code is reserved.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 64]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
10.3.8 307 Temporary Redirect
|
||
|
||
The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI.
|
||
Since the redirection MAY be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD
|
||
continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response
|
||
is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header
|
||
field.
|
||
|
||
The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
|
||
response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the
|
||
response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to
|
||
the new URI(s) , since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not
|
||
understand the 307 status. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the
|
||
information necessary for a user to repeat the original request on
|
||
the new URI.
|
||
|
||
If the 307 status code is received in response to a request other
|
||
than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the
|
||
request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might
|
||
change the conditions under which the request was issued.
|
||
|
||
10.4 Client Error 4xx
|
||
|
||
The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the
|
||
client seems to have erred. Except when responding to a HEAD request,
|
||
the server SHOULD include an entity containing an explanation of the
|
||
error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent
|
||
condition. These status codes are applicable to any request method.
|
||
User agents SHOULD display any included entity to the user.
|
||
|
||
If the client is sending data, a server implementation using TCP
|
||
SHOULD be careful to ensure that the client acknowledges receipt of
|
||
the packet(s) containing the response, before the server closes the
|
||
input connection. If the client continues sending data to the server
|
||
after the close, the server's TCP stack will send a reset packet to
|
||
the client, which may erase the client's unacknowledged input buffers
|
||
before they can be read and interpreted by the HTTP application.
|
||
|
||
10.4.1 400 Bad Request
|
||
|
||
The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed
|
||
syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without
|
||
modifications.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 65]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
10.4.2 401 Unauthorized
|
||
|
||
The request requires user authentication. The response MUST include a
|
||
WWW-Authenticate header field (section 14.47) containing a challenge
|
||
applicable to the requested resource. The client MAY repeat the
|
||
request with a suitable Authorization header field (section 14.8). If
|
||
the request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401
|
||
response indicates that authorization has been refused for those
|
||
credentials. If the 401 response contains the same challenge as the
|
||
prior response, and the user agent has already attempted
|
||
authentication at least once, then the user SHOULD be presented the
|
||
entity that was given in the response, since that entity might
|
||
include relevant diagnostic information. HTTP access authentication
|
||
is explained in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access
|
||
Authentication" [43].
|
||
|
||
10.4.3 402 Payment Required
|
||
|
||
This code is reserved for future use.
|
||
|
||
10.4.4 403 Forbidden
|
||
|
||
The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it.
|
||
Authorization will not help and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated.
|
||
If the request method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make
|
||
public why the request has not been fulfilled, it SHOULD describe the
|
||
reason for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to
|
||
make this information available to the client, the status code 404
|
||
(Not Found) can be used instead.
|
||
|
||
10.4.5 404 Not Found
|
||
|
||
The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No
|
||
indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or
|
||
permanent. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server
|
||
knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old
|
||
resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address.
|
||
This status code is commonly used when the server does not wish to
|
||
reveal exactly why the request has been refused, or when no other
|
||
response is applicable.
|
||
|
||
10.4.6 405 Method Not Allowed
|
||
|
||
The method specified in the Request-Line is not allowed for the
|
||
resource identified by the Request-URI. The response MUST include an
|
||
Allow header containing a list of valid methods for the requested
|
||
resource.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 66]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
10.4.7 406 Not Acceptable
|
||
|
||
The resource identified by the request is only capable of generating
|
||
response entities which have content characteristics not acceptable
|
||
according to the accept headers sent in the request.
|
||
|
||
Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include an entity
|
||
containing a list of available entity characteristics and location(s)
|
||
from which the user or user agent can choose the one most
|
||
appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given
|
||
in the Content-Type header field. Depending upon the format and the
|
||
capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate
|
||
choice MAY be performed automatically. However, this specification
|
||
does not define any standard for such automatic selection.
|
||
|
||
Note: HTTP/1.1 servers are allowed to return responses which are
|
||
not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the
|
||
request. In some cases, this may even be preferable to sending a
|
||
406 response. User agents are encouraged to inspect the headers of
|
||
an incoming response to determine if it is acceptable.
|
||
|
||
If the response could be unacceptable, a user agent SHOULD
|
||
temporarily stop receipt of more data and query the user for a
|
||
decision on further actions.
|
||
|
||
10.4.8 407 Proxy Authentication Required
|
||
|
||
This code is similar to 401 (Unauthorized), but indicates that the
|
||
client must first authenticate itself with the proxy. The proxy MUST
|
||
return a Proxy-Authenticate header field (section 14.33) containing a
|
||
challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource. The
|
||
client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Proxy-Authorization
|
||
header field (section 14.34). HTTP access authentication is explained
|
||
in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"
|
||
[43].
|
||
|
||
10.4.9 408 Request Timeout
|
||
|
||
The client did not produce a request within the time that the server
|
||
was prepared to wait. The client MAY repeat the request without
|
||
modifications at any later time.
|
||
|
||
10.4.10 409 Conflict
|
||
|
||
The request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current
|
||
state of the resource. This code is only allowed in situations where
|
||
it is expected that the user might be able to resolve the conflict
|
||
and resubmit the request. The response body SHOULD include enough
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 67]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
information for the user to recognize the source of the conflict.
|
||
Ideally, the response entity would include enough information for the
|
||
user or user agent to fix the problem; however, that might not be
|
||
possible and is not required.
|
||
|
||
Conflicts are most likely to occur in response to a PUT request. For
|
||
example, if versioning were being used and the entity being PUT
|
||
included changes to a resource which conflict with those made by an
|
||
earlier (third-party) request, the server might use the 409 response
|
||
to indicate that it can't complete the request. In this case, the
|
||
response entity would likely contain a list of the differences
|
||
between the two versions in a format defined by the response
|
||
Content-Type.
|
||
|
||
10.4.11 410 Gone
|
||
|
||
The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no
|
||
forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be
|
||
considered permanent. Clients with link editing capabilities SHOULD
|
||
delete references to the Request-URI after user approval. If the
|
||
server does not know, or has no facility to determine, whether or not
|
||
the condition is permanent, the status code 404 (Not Found) SHOULD be
|
||
used instead. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.
|
||
|
||
The 410 response is primarily intended to assist the task of web
|
||
maintenance by notifying the recipient that the resource is
|
||
intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that
|
||
remote links to that resource be removed. Such an event is common for
|
||
limited-time, promotional services and for resources belonging to
|
||
individuals no longer working at the server's site. It is not
|
||
necessary to mark all permanently unavailable resources as "gone" or
|
||
to keep the mark for any length of time -- that is left to the
|
||
discretion of the server owner.
|
||
|
||
10.4.12 411 Length Required
|
||
|
||
The server refuses to accept the request without a defined Content-
|
||
Length. The client MAY repeat the request if it adds a valid
|
||
Content-Length header field containing the length of the message-body
|
||
in the request message.
|
||
|
||
10.4.13 412 Precondition Failed
|
||
|
||
The precondition given in one or more of the request-header fields
|
||
evaluated to false when it was tested on the server. This response
|
||
code allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource
|
||
metainformation (header field data) and thus prevent the requested
|
||
method from being applied to a resource other than the one intended.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 68]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
10.4.14 413 Request Entity Too Large
|
||
|
||
The server is refusing to process a request because the request
|
||
entity is larger than the server is willing or able to process. The
|
||
server MAY close the connection to prevent the client from continuing
|
||
the request.
|
||
|
||
If the condition is temporary, the server SHOULD include a Retry-
|
||
After header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what
|
||
time the client MAY try again.
|
||
|
||
10.4.15 414 Request-URI Too Long
|
||
|
||
The server is refusing to service the request because the Request-URI
|
||
is longer than the server is willing to interpret. This rare
|
||
condition is only likely to occur when a client has improperly
|
||
converted a POST request to a GET request with long query
|
||
information, when the client has descended into a URI "black hole" of
|
||
redirection (e.g., a redirected URI prefix that points to a suffix of
|
||
itself), or when the server is under attack by a client attempting to
|
||
exploit security holes present in some servers using fixed-length
|
||
buffers for reading or manipulating the Request-URI.
|
||
|
||
10.4.16 415 Unsupported Media Type
|
||
|
||
The server is refusing to service the request because the entity of
|
||
the request is in a format not supported by the requested resource
|
||
for the requested method.
|
||
|
||
10.4.17 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable
|
||
|
||
A server SHOULD return a response with this status code if a request
|
||
included a Range request-header field (section 14.35), and none of
|
||
the range-specifier values in this field overlap the current extent
|
||
of the selected resource, and the request did not include an If-Range
|
||
request-header field. (For byte-ranges, this means that the first-
|
||
byte-pos of all of the byte-range-spec values were greater than the
|
||
current length of the selected resource.)
|
||
|
||
When this status code is returned for a byte-range request, the
|
||
response SHOULD include a Content-Range entity-header field
|
||
specifying the current length of the selected resource (see section
|
||
14.16). This response MUST NOT use the multipart/byteranges content-
|
||
type.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 69]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
10.4.18 417 Expectation Failed
|
||
|
||
The expectation given in an Expect request-header field (see section
|
||
14.20) could not be met by this server, or, if the server is a proxy,
|
||
the server has unambiguous evidence that the request could not be met
|
||
by the next-hop server.
|
||
|
||
10.5 Server Error 5xx
|
||
|
||
Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in
|
||
which the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of
|
||
performing the request. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the
|
||
server SHOULD include an entity containing an explanation of the
|
||
error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent
|
||
condition. User agents SHOULD display any included entity to the
|
||
user. These response codes are applicable to any request method.
|
||
|
||
10.5.1 500 Internal Server Error
|
||
|
||
The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it
|
||
from fulfilling the request.
|
||
|
||
10.5.2 501 Not Implemented
|
||
|
||
The server does not support the functionality required to fulfill the
|
||
request. This is the appropriate response when the server does not
|
||
recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for
|
||
any resource.
|
||
|
||
10.5.3 502 Bad Gateway
|
||
|
||
The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, received an invalid
|
||
response from the upstream server it accessed in attempting to
|
||
fulfill the request.
|
||
|
||
10.5.4 503 Service Unavailable
|
||
|
||
The server is currently unable to handle the request due to a
|
||
temporary overloading or maintenance of the server. The implication
|
||
is that this is a temporary condition which will be alleviated after
|
||
some delay. If known, the length of the delay MAY be indicated in a
|
||
Retry-After header. If no Retry-After is given, the client SHOULD
|
||
handle the response as it would for a 500 response.
|
||
|
||
Note: The existence of the 503 status code does not imply that a
|
||
server must use it when becoming overloaded. Some servers may wish
|
||
to simply refuse the connection.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 70]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
10.5.5 504 Gateway Timeout
|
||
|
||
The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, did not receive a
|
||
timely response from the upstream server specified by the URI (e.g.
|
||
HTTP, FTP, LDAP) or some other auxiliary server (e.g. DNS) it needed
|
||
to access in attempting to complete the request.
|
||
|
||
Note: Note to implementors: some deployed proxies are known to
|
||
return 400 or 500 when DNS lookups time out.
|
||
|
||
10.5.6 505 HTTP Version Not Supported
|
||
|
||
The server does not support, or refuses to support, the HTTP protocol
|
||
version that was used in the request message. The server is
|
||
indicating that it is unable or unwilling to complete the request
|
||
using the same major version as the client, as described in section
|
||
3.1, other than with this error message. The response SHOULD contain
|
||
an entity describing why that version is not supported and what other
|
||
protocols are supported by that server.
|
||
|
||
11 Access Authentication
|
||
|
||
HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication
|
||
mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client
|
||
request and by a client to provide authentication information. The
|
||
general framework for access authentication, and the specification of
|
||
"basic" and "digest" authentication, are specified in "HTTP
|
||
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [43]. This
|
||
specification adopts the definitions of "challenge" and "credentials"
|
||
from that specification.
|
||
|
||
12 Content Negotiation
|
||
|
||
Most HTTP responses include an entity which contains information for
|
||
interpretation by a human user. Naturally, it is desirable to supply
|
||
the user with the "best available" entity corresponding to the
|
||
request. Unfortunately for servers and caches, not all users have the
|
||
same preferences for what is "best," and not all user agents are
|
||
equally capable of rendering all entity types. For that reason, HTTP
|
||
has provisions for several mechanisms for "content negotiation" --
|
||
the process of selecting the best representation for a given response
|
||
when there are multiple representations available.
|
||
|
||
Note: This is not called "format negotiation" because the
|
||
alternate representations may be of the same media type, but use
|
||
different capabilities of that type, be in different languages,
|
||
etc.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 71]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Any response containing an entity-body MAY be subject to negotiation,
|
||
including error responses.
|
||
|
||
There are two kinds of content negotiation which are possible in
|
||
HTTP: server-driven and agent-driven negotiation. These two kinds of
|
||
negotiation are orthogonal and thus may be used separately or in
|
||
combination. One method of combination, referred to as transparent
|
||
negotiation, occurs when a cache uses the agent-driven negotiation
|
||
information provided by the origin server in order to provide
|
||
server-driven negotiation for subsequent requests.
|
||
|
||
12.1 Server-driven Negotiation
|
||
|
||
If the selection of the best representation for a response is made by
|
||
an algorithm located at the server, it is called server-driven
|
||
negotiation. Selection is based on the available representations of
|
||
the response (the dimensions over which it can vary; e.g. language,
|
||
content-coding, etc.) and the contents of particular header fields in
|
||
the request message or on other information pertaining to the request
|
||
(such as the network address of the client).
|
||
|
||
Server-driven negotiation is advantageous when the algorithm for
|
||
selecting from among the available representations is difficult to
|
||
describe to the user agent, or when the server desires to send its
|
||
"best guess" to the client along with the first response (hoping to
|
||
avoid the round-trip delay of a subsequent request if the "best
|
||
guess" is good enough for the user). In order to improve the server's
|
||
guess, the user agent MAY include request header fields (Accept,
|
||
Accept-Language, Accept-Encoding, etc.) which describe its
|
||
preferences for such a response.
|
||
|
||
Server-driven negotiation has disadvantages:
|
||
|
||
1. It is impossible for the server to accurately determine what
|
||
might be "best" for any given user, since that would require
|
||
complete knowledge of both the capabilities of the user agent
|
||
and the intended use for the response (e.g., does the user want
|
||
to view it on screen or print it on paper?).
|
||
|
||
2. Having the user agent describe its capabilities in every
|
||
request can be both very inefficient (given that only a small
|
||
percentage of responses have multiple representations) and a
|
||
potential violation of the user's privacy.
|
||
|
||
3. It complicates the implementation of an origin server and the
|
||
algorithms for generating responses to a request.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 72]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
4. It may limit a public cache's ability to use the same response
|
||
for multiple user's requests.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 includes the following request-header fields for enabling
|
||
server-driven negotiation through description of user agent
|
||
capabilities and user preferences: Accept (section 14.1), Accept-
|
||
Charset (section 14.2), Accept-Encoding (section 14.3), Accept-
|
||
Language (section 14.4), and User-Agent (section 14.43). However, an
|
||
origin server is not limited to these dimensions and MAY vary the
|
||
response based on any aspect of the request, including information
|
||
outside the request-header fields or within extension header fields
|
||
not defined by this specification.
|
||
|
||
The Vary header field can be used to express the parameters the
|
||
server uses to select a representation that is subject to server-
|
||
driven negotiation. See section 13.6 for use of the Vary header field
|
||
by caches and section 14.44 for use of the Vary header field by
|
||
servers.
|
||
|
||
12.2 Agent-driven Negotiation
|
||
|
||
With agent-driven negotiation, selection of the best representation
|
||
for a response is performed by the user agent after receiving an
|
||
initial response from the origin server. Selection is based on a list
|
||
of the available representations of the response included within the
|
||
header fields or entity-body of the initial response, with each
|
||
representation identified by its own URI. Selection from among the
|
||
representations may be performed automatically (if the user agent is
|
||
capable of doing so) or manually by the user selecting from a
|
||
generated (possibly hypertext) menu.
|
||
|
||
Agent-driven negotiation is advantageous when the response would vary
|
||
over commonly-used dimensions (such as type, language, or encoding),
|
||
when the origin server is unable to determine a user agent's
|
||
capabilities from examining the request, and generally when public
|
||
caches are used to distribute server load and reduce network usage.
|
||
|
||
Agent-driven negotiation suffers from the disadvantage of needing a
|
||
second request to obtain the best alternate representation. This
|
||
second request is only efficient when caching is used. In addition,
|
||
this specification does not define any mechanism for supporting
|
||
automatic selection, though it also does not prevent any such
|
||
mechanism from being developed as an extension and used within
|
||
HTTP/1.1.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 73]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 defines the 300 (Multiple Choices) and 406 (Not Acceptable)
|
||
status codes for enabling agent-driven negotiation when the server is
|
||
unwilling or unable to provide a varying response using server-driven
|
||
negotiation.
|
||
|
||
12.3 Transparent Negotiation
|
||
|
||
Transparent negotiation is a combination of both server-driven and
|
||
agent-driven negotiation. When a cache is supplied with a form of the
|
||
list of available representations of the response (as in agent-driven
|
||
negotiation) and the dimensions of variance are completely understood
|
||
by the cache, then the cache becomes capable of performing server-
|
||
driven negotiation on behalf of the origin server for subsequent
|
||
requests on that resource.
|
||
|
||
Transparent negotiation has the advantage of distributing the
|
||
negotiation work that would otherwise be required of the origin
|
||
server and also removing the second request delay of agent-driven
|
||
negotiation when the cache is able to correctly guess the right
|
||
response.
|
||
|
||
This specification does not define any mechanism for transparent
|
||
negotiation, though it also does not prevent any such mechanism from
|
||
being developed as an extension that could be used within HTTP/1.1.
|
||
|
||
13 Caching in HTTP
|
||
|
||
HTTP is typically used for distributed information systems, where
|
||
performance can be improved by the use of response caches. The
|
||
HTTP/1.1 protocol includes a number of elements intended to make
|
||
caching work as well as possible. Because these elements are
|
||
inextricable from other aspects of the protocol, and because they
|
||
interact with each other, it is useful to describe the basic caching
|
||
design of HTTP separately from the detailed descriptions of methods,
|
||
headers, response codes, etc.
|
||
|
||
Caching would be useless if it did not significantly improve
|
||
performance. The goal of caching in HTTP/1.1 is to eliminate the need
|
||
to send requests in many cases, and to eliminate the need to send
|
||
full responses in many other cases. The former reduces the number of
|
||
network round-trips required for many operations; we use an
|
||
"expiration" mechanism for this purpose (see section 13.2). The
|
||
latter reduces network bandwidth requirements; we use a "validation"
|
||
mechanism for this purpose (see section 13.3).
|
||
|
||
Requirements for performance, availability, and disconnected
|
||
operation require us to be able to relax the goal of semantic
|
||
transparency. The HTTP/1.1 protocol allows origin servers, caches,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 74]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
and clients to explicitly reduce transparency when necessary.
|
||
However, because non-transparent operation may confuse non-expert
|
||
users, and might be incompatible with certain server applications
|
||
(such as those for ordering merchandise), the protocol requires that
|
||
transparency be relaxed
|
||
|
||
- only by an explicit protocol-level request when relaxed by
|
||
client or origin server
|
||
|
||
- only with an explicit warning to the end user when relaxed by
|
||
cache or client
|
||
|
||
Therefore, the HTTP/1.1 protocol provides these important elements:
|
||
|
||
1. Protocol features that provide full semantic transparency when
|
||
this is required by all parties.
|
||
|
||
2. Protocol features that allow an origin server or user agent to
|
||
explicitly request and control non-transparent operation.
|
||
|
||
3. Protocol features that allow a cache to attach warnings to
|
||
responses that do not preserve the requested approximation of
|
||
semantic transparency.
|
||
|
||
A basic principle is that it must be possible for the clients to
|
||
detect any potential relaxation of semantic transparency.
|
||
|
||
Note: The server, cache, or client implementor might be faced with
|
||
design decisions not explicitly discussed in this specification.
|
||
If a decision might affect semantic transparency, the implementor
|
||
ought to err on the side of maintaining transparency unless a
|
||
careful and complete analysis shows significant benefits in
|
||
breaking transparency.
|
||
|
||
13.1.1 Cache Correctness
|
||
|
||
A correct cache MUST respond to a request with the most up-to-date
|
||
response held by the cache that is appropriate to the request (see
|
||
sections 13.2.5, 13.2.6, and 13.12) which meets one of the following
|
||
conditions:
|
||
|
||
1. It has been checked for equivalence with what the origin server
|
||
would have returned by revalidating the response with the
|
||
origin server (section 13.3);
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 75]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
2. It is "fresh enough" (see section 13.2). In the default case,
|
||
this means it meets the least restrictive freshness requirement
|
||
of the client, origin server, and cache (see section 14.9); if
|
||
the origin server so specifies, it is the freshness requirement
|
||
of the origin server alone.
|
||
|
||
If a stored response is not "fresh enough" by the most
|
||
restrictive freshness requirement of both the client and the
|
||
origin server, in carefully considered circumstances the cache
|
||
MAY still return the response with the appropriate Warning
|
||
header (see section 13.1.5 and 14.46), unless such a response
|
||
is prohibited (e.g., by a "no-store" cache-directive, or by a
|
||
"no-cache" cache-request-directive; see section 14.9).
|
||
|
||
3. It is an appropriate 304 (Not Modified), 305 (Proxy Redirect),
|
||
or error (4xx or 5xx) response message.
|
||
|
||
If the cache can not communicate with the origin server, then a
|
||
correct cache SHOULD respond as above if the response can be
|
||
correctly served from the cache; if not it MUST return an error or
|
||
warning indicating that there was a communication failure.
|
||
|
||
If a cache receives a response (either an entire response, or a 304
|
||
(Not Modified) response) that it would normally forward to the
|
||
requesting client, and the received response is no longer fresh, the
|
||
cache SHOULD forward it to the requesting client without adding a new
|
||
Warning (but without removing any existing Warning headers). A cache
|
||
SHOULD NOT attempt to revalidate a response simply because that
|
||
response became stale in transit; this might lead to an infinite
|
||
loop. A user agent that receives a stale response without a Warning
|
||
MAY display a warning indication to the user.
|
||
|
||
13.1.2 Warnings
|
||
|
||
Whenever a cache returns a response that is neither first-hand nor
|
||
"fresh enough" (in the sense of condition 2 in section 13.1.1), it
|
||
MUST attach a warning to that effect, using a Warning general-header.
|
||
The Warning header and the currently defined warnings are described
|
||
in section 14.46. The warning allows clients to take appropriate
|
||
action.
|
||
|
||
Warnings MAY be used for other purposes, both cache-related and
|
||
otherwise. The use of a warning, rather than an error status code,
|
||
distinguish these responses from true failures.
|
||
|
||
Warnings are assigned three digit warn-codes. The first digit
|
||
indicates whether the Warning MUST or MUST NOT be deleted from a
|
||
stored cache entry after a successful revalidation:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 76]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
1xx Warnings that describe the freshness or revalidation status of
|
||
the response, and so MUST be deleted after a successful
|
||
revalidation. 1XX warn-codes MAY be generated by a cache only when
|
||
validating a cached entry. It MUST NOT be generated by clients.
|
||
|
||
2xx Warnings that describe some aspect of the entity body or entity
|
||
headers that is not rectified by a revalidation (for example, a
|
||
lossy compression of the entity bodies) and which MUST NOT be
|
||
deleted after a successful revalidation.
|
||
|
||
See section 14.46 for the definitions of the codes themselves.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.0 caches will cache all Warnings in responses, without
|
||
deleting the ones in the first category. Warnings in responses that
|
||
are passed to HTTP/1.0 caches carry an extra warning-date field,
|
||
which prevents a future HTTP/1.1 recipient from believing an
|
||
erroneously cached Warning.
|
||
|
||
Warnings also carry a warning text. The text MAY be in any
|
||
appropriate natural language (perhaps based on the client's Accept
|
||
headers), and include an OPTIONAL indication of what character set is
|
||
used.
|
||
|
||
Multiple warnings MAY be attached to a response (either by the origin
|
||
server or by a cache), including multiple warnings with the same code
|
||
number. For example, a server might provide the same warning with
|
||
texts in both English and Basque.
|
||
|
||
When multiple warnings are attached to a response, it might not be
|
||
practical or reasonable to display all of them to the user. This
|
||
version of HTTP does not specify strict priority rules for deciding
|
||
which warnings to display and in what order, but does suggest some
|
||
heuristics.
|
||
|
||
13.1.3 Cache-control Mechanisms
|
||
|
||
The basic cache mechanisms in HTTP/1.1 (server-specified expiration
|
||
times and validators) are implicit directives to caches. In some
|
||
cases, a server or client might need to provide explicit directives
|
||
to the HTTP caches. We use the Cache-Control header for this purpose.
|
||
|
||
The Cache-Control header allows a client or server to transmit a
|
||
variety of directives in either requests or responses. These
|
||
directives typically override the default caching algorithms. As a
|
||
general rule, if there is any apparent conflict between header
|
||
values, the most restrictive interpretation is applied (that is, the
|
||
one that is most likely to preserve semantic transparency). However,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 77]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
in some cases, cache-control directives are explicitly specified as
|
||
weakening the approximation of semantic transparency (for example,
|
||
"max-stale" or "public").
|
||
|
||
The cache-control directives are described in detail in section 14.9.
|
||
|
||
13.1.4 Explicit User Agent Warnings
|
||
|
||
Many user agents make it possible for users to override the basic
|
||
caching mechanisms. For example, the user agent might allow the user
|
||
to specify that cached entities (even explicitly stale ones) are
|
||
never validated. Or the user agent might habitually add "Cache-
|
||
Control: max-stale=3600" to every request. The user agent SHOULD NOT
|
||
default to either non-transparent behavior, or behavior that results
|
||
in abnormally ineffective caching, but MAY be explicitly configured
|
||
to do so by an explicit action of the user.
|
||
|
||
If the user has overridden the basic caching mechanisms, the user
|
||
agent SHOULD explicitly indicate to the user whenever this results in
|
||
the display of information that might not meet the server's
|
||
transparency requirements (in particular, if the displayed entity is
|
||
known to be stale). Since the protocol normally allows the user agent
|
||
to determine if responses are stale or not, this indication need only
|
||
be displayed when this actually happens. The indication need not be a
|
||
dialog box; it could be an icon (for example, a picture of a rotting
|
||
fish) or some other indicator.
|
||
|
||
If the user has overridden the caching mechanisms in a way that would
|
||
abnormally reduce the effectiveness of caches, the user agent SHOULD
|
||
continually indicate this state to the user (for example, by a
|
||
display of a picture of currency in flames) so that the user does not
|
||
inadvertently consume excess resources or suffer from excessive
|
||
latency.
|
||
|
||
13.1.5 Exceptions to the Rules and Warnings
|
||
|
||
In some cases, the operator of a cache MAY choose to configure it to
|
||
return stale responses even when not requested by clients. This
|
||
decision ought not be made lightly, but may be necessary for reasons
|
||
of availability or performance, especially when the cache is poorly
|
||
connected to the origin server. Whenever a cache returns a stale
|
||
response, it MUST mark it as such (using a Warning header) enabling
|
||
the client software to alert the user that there might be a potential
|
||
problem.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 78]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
It also allows the user agent to take steps to obtain a first-hand or
|
||
fresh response. For this reason, a cache SHOULD NOT return a stale
|
||
response if the client explicitly requests a first-hand or fresh one,
|
||
unless it is impossible to comply for technical or policy reasons.
|
||
|
||
13.1.6 Client-controlled Behavior
|
||
|
||
While the origin server (and to a lesser extent, intermediate caches,
|
||
by their contribution to the age of a response) are the primary
|
||
source of expiration information, in some cases the client might need
|
||
to control a cache's decision about whether to return a cached
|
||
response without validating it. Clients do this using several
|
||
directives of the Cache-Control header.
|
||
|
||
A client's request MAY specify the maximum age it is willing to
|
||
accept of an unvalidated response; specifying a value of zero forces
|
||
the cache(s) to revalidate all responses. A client MAY also specify
|
||
the minimum time remaining before a response expires. Both of these
|
||
options increase constraints on the behavior of caches, and so cannot
|
||
further relax the cache's approximation of semantic transparency.
|
||
|
||
A client MAY also specify that it will accept stale responses, up to
|
||
some maximum amount of staleness. This loosens the constraints on the
|
||
caches, and so might violate the origin server's specified
|
||
constraints on semantic transparency, but might be necessary to
|
||
support disconnected operation, or high availability in the face of
|
||
poor connectivity.
|
||
|
||
13.2 Expiration Model
|
||
|
||
13.2.1 Server-Specified Expiration
|
||
|
||
HTTP caching works best when caches can entirely avoid making
|
||
requests to the origin server. The primary mechanism for avoiding
|
||
requests is for an origin server to provide an explicit expiration
|
||
time in the future, indicating that a response MAY be used to satisfy
|
||
subsequent requests. In other words, a cache can return a fresh
|
||
response without first contacting the server.
|
||
|
||
Our expectation is that servers will assign future explicit
|
||
expiration times to responses in the belief that the entity is not
|
||
likely to change, in a semantically significant way, before the
|
||
expiration time is reached. This normally preserves semantic
|
||
transparency, as long as the server's expiration times are carefully
|
||
chosen.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 79]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The expiration mechanism applies only to responses taken from a cache
|
||
and not to first-hand responses forwarded immediately to the
|
||
requesting client.
|
||
|
||
If an origin server wishes to force a semantically transparent cache
|
||
to validate every request, it MAY assign an explicit expiration time
|
||
in the past. This means that the response is always stale, and so the
|
||
cache SHOULD validate it before using it for subsequent requests. See
|
||
section 14.9.4 for a more restrictive way to force revalidation.
|
||
|
||
If an origin server wishes to force any HTTP/1.1 cache, no matter how
|
||
it is configured, to validate every request, it SHOULD use the "must-
|
||
revalidate" cache-control directive (see section 14.9).
|
||
|
||
Servers specify explicit expiration times using either the Expires
|
||
header, or the max-age directive of the Cache-Control header.
|
||
|
||
An expiration time cannot be used to force a user agent to refresh
|
||
its display or reload a resource; its semantics apply only to caching
|
||
mechanisms, and such mechanisms need only check a resource's
|
||
expiration status when a new request for that resource is initiated.
|
||
See section 13.13 for an explanation of the difference between caches
|
||
and history mechanisms.
|
||
|
||
13.2.2 Heuristic Expiration
|
||
|
||
Since origin servers do not always provide explicit expiration times,
|
||
HTTP caches typically assign heuristic expiration times, employing
|
||
algorithms that use other header values (such as the Last-Modified
|
||
time) to estimate a plausible expiration time. The HTTP/1.1
|
||
specification does not provide specific algorithms, but does impose
|
||
worst-case constraints on their results. Since heuristic expiration
|
||
times might compromise semantic transparency, they ought to used
|
||
cautiously, and we encourage origin servers to provide explicit
|
||
expiration times as much as possible.
|
||
|
||
13.2.3 Age Calculations
|
||
|
||
In order to know if a cached entry is fresh, a cache needs to know if
|
||
its age exceeds its freshness lifetime. We discuss how to calculate
|
||
the latter in section 13.2.4; this section describes how to calculate
|
||
the age of a response or cache entry.
|
||
|
||
In this discussion, we use the term "now" to mean "the current value
|
||
of the clock at the host performing the calculation." Hosts that use
|
||
HTTP, but especially hosts running origin servers and caches, SHOULD
|
||
use NTP [28] or some similar protocol to synchronize their clocks to
|
||
a globally accurate time standard.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 80]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 requires origin servers to send a Date header, if possible,
|
||
with every response, giving the time at which the response was
|
||
generated (see section 14.18). We use the term "date_value" to denote
|
||
the value of the Date header, in a form appropriate for arithmetic
|
||
operations.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 uses the Age response-header to convey the estimated age of
|
||
the response message when obtained from a cache. The Age field value
|
||
is the cache's estimate of the amount of time since the response was
|
||
generated or revalidated by the origin server.
|
||
|
||
In essence, the Age value is the sum of the time that the response
|
||
has been resident in each of the caches along the path from the
|
||
origin server, plus the amount of time it has been in transit along
|
||
network paths.
|
||
|
||
We use the term "age_value" to denote the value of the Age header, in
|
||
a form appropriate for arithmetic operations.
|
||
|
||
A response's age can be calculated in two entirely independent ways:
|
||
|
||
1. now minus date_value, if the local clock is reasonably well
|
||
synchronized to the origin server's clock. If the result is
|
||
negative, the result is replaced by zero.
|
||
|
||
2. age_value, if all of the caches along the response path
|
||
implement HTTP/1.1.
|
||
|
||
Given that we have two independent ways to compute the age of a
|
||
response when it is received, we can combine these as
|
||
|
||
corrected_received_age = max(now - date_value, age_value)
|
||
|
||
and as long as we have either nearly synchronized clocks or all-
|
||
HTTP/1.1 paths, one gets a reliable (conservative) result.
|
||
|
||
Because of network-imposed delays, some significant interval might
|
||
pass between the time that a server generates a response and the time
|
||
it is received at the next outbound cache or client. If uncorrected,
|
||
this delay could result in improperly low ages.
|
||
|
||
Because the request that resulted in the returned Age value must have
|
||
been initiated prior to that Age value's generation, we can correct
|
||
for delays imposed by the network by recording the time at which the
|
||
request was initiated. Then, when an Age value is received, it MUST
|
||
be interpreted relative to the time the request was initiated, not
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 81]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
the time that the response was received. This algorithm results in
|
||
conservative behavior no matter how much delay is experienced. So, we
|
||
compute:
|
||
|
||
corrected_initial_age = corrected_received_age
|
||
+ (now - request_time)
|
||
|
||
where "request_time" is the time (according to the local clock) when
|
||
the request that elicited this response was sent.
|
||
|
||
Summary of age calculation algorithm, when a cache receives a
|
||
response:
|
||
|
||
/*
|
||
* age_value
|
||
* is the value of Age: header received by the cache with
|
||
* this response.
|
||
* date_value
|
||
* is the value of the origin server's Date: header
|
||
* request_time
|
||
* is the (local) time when the cache made the request
|
||
* that resulted in this cached response
|
||
* response_time
|
||
* is the (local) time when the cache received the
|
||
* response
|
||
* now
|
||
* is the current (local) time
|
||
*/
|
||
|
||
apparent_age = max(0, response_time - date_value);
|
||
corrected_received_age = max(apparent_age, age_value);
|
||
response_delay = response_time - request_time;
|
||
corrected_initial_age = corrected_received_age + response_delay;
|
||
resident_time = now - response_time;
|
||
current_age = corrected_initial_age + resident_time;
|
||
|
||
The current_age of a cache entry is calculated by adding the amount
|
||
of time (in seconds) since the cache entry was last validated by the
|
||
origin server to the corrected_initial_age. When a response is
|
||
generated from a cache entry, the cache MUST include a single Age
|
||
header field in the response with a value equal to the cache entry's
|
||
current_age.
|
||
|
||
The presence of an Age header field in a response implies that a
|
||
response is not first-hand. However, the converse is not true, since
|
||
the lack of an Age header field in a response does not imply that the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 82]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
response is first-hand unless all caches along the request path are
|
||
compliant with HTTP/1.1 (i.e., older HTTP caches did not implement
|
||
the Age header field).
|
||
|
||
13.2.4 Expiration Calculations
|
||
|
||
In order to decide whether a response is fresh or stale, we need to
|
||
compare its freshness lifetime to its age. The age is calculated as
|
||
described in section 13.2.3; this section describes how to calculate
|
||
the freshness lifetime, and to determine if a response has expired.
|
||
In the discussion below, the values can be represented in any form
|
||
appropriate for arithmetic operations.
|
||
|
||
We use the term "expires_value" to denote the value of the Expires
|
||
header. We use the term "max_age_value" to denote an appropriate
|
||
value of the number of seconds carried by the "max-age" directive of
|
||
the Cache-Control header in a response (see section 14.9.3).
|
||
|
||
The max-age directive takes priority over Expires, so if max-age is
|
||
present in a response, the calculation is simply:
|
||
|
||
freshness_lifetime = max_age_value
|
||
|
||
Otherwise, if Expires is present in the response, the calculation is:
|
||
|
||
freshness_lifetime = expires_value - date_value
|
||
|
||
Note that neither of these calculations is vulnerable to clock skew,
|
||
since all of the information comes from the origin server.
|
||
|
||
If none of Expires, Cache-Control: max-age, or Cache-Control: s-
|
||
maxage (see section 14.9.3) appears in the response, and the response
|
||
does not include other restrictions on caching, the cache MAY compute
|
||
a freshness lifetime using a heuristic. The cache MUST attach Warning
|
||
113 to any response whose age is more than 24 hours if such warning
|
||
has not already been added.
|
||
|
||
Also, if the response does have a Last-Modified time, the heuristic
|
||
expiration value SHOULD be no more than some fraction of the interval
|
||
since that time. A typical setting of this fraction might be 10%.
|
||
|
||
The calculation to determine if a response has expired is quite
|
||
simple:
|
||
|
||
response_is_fresh = (freshness_lifetime > current_age)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 83]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
13.2.5 Disambiguating Expiration Values
|
||
|
||
Because expiration values are assigned optimistically, it is possible
|
||
for two caches to contain fresh values for the same resource that are
|
||
different.
|
||
|
||
If a client performing a retrieval receives a non-first-hand response
|
||
for a request that was already fresh in its own cache, and the Date
|
||
header in its existing cache entry is newer than the Date on the new
|
||
response, then the client MAY ignore the response. If so, it MAY
|
||
retry the request with a "Cache-Control: max-age=0" directive (see
|
||
section 14.9), to force a check with the origin server.
|
||
|
||
If a cache has two fresh responses for the same representation with
|
||
different validators, it MUST use the one with the more recent Date
|
||
header. This situation might arise because the cache is pooling
|
||
responses from other caches, or because a client has asked for a
|
||
reload or a revalidation of an apparently fresh cache entry.
|
||
|
||
13.2.6 Disambiguating Multiple Responses
|
||
|
||
Because a client might be receiving responses via multiple paths, so
|
||
that some responses flow through one set of caches and other
|
||
responses flow through a different set of caches, a client might
|
||
receive responses in an order different from that in which the origin
|
||
server sent them. We would like the client to use the most recently
|
||
generated response, even if older responses are still apparently
|
||
fresh.
|
||
|
||
Neither the entity tag nor the expiration value can impose an
|
||
ordering on responses, since it is possible that a later response
|
||
intentionally carries an earlier expiration time. The Date values are
|
||
ordered to a granularity of one second.
|
||
|
||
When a client tries to revalidate a cache entry, and the response it
|
||
receives contains a Date header that appears to be older than the one
|
||
for the existing entry, then the client SHOULD repeat the request
|
||
unconditionally, and include
|
||
|
||
Cache-Control: max-age=0
|
||
|
||
to force any intermediate caches to validate their copies directly
|
||
with the origin server, or
|
||
|
||
Cache-Control: no-cache
|
||
|
||
to force any intermediate caches to obtain a new copy from the origin
|
||
server.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 84]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If the Date values are equal, then the client MAY use either response
|
||
(or MAY, if it is being extremely prudent, request a new response).
|
||
Servers MUST NOT depend on clients being able to choose
|
||
deterministically between responses generated during the same second,
|
||
if their expiration times overlap.
|
||
|
||
13.3 Validation Model
|
||
|
||
When a cache has a stale entry that it would like to use as a
|
||
response to a client's request, it first has to check with the origin
|
||
server (or possibly an intermediate cache with a fresh response) to
|
||
see if its cached entry is still usable. We call this "validating"
|
||
the cache entry. Since we do not want to have to pay the overhead of
|
||
retransmitting the full response if the cached entry is good, and we
|
||
do not want to pay the overhead of an extra round trip if the cached
|
||
entry is invalid, the HTTP/1.1 protocol supports the use of
|
||
conditional methods.
|
||
|
||
The key protocol features for supporting conditional methods are
|
||
those concerned with "cache validators." When an origin server
|
||
generates a full response, it attaches some sort of validator to it,
|
||
which is kept with the cache entry. When a client (user agent or
|
||
proxy cache) makes a conditional request for a resource for which it
|
||
has a cache entry, it includes the associated validator in the
|
||
request.
|
||
|
||
The server then checks that validator against the current validator
|
||
for the entity, and, if they match (see section 13.3.3), it responds
|
||
with a special status code (usually, 304 (Not Modified)) and no
|
||
entity-body. Otherwise, it returns a full response (including
|
||
entity-body). Thus, we avoid transmitting the full response if the
|
||
validator matches, and we avoid an extra round trip if it does not
|
||
match.
|
||
|
||
In HTTP/1.1, a conditional request looks exactly the same as a normal
|
||
request for the same resource, except that it carries a special
|
||
header (which includes the validator) that implicitly turns the
|
||
method (usually, GET) into a conditional.
|
||
|
||
The protocol includes both positive and negative senses of cache-
|
||
validating conditions. That is, it is possible to request either that
|
||
a method be performed if and only if a validator matches or if and
|
||
only if no validators match.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 85]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Note: a response that lacks a validator may still be cached, and
|
||
served from cache until it expires, unless this is explicitly
|
||
prohibited by a cache-control directive. However, a cache cannot
|
||
do a conditional retrieval if it does not have a validator for the
|
||
entity, which means it will not be refreshable after it expires.
|
||
|
||
13.3.1 Last-Modified Dates
|
||
|
||
The Last-Modified entity-header field value is often used as a cache
|
||
validator. In simple terms, a cache entry is considered to be valid
|
||
if the entity has not been modified since the Last-Modified value.
|
||
|
||
13.3.2 Entity Tag Cache Validators
|
||
|
||
The ETag response-header field value, an entity tag, provides for an
|
||
"opaque" cache validator. This might allow more reliable validation
|
||
in situations where it is inconvenient to store modification dates,
|
||
where the one-second resolution of HTTP date values is not
|
||
sufficient, or where the origin server wishes to avoid certain
|
||
paradoxes that might arise from the use of modification dates.
|
||
|
||
Entity Tags are described in section 3.11. The headers used with
|
||
entity tags are described in sections 14.19, 14.24, 14.26 and 14.44.
|
||
|
||
13.3.3 Weak and Strong Validators
|
||
|
||
Since both origin servers and caches will compare two validators to
|
||
decide if they represent the same or different entities, one normally
|
||
would expect that if the entity (the entity-body or any entity-
|
||
headers) changes in any way, then the associated validator would
|
||
change as well. If this is true, then we call this validator a
|
||
"strong validator."
|
||
|
||
However, there might be cases when a server prefers to change the
|
||
validator only on semantically significant changes, and not when
|
||
insignificant aspects of the entity change. A validator that does not
|
||
always change when the resource changes is a "weak validator."
|
||
|
||
Entity tags are normally "strong validators," but the protocol
|
||
provides a mechanism to tag an entity tag as "weak." One can think of
|
||
a strong validator as one that changes whenever the bits of an entity
|
||
changes, while a weak value changes whenever the meaning of an entity
|
||
changes. Alternatively, one can think of a strong validator as part
|
||
of an identifier for a specific entity, while a weak validator is
|
||
part of an identifier for a set of semantically equivalent entities.
|
||
|
||
Note: One example of a strong validator is an integer that is
|
||
incremented in stable storage every time an entity is changed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 86]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
An entity's modification time, if represented with one-second
|
||
resolution, could be a weak validator, since it is possible that
|
||
the resource might be modified twice during a single second.
|
||
|
||
Support for weak validators is optional. However, weak validators
|
||
allow for more efficient caching of equivalent objects; for
|
||
example, a hit counter on a site is probably good enough if it is
|
||
updated every few days or weeks, and any value during that period
|
||
is likely "good enough" to be equivalent.
|
||
|
||
A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a request
|
||
and includes the validator in a validating header field, or when a
|
||
server compares two validators.
|
||
|
||
Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only
|
||
usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality of an entity.
|
||
For example, either kind is usable for a conditional GET of a full
|
||
entity. However, only a strong validator is usable for a sub-range
|
||
retrieval, since otherwise the client might end up with an internally
|
||
inconsistent entity.
|
||
|
||
Clients MAY issue simple (non-subrange) GET requests with either weak
|
||
validators or strong validators. Clients MUST NOT use weak validators
|
||
in other forms of request.
|
||
|
||
The only function that the HTTP/1.1 protocol defines on validators is
|
||
comparison. There are two validator comparison functions, depending
|
||
on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators
|
||
or not:
|
||
|
||
- The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal,
|
||
both validators MUST be identical in every way, and both MUST
|
||
NOT be weak.
|
||
|
||
- The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal,
|
||
both validators MUST be identical in every way, but either or
|
||
both of them MAY be tagged as "weak" without affecting the
|
||
result.
|
||
|
||
An entity tag is strong unless it is explicitly tagged as weak.
|
||
Section 3.11 gives the syntax for entity tags.
|
||
|
||
A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a request, is
|
||
implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is strong,
|
||
using the following rules:
|
||
|
||
- The validator is being compared by an origin server to the
|
||
actual current validator for the entity and,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 87]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
- That origin server reliably knows that the associated entity did
|
||
not change twice during the second covered by the presented
|
||
validator.
|
||
|
||
or
|
||
|
||
- The validator is about to be used by a client in an If-
|
||
Modified-Since or If-Unmodified-Since header, because the client
|
||
has a cache entry for the associated entity, and
|
||
|
||
- That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time
|
||
when the origin server sent the original response, and
|
||
|
||
- The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before
|
||
the Date value.
|
||
|
||
or
|
||
|
||
- The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the
|
||
validator stored in its cache entry for the entity, and
|
||
|
||
- That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time
|
||
when the origin server sent the original response, and
|
||
|
||
- The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before
|
||
the Date value.
|
||
|
||
This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were
|
||
sent by the origin server during the same second, but both had the
|
||
same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would
|
||
have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified time. The arbitrary 60-
|
||
second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-
|
||
Modified values are generated from different clocks, or at somewhat
|
||
different times during the preparation of the response. An
|
||
implementation MAY use a value larger than 60 seconds, if it is
|
||
believed that 60 seconds is too short.
|
||
|
||
If a client wishes to perform a sub-range retrieval on a value for
|
||
which it has only a Last-Modified time and no opaque validator, it
|
||
MAY do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense
|
||
described here.
|
||
|
||
A cache or origin server receiving a conditional request, other than
|
||
a full-body GET request, MUST use the strong comparison function to
|
||
evaluate the condition.
|
||
|
||
These rules allow HTTP/1.1 caches and clients to safely perform sub-
|
||
range retrievals on values that have been obtained from HTTP/1.0
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 88]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
servers.
|
||
|
||
13.3.4 Rules for When to Use Entity Tags and Last-Modified Dates
|
||
|
||
We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for origin servers,
|
||
clients, and caches regarding when various validator types ought to
|
||
be used, and for what purposes.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 origin servers:
|
||
|
||
- SHOULD send an entity tag validator unless it is not feasible to
|
||
generate one.
|
||
|
||
- MAY send a weak entity tag instead of a strong entity tag, if
|
||
performance considerations support the use of weak entity tags,
|
||
or if it is unfeasible to send a strong entity tag.
|
||
|
||
- SHOULD send a Last-Modified value if it is feasible to send one,
|
||
unless the risk of a breakdown in semantic transparency that
|
||
could result from using this date in an If-Modified-Since header
|
||
would lead to serious problems.
|
||
|
||
In other words, the preferred behavior for an HTTP/1.1 origin server
|
||
is to send both a strong entity tag and a Last-Modified value.
|
||
|
||
In order to be legal, a strong entity tag MUST change whenever the
|
||
associated entity value changes in any way. A weak entity tag SHOULD
|
||
change whenever the associated entity changes in a semantically
|
||
significant way.
|
||
|
||
Note: in order to provide semantically transparent caching, an
|
||
origin server must avoid reusing a specific strong entity tag
|
||
value for two different entities, or reusing a specific weak
|
||
entity tag value for two semantically different entities. Cache
|
||
entries might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of
|
||
expiration times, so it might be inappropriate to expect that a
|
||
cache will never again attempt to validate an entry using a
|
||
validator that it obtained at some point in the past.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 clients:
|
||
|
||
- If an entity tag has been provided by the origin server, MUST
|
||
use that entity tag in any cache-conditional request (using If-
|
||
Match or If-None-Match).
|
||
|
||
- If only a Last-Modified value has been provided by the origin
|
||
server, SHOULD use that value in non-subrange cache-conditional
|
||
requests (using If-Modified-Since).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 89]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
- If only a Last-Modified value has been provided by an HTTP/1.0
|
||
origin server, MAY use that value in subrange cache-conditional
|
||
requests (using If-Unmodified-Since:). The user agent SHOULD
|
||
provide a way to disable this, in case of difficulty.
|
||
|
||
- If both an entity tag and a Last-Modified value have been
|
||
provided by the origin server, SHOULD use both validators in
|
||
cache-conditional requests. This allows both HTTP/1.0 and
|
||
HTTP/1.1 caches to respond appropriately.
|
||
|
||
An HTTP/1.1 origin server, upon receiving a conditional request that
|
||
includes both a Last-Modified date (e.g., in an If-Modified-Since or
|
||
If-Unmodified-Since header field) and one or more entity tags (e.g.,
|
||
in an If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range header field) as cache
|
||
validators, MUST NOT return a response status of 304 (Not Modified)
|
||
unless doing so is consistent with all of the conditional header
|
||
fields in the request.
|
||
|
||
An HTTP/1.1 caching proxy, upon receiving a conditional request that
|
||
includes both a Last-Modified date and one or more entity tags as
|
||
cache validators, MUST NOT return a locally cached response to the
|
||
client unless that cached response is consistent with all of the
|
||
conditional header fields in the request.
|
||
|
||
Note: The general principle behind these rules is that HTTP/1.1
|
||
servers and clients should transmit as much non-redundant
|
||
information as is available in their responses and requests.
|
||
HTTP/1.1 systems receiving this information will make the most
|
||
conservative assumptions about the validators they receive.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.0 clients and caches will ignore entity tags. Generally,
|
||
last-modified values received or used by these systems will
|
||
support transparent and efficient caching, and so HTTP/1.1 origin
|
||
servers should provide Last-Modified values. In those rare cases
|
||
where the use of a Last-Modified value as a validator by an
|
||
HTTP/1.0 system could result in a serious problem, then HTTP/1.1
|
||
origin servers should not provide one.
|
||
|
||
13.3.5 Non-validating Conditionals
|
||
|
||
The principle behind entity tags is that only the service author
|
||
knows the semantics of a resource well enough to select an
|
||
appropriate cache validation mechanism, and the specification of any
|
||
validator comparison function more complex than byte-equality would
|
||
open up a can of worms. Thus, comparisons of any other headers
|
||
(except Last-Modified, for compatibility with HTTP/1.0) are never
|
||
used for purposes of validating a cache entry.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 90]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
13.4 Response Cacheability
|
||
|
||
Unless specifically constrained by a cache-control (section 14.9)
|
||
directive, a caching system MAY always store a successful response
|
||
(see section 13.8) as a cache entry, MAY return it without validation
|
||
if it is fresh, and MAY return it after successful validation. If
|
||
there is neither a cache validator nor an explicit expiration time
|
||
associated with a response, we do not expect it to be cached, but
|
||
certain caches MAY violate this expectation (for example, when little
|
||
or no network connectivity is available). A client can usually detect
|
||
that such a response was taken from a cache by comparing the Date
|
||
header to the current time.
|
||
|
||
Note: some HTTP/1.0 caches are known to violate this expectation
|
||
without providing any Warning.
|
||
|
||
However, in some cases it might be inappropriate for a cache to
|
||
retain an entity, or to return it in response to a subsequent
|
||
request. This might be because absolute semantic transparency is
|
||
deemed necessary by the service author, or because of security or
|
||
privacy considerations. Certain cache-control directives are
|
||
therefore provided so that the server can indicate that certain
|
||
resource entities, or portions thereof, are not to be cached
|
||
regardless of other considerations.
|
||
|
||
Note that section 14.8 normally prevents a shared cache from saving
|
||
and returning a response to a previous request if that request
|
||
included an Authorization header.
|
||
|
||
A response received with a status code of 200, 203, 206, 300, 301 or
|
||
410 MAY be stored by a cache and used in reply to a subsequent
|
||
request, subject to the expiration mechanism, unless a cache-control
|
||
directive prohibits caching. However, a cache that does not support
|
||
the Range and Content-Range headers MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial
|
||
Content) responses.
|
||
|
||
A response received with any other status code (e.g. status codes 302
|
||
and 307) MUST NOT be returned in a reply to a subsequent request
|
||
unless there are cache-control directives or another header(s) that
|
||
explicitly allow it. For example, these include the following: an
|
||
Expires header (section 14.21); a "max-age", "s-maxage", "must-
|
||
revalidate", "proxy-revalidate", "public" or "private" cache-control
|
||
directive (section 14.9).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 91]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
13.5 Constructing Responses From Caches
|
||
|
||
The purpose of an HTTP cache is to store information received in
|
||
response to requests for use in responding to future requests. In
|
||
many cases, a cache simply returns the appropriate parts of a
|
||
response to the requester. However, if the cache holds a cache entry
|
||
based on a previous response, it might have to combine parts of a new
|
||
response with what is held in the cache entry.
|
||
|
||
13.5.1 End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Headers
|
||
|
||
For the purpose of defining the behavior of caches and non-caching
|
||
proxies, we divide HTTP headers into two categories:
|
||
|
||
- End-to-end headers, which are transmitted to the ultimate
|
||
recipient of a request or response. End-to-end headers in
|
||
responses MUST be stored as part of a cache entry and MUST be
|
||
transmitted in any response formed from a cache entry.
|
||
|
||
- Hop-by-hop headers, which are meaningful only for a single
|
||
transport-level connection, and are not stored by caches or
|
||
forwarded by proxies.
|
||
|
||
The following HTTP/1.1 headers are hop-by-hop headers:
|
||
|
||
- Connection
|
||
- Keep-Alive
|
||
- Proxy-Authenticate
|
||
- Proxy-Authorization
|
||
- TE
|
||
- Trailers
|
||
- Transfer-Encoding
|
||
- Upgrade
|
||
|
||
All other headers defined by HTTP/1.1 are end-to-end headers.
|
||
|
||
Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header,
|
||
(section 14.10) to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later).
|
||
|
||
13.5.2 Non-modifiable Headers
|
||
|
||
Some features of the HTTP/1.1 protocol, such as Digest
|
||
Authentication, depend on the value of certain end-to-end headers. A
|
||
transparent proxy SHOULD NOT modify an end-to-end header unless the
|
||
definition of that header requires or specifically allows that.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 92]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
A transparent proxy MUST NOT modify any of the following fields in a
|
||
request or response, and it MUST NOT add any of these fields if not
|
||
already present:
|
||
|
||
- Content-Location
|
||
|
||
- Content-MD5
|
||
|
||
- ETag
|
||
|
||
- Last-Modified
|
||
|
||
A transparent proxy MUST NOT modify any of the following fields in a
|
||
response:
|
||
|
||
- Expires
|
||
|
||
but it MAY add any of these fields if not already present. If an
|
||
Expires header is added, it MUST be given a field-value identical to
|
||
that of the Date header in that response.
|
||
|
||
A proxy MUST NOT modify or add any of the following fields in a
|
||
message that contains the no-transform cache-control directive, or in
|
||
any request:
|
||
|
||
- Content-Encoding
|
||
|
||
- Content-Range
|
||
|
||
- Content-Type
|
||
|
||
A non-transparent proxy MAY modify or add these fields to a message
|
||
that does not include no-transform, but if it does so, it MUST add a
|
||
Warning 214 (Transformation applied) if one does not already appear
|
||
in the message (see section 14.46).
|
||
|
||
Warning: unnecessary modification of end-to-end headers might
|
||
cause authentication failures if stronger authentication
|
||
mechanisms are introduced in later versions of HTTP. Such
|
||
authentication mechanisms MAY rely on the values of header fields
|
||
not listed here.
|
||
|
||
The Content-Length field of a request or response is added or deleted
|
||
according to the rules in section 4.4. A transparent proxy MUST
|
||
preserve the entity-length (section 7.2.2) of the entity-body,
|
||
although it MAY change the transfer-length (section 4.4).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 93]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
13.5.3 Combining Headers
|
||
|
||
When a cache makes a validating request to a server, and the server
|
||
provides a 304 (Not Modified) response or a 206 (Partial Content)
|
||
response, the cache then constructs a response to send to the
|
||
requesting client.
|
||
|
||
If the status code is 304 (Not Modified), the cache uses the entity-
|
||
body stored in the cache entry as the entity-body of this outgoing
|
||
response. If the status code is 206 (Partial Content) and the ETag or
|
||
Last-Modified headers match exactly, the cache MAY combine the
|
||
contents stored in the cache entry with the new contents received in
|
||
the response and use the result as the entity-body of this outgoing
|
||
response, (see 13.5.4).
|
||
|
||
The end-to-end headers stored in the cache entry are used for the
|
||
constructed response, except that
|
||
|
||
- any stored Warning headers with warn-code 1xx (see section
|
||
14.46) MUST be deleted from the cache entry and the forwarded
|
||
response.
|
||
|
||
- any stored Warning headers with warn-code 2xx MUST be retained
|
||
in the cache entry and the forwarded response.
|
||
|
||
- any end-to-end headers provided in the 304 or 206 response MUST
|
||
replace the corresponding headers from the cache entry.
|
||
|
||
Unless the cache decides to remove the cache entry, it MUST also
|
||
replace the end-to-end headers stored with the cache entry with
|
||
corresponding headers received in the incoming response, except for
|
||
Warning headers as described immediately above. If a header field-
|
||
name in the incoming response matches more than one header in the
|
||
cache entry, all such old headers MUST be replaced.
|
||
|
||
In other words, the set of end-to-end headers received in the
|
||
incoming response overrides all corresponding end-to-end headers
|
||
stored with the cache entry (except for stored Warning headers with
|
||
warn-code 1xx, which are deleted even if not overridden).
|
||
|
||
Note: this rule allows an origin server to use a 304 (Not
|
||
Modified) or a 206 (Partial Content) response to update any header
|
||
associated with a previous response for the same entity or sub-
|
||
ranges thereof, although it might not always be meaningful or
|
||
correct to do so. This rule does not allow an origin server to use
|
||
a 304 (Not Modified) or a 206 (Partial Content) response to
|
||
entirely delete a header that it had provided with a previous
|
||
response.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 94]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
13.5.4 Combining Byte Ranges
|
||
|
||
A response might transfer only a subrange of the bytes of an entity-
|
||
body, either because the request included one or more Range
|
||
specifications, or because a connection was broken prematurely. After
|
||
several such transfers, a cache might have received several ranges of
|
||
the same entity-body.
|
||
|
||
If a cache has a stored non-empty set of subranges for an entity, and
|
||
an incoming response transfers another subrange, the cache MAY
|
||
combine the new subrange with the existing set if both the following
|
||
conditions are met:
|
||
|
||
- Both the incoming response and the cache entry have a cache
|
||
validator.
|
||
|
||
- The two cache validators match using the strong comparison
|
||
function (see section 13.3.3).
|
||
|
||
If either requirement is not met, the cache MUST use only the most
|
||
recent partial response (based on the Date values transmitted with
|
||
every response, and using the incoming response if these values are
|
||
equal or missing), and MUST discard the other partial information.
|
||
|
||
13.6 Caching Negotiated Responses
|
||
|
||
Use of server-driven content negotiation (section 12.1), as indicated
|
||
by the presence of a Vary header field in a response, alters the
|
||
conditions and procedure by which a cache can use the response for
|
||
subsequent requests. See section 14.44 for use of the Vary header
|
||
field by servers.
|
||
|
||
A server SHOULD use the Vary header field to inform a cache of what
|
||
request-header fields were used to select among multiple
|
||
representations of a cacheable response subject to server-driven
|
||
negotiation. The set of header fields named by the Vary field value
|
||
is known as the "selecting" request-headers.
|
||
|
||
When the cache receives a subsequent request whose Request-URI
|
||
specifies one or more cache entries including a Vary header field,
|
||
the cache MUST NOT use such a cache entry to construct a response to
|
||
the new request unless all of the selecting request-headers present
|
||
in the new request match the corresponding stored request-headers in
|
||
the original request.
|
||
|
||
The selecting request-headers from two requests are defined to match
|
||
if and only if the selecting request-headers in the first request can
|
||
be transformed to the selecting request-headers in the second request
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 95]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
by adding or removing linear white space (LWS) at places where this
|
||
is allowed by the corresponding BNF, and/or combining multiple
|
||
message-header fields with the same field name following the rules
|
||
about message headers in section 4.2.
|
||
|
||
A Vary header field-value of "*" always fails to match and subsequent
|
||
requests on that resource can only be properly interpreted by the
|
||
origin server.
|
||
|
||
If the selecting request header fields for the cached entry do not
|
||
match the selecting request header fields of the new request, then
|
||
the cache MUST NOT use a cached entry to satisfy the request unless
|
||
it first relays the new request to the origin server in a conditional
|
||
request and the server responds with 304 (Not Modified), including an
|
||
entity tag or Content-Location that indicates the entity to be used.
|
||
|
||
If an entity tag was assigned to a cached representation, the
|
||
forwarded request SHOULD be conditional and include the entity tags
|
||
in an If-None-Match header field from all its cache entries for the
|
||
resource. This conveys to the server the set of entities currently
|
||
held by the cache, so that if any one of these entities matches the
|
||
requested entity, the server can use the ETag header field in its 304
|
||
(Not Modified) response to tell the cache which entry is appropriate.
|
||
If the entity-tag of the new response matches that of an existing
|
||
entry, the new response SHOULD be used to update the header fields of
|
||
the existing entry, and the result MUST be returned to the client.
|
||
|
||
If any of the existing cache entries contains only partial content
|
||
for the associated entity, its entity-tag SHOULD NOT be included in
|
||
the If-None-Match header field unless the request is for a range that
|
||
would be fully satisfied by that entry.
|
||
|
||
If a cache receives a successful response whose Content-Location
|
||
field matches that of an existing cache entry for the same Request-
|
||
]URI, whose entity-tag differs from that of the existing entry, and
|
||
whose Date is more recent than that of the existing entry, the
|
||
existing entry SHOULD NOT be returned in response to future requests
|
||
and SHOULD be deleted from the cache.
|
||
|
||
13.7 Shared and Non-Shared Caches
|
||
|
||
For reasons of security and privacy, it is necessary to make a
|
||
distinction between "shared" and "non-shared" caches. A non-shared
|
||
cache is one that is accessible only to a single user. Accessibility
|
||
in this case SHOULD be enforced by appropriate security mechanisms.
|
||
All other caches are considered to be "shared." Other sections of
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 96]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
this specification place certain constraints on the operation of
|
||
shared caches in order to prevent loss of privacy or failure of
|
||
access controls.
|
||
|
||
13.8 Errors or Incomplete Response Cache Behavior
|
||
|
||
A cache that receives an incomplete response (for example, with fewer
|
||
bytes of data than specified in a Content-Length header) MAY store
|
||
the response. However, the cache MUST treat this as a partial
|
||
response. Partial responses MAY be combined as described in section
|
||
13.5.4; the result might be a full response or might still be
|
||
partial. A cache MUST NOT return a partial response to a client
|
||
without explicitly marking it as such, using the 206 (Partial
|
||
Content) status code. A cache MUST NOT return a partial response
|
||
using a status code of 200 (OK).
|
||
|
||
If a cache receives a 5xx response while attempting to revalidate an
|
||
entry, it MAY either forward this response to the requesting client,
|
||
or act as if the server failed to respond. In the latter case, it MAY
|
||
return a previously received response unless the cached entry
|
||
includes the "must-revalidate" cache-control directive (see section
|
||
14.9).
|
||
|
||
13.9 Side Effects of GET and HEAD
|
||
|
||
Unless the origin server explicitly prohibits the caching of their
|
||
responses, the application of GET and HEAD methods to any resources
|
||
SHOULD NOT have side effects that would lead to erroneous behavior if
|
||
these responses are taken from a cache. They MAY still have side
|
||
effects, but a cache is not required to consider such side effects in
|
||
its caching decisions. Caches are always expected to observe an
|
||
origin server's explicit restrictions on caching.
|
||
|
||
We note one exception to this rule: since some applications have
|
||
traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a
|
||
"?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side
|
||
effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URIs as fresh unless
|
||
the server provides an explicit expiration time. This specifically
|
||
means that responses from HTTP/1.0 servers for such URIs SHOULD NOT
|
||
be taken from a cache. See section 9.1.1 for related information.
|
||
|
||
13.10 Invalidation After Updates or Deletions
|
||
|
||
The effect of certain methods performed on a resource at the origin
|
||
server might cause one or more existing cache entries to become non-
|
||
transparently invalid. That is, although they might continue to be
|
||
"fresh," they do not accurately reflect what the origin server would
|
||
return for a new request on that resource.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 97]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
There is no way for the HTTP protocol to guarantee that all such
|
||
cache entries are marked invalid. For example, the request that
|
||
caused the change at the origin server might not have gone through
|
||
the proxy where a cache entry is stored. However, several rules help
|
||
reduce the likelihood of erroneous behavior.
|
||
|
||
In this section, the phrase "invalidate an entity" means that the
|
||
cache will either remove all instances of that entity from its
|
||
storage, or will mark these as "invalid" and in need of a mandatory
|
||
revalidation before they can be returned in response to a subsequent
|
||
request.
|
||
|
||
Some HTTP methods MUST cause a cache to invalidate an entity. This is
|
||
either the entity referred to by the Request-URI, or by the Location
|
||
or Content-Location headers (if present). These methods are:
|
||
|
||
- PUT
|
||
|
||
- DELETE
|
||
|
||
- POST
|
||
|
||
In order to prevent denial of service attacks, an invalidation based
|
||
on the URI in a Location or Content-Location header MUST only be
|
||
performed if the host part is the same as in the Request-URI.
|
||
|
||
A cache that passes through requests for methods it does not
|
||
understand SHOULD invalidate any entities referred to by the
|
||
Request-URI.
|
||
|
||
13.11 Write-Through Mandatory
|
||
|
||
All methods that might be expected to cause modifications to the
|
||
origin server's resources MUST be written through to the origin
|
||
server. This currently includes all methods except for GET and HEAD.
|
||
A cache MUST NOT reply to such a request from a client before having
|
||
transmitted the request to the inbound server, and having received a
|
||
corresponding response from the inbound server. This does not prevent
|
||
a proxy cache from sending a 100 (Continue) response before the
|
||
inbound server has sent its final reply.
|
||
|
||
The alternative (known as "write-back" or "copy-back" caching) is not
|
||
allowed in HTTP/1.1, due to the difficulty of providing consistent
|
||
updates and the problems arising from server, cache, or network
|
||
failure prior to write-back.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 98]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
13.12 Cache Replacement
|
||
|
||
If a new cacheable (see sections 14.9.2, 13.2.5, 13.2.6 and 13.8)
|
||
response is received from a resource while any existing responses for
|
||
the same resource are cached, the cache SHOULD use the new response
|
||
to reply to the current request. It MAY insert it into cache storage
|
||
and MAY, if it meets all other requirements, use it to respond to any
|
||
future requests that would previously have caused the old response to
|
||
be returned. If it inserts the new response into cache storage the
|
||
rules in section 13.5.3 apply.
|
||
|
||
Note: a new response that has an older Date header value than
|
||
existing cached responses is not cacheable.
|
||
|
||
13.13 History Lists
|
||
|
||
User agents often have history mechanisms, such as "Back" buttons and
|
||
history lists, which can be used to redisplay an entity retrieved
|
||
earlier in a session.
|
||
|
||
History mechanisms and caches are different. In particular history
|
||
mechanisms SHOULD NOT try to show a semantically transparent view of
|
||
the current state of a resource. Rather, a history mechanism is meant
|
||
to show exactly what the user saw at the time when the resource was
|
||
retrieved.
|
||
|
||
By default, an expiration time does not apply to history mechanisms.
|
||
If the entity is still in storage, a history mechanism SHOULD display
|
||
it even if the entity has expired, unless the user has specifically
|
||
configured the agent to refresh expired history documents.
|
||
|
||
This is not to be construed to prohibit the history mechanism from
|
||
telling the user that a view might be stale.
|
||
|
||
Note: if history list mechanisms unnecessarily prevent users from
|
||
viewing stale resources, this will tend to force service authors
|
||
to avoid using HTTP expiration controls and cache controls when
|
||
they would otherwise like to. Service authors may consider it
|
||
important that users not be presented with error messages or
|
||
warning messages when they use navigation controls (such as BACK)
|
||
to view previously fetched resources. Even though sometimes such
|
||
resources ought not to cached, or ought to expire quickly, user
|
||
interface considerations may force service authors to resort to
|
||
other means of preventing caching (e.g. "once-only" URLs) in order
|
||
not to suffer the effects of improperly functioning history
|
||
mechanisms.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 99]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
14 Header Field Definitions
|
||
|
||
This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard
|
||
HTTP/1.1 header fields. For entity-header fields, both sender and
|
||
recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who
|
||
sends and who receives the entity.
|
||
|
||
14.1 Accept
|
||
|
||
The Accept request-header field can be used to specify certain media
|
||
types which are acceptable for the response. Accept headers can be
|
||
used to indicate that the request is specifically limited to a small
|
||
set of desired types, as in the case of a request for an in-line
|
||
image.
|
||
|
||
Accept = "Accept" ":"
|
||
#( media-range [ accept-params ] )
|
||
|
||
media-range = ( "*/*"
|
||
| ( type "/" "*" )
|
||
| ( type "/" subtype )
|
||
) *( ";" parameter )
|
||
accept-params = ";" "q" "=" qvalue *( accept-extension )
|
||
accept-extension = ";" token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ]
|
||
|
||
The asterisk "*" character is used to group media types into ranges,
|
||
with "*/*" indicating all media types and "type/*" indicating all
|
||
subtypes of that type. The media-range MAY include media type
|
||
parameters that are applicable to that range.
|
||
|
||
Each media-range MAY be followed by one or more accept-params,
|
||
beginning with the "q" parameter for indicating a relative quality
|
||
factor. The first "q" parameter (if any) separates the media-range
|
||
parameter(s) from the accept-params. Quality factors allow the user
|
||
or user agent to indicate the relative degree of preference for that
|
||
media-range, using the qvalue scale from 0 to 1 (section 3.9). The
|
||
default value is q=1.
|
||
|
||
Note: Use of the "q" parameter name to separate media type
|
||
parameters from Accept extension parameters is due to historical
|
||
practice. Although this prevents any media type parameter named
|
||
"q" from being used with a media range, such an event is believed
|
||
to be unlikely given the lack of any "q" parameters in the IANA
|
||
media type registry and the rare usage of any media type
|
||
parameters in Accept. Future media types are discouraged from
|
||
registering any parameter named "q".
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 100]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The example
|
||
|
||
Accept: audio/*; q=0.2, audio/basic
|
||
|
||
SHOULD be interpreted as "I prefer audio/basic, but send me any audio
|
||
type if it is the best available after an 80% mark-down in quality."
|
||
|
||
If no Accept header field is present, then it is assumed that the
|
||
client accepts all media types. If an Accept header field is present,
|
||
and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable
|
||
according to the combined Accept field value, then the server SHOULD
|
||
send a 406 (not acceptable) response.
|
||
|
||
A more elaborate example is
|
||
|
||
Accept: text/plain; q=0.5, text/html,
|
||
text/x-dvi; q=0.8, text/x-c
|
||
|
||
Verbally, this would be interpreted as "text/html and text/x-c are
|
||
the preferred media types, but if they do not exist, then send the
|
||
text/x-dvi entity, and if that does not exist, send the text/plain
|
||
entity."
|
||
|
||
Media ranges can be overridden by more specific media ranges or
|
||
specific media types. If more than one media range applies to a given
|
||
type, the most specific reference has precedence. For example,
|
||
|
||
Accept: text/*, text/html, text/html;level=1, */*
|
||
|
||
have the following precedence:
|
||
|
||
1) text/html;level=1
|
||
2) text/html
|
||
3) text/*
|
||
4) */*
|
||
|
||
The media type quality factor associated with a given type is
|
||
determined by finding the media range with the highest precedence
|
||
which matches that type. For example,
|
||
|
||
Accept: text/*;q=0.3, text/html;q=0.7, text/html;level=1,
|
||
text/html;level=2;q=0.4, */*;q=0.5
|
||
|
||
would cause the following values to be associated:
|
||
|
||
text/html;level=1 = 1
|
||
text/html = 0.7
|
||
text/plain = 0.3
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 101]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
image/jpeg = 0.5
|
||
text/html;level=2 = 0.4
|
||
text/html;level=3 = 0.7
|
||
|
||
Note: A user agent might be provided with a default set of quality
|
||
values for certain media ranges. However, unless the user agent is
|
||
a closed system which cannot interact with other rendering agents,
|
||
this default set ought to be configurable by the user.
|
||
|
||
14.2 Accept-Charset
|
||
|
||
The Accept-Charset request-header field can be used to indicate what
|
||
character sets are acceptable for the response. This field allows
|
||
clients capable of understanding more comprehensive or special-
|
||
purpose character sets to signal that capability to a server which is
|
||
capable of representing documents in those character sets.
|
||
|
||
Accept-Charset = "Accept-Charset" ":"
|
||
1#( ( charset | "*" )[ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
|
||
|
||
|
||
Character set values are described in section 3.4. Each charset MAY
|
||
be given an associated quality value which represents the user's
|
||
preference for that charset. The default value is q=1. An example is
|
||
|
||
Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.8
|
||
|
||
The special value "*", if present in the Accept-Charset field,
|
||
matches every character set (including ISO-8859-1) which is not
|
||
mentioned elsewhere in the Accept-Charset field. If no "*" is present
|
||
in an Accept-Charset field, then all character sets not explicitly
|
||
mentioned get a quality value of 0, except for ISO-8859-1, which gets
|
||
a quality value of 1 if not explicitly mentioned.
|
||
|
||
If no Accept-Charset header is present, the default is that any
|
||
character set is acceptable. If an Accept-Charset header is present,
|
||
and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable
|
||
according to the Accept-Charset header, then the server SHOULD send
|
||
an error response with the 406 (not acceptable) status code, though
|
||
the sending of an unacceptable response is also allowed.
|
||
|
||
14.3 Accept-Encoding
|
||
|
||
The Accept-Encoding request-header field is similar to Accept, but
|
||
restricts the content-codings (section 3.5) that are acceptable in
|
||
the response.
|
||
|
||
Accept-Encoding = "Accept-Encoding" ":"
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 102]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
1#( codings [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
|
||
codings = ( content-coding | "*" )
|
||
|
||
Examples of its use are:
|
||
|
||
Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip
|
||
Accept-Encoding:
|
||
Accept-Encoding: *
|
||
Accept-Encoding: compress;q=0.5, gzip;q=1.0
|
||
Accept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0
|
||
|
||
A server tests whether a content-coding is acceptable, according to
|
||
an Accept-Encoding field, using these rules:
|
||
|
||
1. If the content-coding is one of the content-codings listed in
|
||
the Accept-Encoding field, then it is acceptable, unless it is
|
||
accompanied by a qvalue of 0. (As defined in section 3.9, a
|
||
qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable.")
|
||
|
||
2. The special "*" symbol in an Accept-Encoding field matches any
|
||
available content-coding not explicitly listed in the header
|
||
field.
|
||
|
||
3. If multiple content-codings are acceptable, then the acceptable
|
||
content-coding with the highest non-zero qvalue is preferred.
|
||
|
||
4. The "identity" content-coding is always acceptable, unless
|
||
specifically refused because the Accept-Encoding field includes
|
||
"identity;q=0", or because the field includes "*;q=0" and does
|
||
not explicitly include the "identity" content-coding. If the
|
||
Accept-Encoding field-value is empty, then only the "identity"
|
||
encoding is acceptable.
|
||
|
||
If an Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, and if the
|
||
server cannot send a response which is acceptable according to the
|
||
Accept-Encoding header, then the server SHOULD send an error response
|
||
with the 406 (Not Acceptable) status code.
|
||
|
||
If no Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server MAY
|
||
assume that the client will accept any content coding. In this case,
|
||
if "identity" is one of the available content-codings, then the
|
||
server SHOULD use the "identity" content-coding, unless it has
|
||
additional information that a different content-coding is meaningful
|
||
to the client.
|
||
|
||
Note: If the request does not include an Accept-Encoding field,
|
||
and if the "identity" content-coding is unavailable, then
|
||
content-codings commonly understood by HTTP/1.0 clients (i.e.,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 103]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
"gzip" and "compress") are preferred; some older clients
|
||
improperly display messages sent with other content-codings. The
|
||
server might also make this decision based on information about
|
||
the particular user-agent or client.
|
||
|
||
Note: Most HTTP/1.0 applications do not recognize or obey qvalues
|
||
associated with content-codings. This means that qvalues will not
|
||
work and are not permitted with x-gzip or x-compress.
|
||
|
||
14.4 Accept-Language
|
||
|
||
The Accept-Language request-header field is similar to Accept, but
|
||
restricts the set of natural languages that are preferred as a
|
||
response to the request. Language tags are defined in section 3.10.
|
||
|
||
Accept-Language = "Accept-Language" ":"
|
||
1#( language-range [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
|
||
language-range = ( ( 1*8ALPHA *( "-" 1*8ALPHA ) ) | "*" )
|
||
|
||
Each language-range MAY be given an associated quality value which
|
||
represents an estimate of the user's preference for the languages
|
||
specified by that range. The quality value defaults to "q=1". For
|
||
example,
|
||
|
||
Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7
|
||
|
||
would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and
|
||
other types of English." A language-range matches a language-tag if
|
||
it exactly equals the tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix of the
|
||
tag such that the first tag character following the prefix is "-".
|
||
The special range "*", if present in the Accept-Language field,
|
||
matches every tag not matched by any other range present in the
|
||
Accept-Language field.
|
||
|
||
Note: This use of a prefix matching rule does not imply that
|
||
language tags are assigned to languages in such a way that it is
|
||
always true that if a user understands a language with a certain
|
||
tag, then this user will also understand all languages with tags
|
||
for which this tag is a prefix. The prefix rule simply allows the
|
||
use of prefix tags if this is the case.
|
||
|
||
The language quality factor assigned to a language-tag by the
|
||
Accept-Language field is the quality value of the longest language-
|
||
range in the field that matches the language-tag. If no language-
|
||
range in the field matches the tag, the language quality factor
|
||
assigned is 0. If no Accept-Language header is present in the
|
||
request, the server
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 104]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
SHOULD assume that all languages are equally acceptable. If an
|
||
Accept-Language header is present, then all languages which are
|
||
assigned a quality factor greater than 0 are acceptable.
|
||
|
||
It might be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send
|
||
an Accept-Language header with the complete linguistic preferences of
|
||
the user in every request. For a discussion of this issue, see
|
||
section 15.1.4.
|
||
|
||
As intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, it is
|
||
recommended that client applications make the choice of linguistic
|
||
preference available to the user. If the choice is not made
|
||
available, then the Accept-Language header field MUST NOT be given in
|
||
the request.
|
||
|
||
Note: When making the choice of linguistic preference available to
|
||
the user, we remind implementors of the fact that users are not
|
||
familiar with the details of language matching as described above,
|
||
and should provide appropriate guidance. As an example, users
|
||
might assume that on selecting "en-gb", they will be served any
|
||
kind of English document if British English is not available. A
|
||
user agent might suggest in such a case to add "en" to get the
|
||
best matching behavior.
|
||
|
||
14.5 Accept-Ranges
|
||
|
||
The Accept-Ranges response-header field allows the server to
|
||
indicate its acceptance of range requests for a resource:
|
||
|
||
Accept-Ranges = "Accept-Ranges" ":" acceptable-ranges
|
||
acceptable-ranges = 1#range-unit | "none"
|
||
|
||
Origin servers that accept byte-range requests MAY send
|
||
|
||
Accept-Ranges: bytes
|
||
|
||
but are not required to do so. Clients MAY generate byte-range
|
||
requests without having received this header for the resource
|
||
involved. Range units are defined in section 3.12.
|
||
|
||
Servers that do not accept any kind of range request for a
|
||
resource MAY send
|
||
|
||
Accept-Ranges: none
|
||
|
||
to advise the client not to attempt a range request.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 105]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
14.6 Age
|
||
|
||
The Age response-header field conveys the sender's estimate of the
|
||
amount of time since the response (or its revalidation) was
|
||
generated at the origin server. A cached response is "fresh" if
|
||
its age does not exceed its freshness lifetime. Age values are
|
||
calculated as specified in section 13.2.3.
|
||
|
||
Age = "Age" ":" age-value
|
||
age-value = delta-seconds
|
||
|
||
Age values are non-negative decimal integers, representing time in
|
||
seconds.
|
||
|
||
If a cache receives a value larger than the largest positive
|
||
integer it can represent, or if any of its age calculations
|
||
overflows, it MUST transmit an Age header with a value of
|
||
2147483648 (2^31). An HTTP/1.1 server that includes a cache MUST
|
||
include an Age header field in every response generated from its
|
||
own cache. Caches SHOULD use an arithmetic type of at least 31
|
||
bits of range.
|
||
|
||
14.7 Allow
|
||
|
||
The Allow entity-header field lists the set of methods supported
|
||
by the resource identified by the Request-URI. The purpose of this
|
||
field is strictly to inform the recipient of valid methods
|
||
associated with the resource. An Allow header field MUST be
|
||
present in a 405 (Method Not Allowed) response.
|
||
|
||
Allow = "Allow" ":" #Method
|
||
|
||
Example of use:
|
||
|
||
Allow: GET, HEAD, PUT
|
||
|
||
This field cannot prevent a client from trying other methods.
|
||
However, the indications given by the Allow header field value
|
||
SHOULD be followed. The actual set of allowed methods is defined
|
||
by the origin server at the time of each request.
|
||
|
||
The Allow header field MAY be provided with a PUT request to
|
||
recommend the methods to be supported by the new or modified
|
||
resource. The server is not required to support these methods and
|
||
SHOULD include an Allow header in the response giving the actual
|
||
supported methods.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 106]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
A proxy MUST NOT modify the Allow header field even if it does not
|
||
understand all the methods specified, since the user agent might
|
||
have other means of communicating with the origin server.
|
||
|
||
14.8 Authorization
|
||
|
||
A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with a server--
|
||
usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 response--does
|
||
so by including an Authorization request-header field with the
|
||
request. The Authorization field value consists of credentials
|
||
containing the authentication information of the user agent for
|
||
the realm of the resource being requested.
|
||
|
||
Authorization = "Authorization" ":" credentials
|
||
|
||
HTTP access authentication is described in "HTTP Authentication:
|
||
Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [43]. If a request is
|
||
authenticated and a realm specified, the same credentials SHOULD
|
||
be valid for all other requests within this realm (assuming that
|
||
the authentication scheme itself does not require otherwise, such
|
||
as credentials that vary according to a challenge value or using
|
||
synchronized clocks).
|
||
|
||
When a shared cache (see section 13.7) receives a request
|
||
containing an Authorization field, it MUST NOT return the
|
||
corresponding response as a reply to any other request, unless one
|
||
of the following specific exceptions holds:
|
||
|
||
1. If the response includes the "s-maxage" cache-control
|
||
directive, the cache MAY use that response in replying to a
|
||
subsequent request. But (if the specified maximum age has
|
||
passed) a proxy cache MUST first revalidate it with the origin
|
||
server, using the request-headers from the new request to allow
|
||
the origin server to authenticate the new request. (This is the
|
||
defined behavior for s-maxage.) If the response includes "s-
|
||
maxage=0", the proxy MUST always revalidate it before re-using
|
||
it.
|
||
|
||
2. If the response includes the "must-revalidate" cache-control
|
||
directive, the cache MAY use that response in replying to a
|
||
subsequent request. But if the response is stale, all caches
|
||
MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the
|
||
request-headers from the new request to allow the origin server
|
||
to authenticate the new request.
|
||
|
||
3. If the response includes the "public" cache-control directive,
|
||
it MAY be returned in reply to any subsequent request.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 107]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
14.9 Cache-Control
|
||
|
||
The Cache-Control general-header field is used to specify directives
|
||
that MUST be obeyed by all caching mechanisms along the
|
||
request/response chain. The directives specify behavior intended to
|
||
prevent caches from adversely interfering with the request or
|
||
response. These directives typically override the default caching
|
||
algorithms. Cache directives are unidirectional in that the presence
|
||
of a directive in a request does not imply that the same directive is
|
||
to be given in the response.
|
||
|
||
Note that HTTP/1.0 caches might not implement Cache-Control and
|
||
might only implement Pragma: no-cache (see section 14.32).
|
||
|
||
Cache directives MUST be passed through by a proxy or gateway
|
||
application, regardless of their significance to that application,
|
||
since the directives might be applicable to all recipients along the
|
||
request/response chain. It is not possible to specify a cache-
|
||
directive for a specific cache.
|
||
|
||
Cache-Control = "Cache-Control" ":" 1#cache-directive
|
||
|
||
cache-directive = cache-request-directive
|
||
| cache-response-directive
|
||
|
||
cache-request-directive =
|
||
"no-cache" ; Section 14.9.1
|
||
| "no-store" ; Section 14.9.2
|
||
| "max-age" "=" delta-seconds ; Section 14.9.3, 14.9.4
|
||
| "max-stale" [ "=" delta-seconds ] ; Section 14.9.3
|
||
| "min-fresh" "=" delta-seconds ; Section 14.9.3
|
||
| "no-transform" ; Section 14.9.5
|
||
| "only-if-cached" ; Section 14.9.4
|
||
| cache-extension ; Section 14.9.6
|
||
|
||
cache-response-directive =
|
||
"public" ; Section 14.9.1
|
||
| "private" [ "=" <"> 1#field-name <"> ] ; Section 14.9.1
|
||
| "no-cache" [ "=" <"> 1#field-name <"> ]; Section 14.9.1
|
||
| "no-store" ; Section 14.9.2
|
||
| "no-transform" ; Section 14.9.5
|
||
| "must-revalidate" ; Section 14.9.4
|
||
| "proxy-revalidate" ; Section 14.9.4
|
||
| "max-age" "=" delta-seconds ; Section 14.9.3
|
||
| "s-maxage" "=" delta-seconds ; Section 14.9.3
|
||
| cache-extension ; Section 14.9.6
|
||
|
||
cache-extension = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ]
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 108]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
When a directive appears without any 1#field-name parameter, the
|
||
directive applies to the entire request or response. When such a
|
||
directive appears with a 1#field-name parameter, it applies only to
|
||
the named field or fields, and not to the rest of the request or
|
||
response. This mechanism supports extensibility; implementations of
|
||
future versions of the HTTP protocol might apply these directives to
|
||
header fields not defined in HTTP/1.1.
|
||
|
||
The cache-control directives can be broken down into these general
|
||
categories:
|
||
|
||
- Restrictions on what are cacheable; these may only be imposed by
|
||
the origin server.
|
||
|
||
- Restrictions on what may be stored by a cache; these may be
|
||
imposed by either the origin server or the user agent.
|
||
|
||
- Modifications of the basic expiration mechanism; these may be
|
||
imposed by either the origin server or the user agent.
|
||
|
||
- Controls over cache revalidation and reload; these may only be
|
||
imposed by a user agent.
|
||
|
||
- Control over transformation of entities.
|
||
|
||
- Extensions to the caching system.
|
||
|
||
14.9.1 What is Cacheable
|
||
|
||
By default, a response is cacheable if the requirements of the
|
||
request method, request header fields, and the response status
|
||
indicate that it is cacheable. Section 13.4 summarizes these defaults
|
||
for cacheability. The following Cache-Control response directives
|
||
allow an origin server to override the default cacheability of a
|
||
response:
|
||
|
||
public
|
||
Indicates that the response MAY be cached by any cache, even if it
|
||
would normally be non-cacheable or cacheable only within a non-
|
||
shared cache. (See also Authorization, section 14.8, for
|
||
additional details.)
|
||
|
||
private
|
||
Indicates that all or part of the response message is intended for
|
||
a single user and MUST NOT be cached by a shared cache. This
|
||
allows an origin server to state that the specified parts of the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 109]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
response are intended for only one user and are not a valid
|
||
response for requests by other users. A private (non-shared) cache
|
||
MAY cache the response.
|
||
|
||
Note: This usage of the word private only controls where the
|
||
response may be cached, and cannot ensure the privacy of the
|
||
message content.
|
||
|
||
no-cache
|
||
If the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a
|
||
cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent request
|
||
without successful revalidation with the origin server. This
|
||
allows an origin server to prevent caching even by caches that
|
||
have been configured to return stale responses to client requests.
|
||
|
||
If the no-cache directive does specify one or more field-names,
|
||
then a cache MAY use the response to satisfy a subsequent request,
|
||
subject to any other restrictions on caching. However, the
|
||
specified field-name(s) MUST NOT be sent in the response to a
|
||
subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin
|
||
server. This allows an origin server to prevent the re-use of
|
||
certain header fields in a response, while still allowing caching
|
||
of the rest of the response.
|
||
|
||
Note: Most HTTP/1.0 caches will not recognize or obey this
|
||
directive.
|
||
|
||
14.9.2 What May be Stored by Caches
|
||
|
||
no-store
|
||
The purpose of the no-store directive is to prevent the
|
||
inadvertent release or retention of sensitive information (for
|
||
example, on backup tapes). The no-store directive applies to the
|
||
entire message, and MAY be sent either in a response or in a
|
||
request. If sent in a request, a cache MUST NOT store any part of
|
||
either this request or any response to it. If sent in a response,
|
||
a cache MUST NOT store any part of either this response or the
|
||
request that elicited it. This directive applies to both non-
|
||
shared and shared caches. "MUST NOT store" in this context means
|
||
that the cache MUST NOT intentionally store the information in
|
||
non-volatile storage, and MUST make a best-effort attempt to
|
||
remove the information from volatile storage as promptly as
|
||
possible after forwarding it.
|
||
|
||
Even when this directive is associated with a response, users
|
||
might explicitly store such a response outside of the caching
|
||
system (e.g., with a "Save As" dialog). History buffers MAY store
|
||
such responses as part of their normal operation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 110]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The purpose of this directive is to meet the stated requirements
|
||
of certain users and service authors who are concerned about
|
||
accidental releases of information via unanticipated accesses to
|
||
cache data structures. While the use of this directive might
|
||
improve privacy in some cases, we caution that it is NOT in any
|
||
way a reliable or sufficient mechanism for ensuring privacy. In
|
||
particular, malicious or compromised caches might not recognize or
|
||
obey this directive, and communications networks might be
|
||
vulnerable to eavesdropping.
|
||
|
||
14.9.3 Modifications of the Basic Expiration Mechanism
|
||
|
||
The expiration time of an entity MAY be specified by the origin
|
||
server using the Expires header (see section 14.21). Alternatively,
|
||
it MAY be specified using the max-age directive in a response. When
|
||
the max-age cache-control directive is present in a cached response,
|
||
the response is stale if its current age is greater than the age
|
||
value given (in seconds) at the time of a new request for that
|
||
resource. The max-age directive on a response implies that the
|
||
response is cacheable (i.e., "public") unless some other, more
|
||
restrictive cache directive is also present.
|
||
|
||
If a response includes both an Expires header and a max-age
|
||
directive, the max-age directive overrides the Expires header, even
|
||
if the Expires header is more restrictive. This rule allows an origin
|
||
server to provide, for a given response, a longer expiration time to
|
||
an HTTP/1.1 (or later) cache than to an HTTP/1.0 cache. This might be
|
||
useful if certain HTTP/1.0 caches improperly calculate ages or
|
||
expiration times, perhaps due to desynchronized clocks.
|
||
|
||
Many HTTP/1.0 cache implementations will treat an Expires value that
|
||
is less than or equal to the response Date value as being equivalent
|
||
to the Cache-Control response directive "no-cache". If an HTTP/1.1
|
||
cache receives such a response, and the response does not include a
|
||
Cache-Control header field, it SHOULD consider the response to be
|
||
non-cacheable in order to retain compatibility with HTTP/1.0 servers.
|
||
|
||
Note: An origin server might wish to use a relatively new HTTP
|
||
cache control feature, such as the "private" directive, on a
|
||
network including older caches that do not understand that
|
||
feature. The origin server will need to combine the new feature
|
||
with an Expires field whose value is less than or equal to the
|
||
Date value. This will prevent older caches from improperly
|
||
caching the response.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 111]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
s-maxage
|
||
If a response includes an s-maxage directive, then for a shared
|
||
cache (but not for a private cache), the maximum age specified by
|
||
this directive overrides the maximum age specified by either the
|
||
max-age directive or the Expires header. The s-maxage directive
|
||
also implies the semantics of the proxy-revalidate directive (see
|
||
section 14.9.4), i.e., that the shared cache must not use the
|
||
entry after it becomes stale to respond to a subsequent request
|
||
without first revalidating it with the origin server. The s-
|
||
maxage directive is always ignored by a private cache.
|
||
|
||
Note that most older caches, not compliant with this specification,
|
||
do not implement any cache-control directives. An origin server
|
||
wishing to use a cache-control directive that restricts, but does not
|
||
prevent, caching by an HTTP/1.1-compliant cache MAY exploit the
|
||
requirement that the max-age directive overrides the Expires header,
|
||
and the fact that pre-HTTP/1.1-compliant caches do not observe the
|
||
max-age directive.
|
||
|
||
Other directives allow a user agent to modify the basic expiration
|
||
mechanism. These directives MAY be specified on a request:
|
||
|
||
max-age
|
||
Indicates that the client is willing to accept a response whose
|
||
age is no greater than the specified time in seconds. Unless max-
|
||
stale directive is also included, the client is not willing to
|
||
accept a stale response.
|
||
|
||
min-fresh
|
||
Indicates that the client is willing to accept a response whose
|
||
freshness lifetime is no less than its current age plus the
|
||
specified time in seconds. That is, the client wants a response
|
||
that will still be fresh for at least the specified number of
|
||
seconds.
|
||
|
||
max-stale
|
||
Indicates that the client is willing to accept a response that has
|
||
exceeded its expiration time. If max-stale is assigned a value,
|
||
then the client is willing to accept a response that has exceeded
|
||
its expiration time by no more than the specified number of
|
||
seconds. If no value is assigned to max-stale, then the client is
|
||
willing to accept a stale response of any age.
|
||
|
||
If a cache returns a stale response, either because of a max-stale
|
||
directive on a request, or because the cache is configured to
|
||
override the expiration time of a response, the cache MUST attach a
|
||
Warning header to the stale response, using Warning 110 (Response is
|
||
stale).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 112]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
A cache MAY be configured to return stale responses without
|
||
validation, but only if this does not conflict with any "MUST"-level
|
||
requirements concerning cache validation (e.g., a "must-revalidate"
|
||
cache-control directive).
|
||
|
||
If both the new request and the cached entry include "max-age"
|
||
directives, then the lesser of the two values is used for determining
|
||
the freshness of the cached entry for that request.
|
||
|
||
14.9.4 Cache Revalidation and Reload Controls
|
||
|
||
Sometimes a user agent might want or need to insist that a cache
|
||
revalidate its cache entry with the origin server (and not just with
|
||
the next cache along the path to the origin server), or to reload its
|
||
cache entry from the origin server. End-to-end revalidation might be
|
||
necessary if either the cache or the origin server has overestimated
|
||
the expiration time of the cached response. End-to-end reload may be
|
||
necessary if the cache entry has become corrupted for some reason.
|
||
|
||
End-to-end revalidation may be requested either when the client does
|
||
not have its own local cached copy, in which case we call it
|
||
"unspecified end-to-end revalidation", or when the client does have a
|
||
local cached copy, in which case we call it "specific end-to-end
|
||
revalidation."
|
||
|
||
The client can specify these three kinds of action using Cache-
|
||
Control request directives:
|
||
|
||
End-to-end reload
|
||
The request includes a "no-cache" cache-control directive or, for
|
||
compatibility with HTTP/1.0 clients, "Pragma: no-cache". Field
|
||
names MUST NOT be included with the no-cache directive in a
|
||
request. The server MUST NOT use a cached copy when responding to
|
||
such a request.
|
||
|
||
Specific end-to-end revalidation
|
||
The request includes a "max-age=0" cache-control directive, which
|
||
forces each cache along the path to the origin server to
|
||
revalidate its own entry, if any, with the next cache or server.
|
||
The initial request includes a cache-validating conditional with
|
||
the client's current validator.
|
||
|
||
Unspecified end-to-end revalidation
|
||
The request includes "max-age=0" cache-control directive, which
|
||
forces each cache along the path to the origin server to
|
||
revalidate its own entry, if any, with the next cache or server.
|
||
The initial request does not include a cache-validating
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 113]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
conditional; the first cache along the path (if any) that holds a
|
||
cache entry for this resource includes a cache-validating
|
||
conditional with its current validator.
|
||
|
||
max-age
|
||
When an intermediate cache is forced, by means of a max-age=0
|
||
directive, to revalidate its own cache entry, and the client has
|
||
supplied its own validator in the request, the supplied validator
|
||
might differ from the validator currently stored with the cache
|
||
entry. In this case, the cache MAY use either validator in making
|
||
its own request without affecting semantic transparency.
|
||
|
||
However, the choice of validator might affect performance. The
|
||
best approach is for the intermediate cache to use its own
|
||
validator when making its request. If the server replies with 304
|
||
(Not Modified), then the cache can return its now validated copy
|
||
to the client with a 200 (OK) response. If the server replies with
|
||
a new entity and cache validator, however, the intermediate cache
|
||
can compare the returned validator with the one provided in the
|
||
client's request, using the strong comparison function. If the
|
||
client's validator is equal to the origin server's, then the
|
||
intermediate cache simply returns 304 (Not Modified). Otherwise,
|
||
it returns the new entity with a 200 (OK) response.
|
||
|
||
If a request includes the no-cache directive, it SHOULD NOT
|
||
include min-fresh, max-stale, or max-age.
|
||
|
||
only-if-cached
|
||
In some cases, such as times of extremely poor network
|
||
connectivity, a client may want a cache to return only those
|
||
responses that it currently has stored, and not to reload or
|
||
revalidate with the origin server. To do this, the client may
|
||
include the only-if-cached directive in a request. If it receives
|
||
this directive, a cache SHOULD either respond using a cached entry
|
||
that is consistent with the other constraints of the request, or
|
||
respond with a 504 (Gateway Timeout) status. However, if a group
|
||
of caches is being operated as a unified system with good internal
|
||
connectivity, such a request MAY be forwarded within that group of
|
||
caches.
|
||
|
||
must-revalidate
|
||
Because a cache MAY be configured to ignore a server's specified
|
||
expiration time, and because a client request MAY include a max-
|
||
stale directive (which has a similar effect), the protocol also
|
||
includes a mechanism for the origin server to require revalidation
|
||
of a cache entry on any subsequent use. When the must-revalidate
|
||
directive is present in a response received by a cache, that cache
|
||
MUST NOT use the entry after it becomes stale to respond to a
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 114]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
subsequent request without first revalidating it with the origin
|
||
server. (I.e., the cache MUST do an end-to-end revalidation every
|
||
time, if, based solely on the origin server's Expires or max-age
|
||
value, the cached response is stale.)
|
||
|
||
The must-revalidate directive is necessary to support reliable
|
||
operation for certain protocol features. In all circumstances an
|
||
HTTP/1.1 cache MUST obey the must-revalidate directive; in
|
||
particular, if the cache cannot reach the origin server for any
|
||
reason, it MUST generate a 504 (Gateway Timeout) response.
|
||
|
||
Servers SHOULD send the must-revalidate directive if and only if
|
||
failure to revalidate a request on the entity could result in
|
||
incorrect operation, such as a silently unexecuted financial
|
||
transaction. Recipients MUST NOT take any automated action that
|
||
violates this directive, and MUST NOT automatically provide an
|
||
unvalidated copy of the entity if revalidation fails.
|
||
|
||
Although this is not recommended, user agents operating under
|
||
severe connectivity constraints MAY violate this directive but, if
|
||
so, MUST explicitly warn the user that an unvalidated response has
|
||
been provided. The warning MUST be provided on each unvalidated
|
||
access, and SHOULD require explicit user confirmation.
|
||
|
||
proxy-revalidate
|
||
The proxy-revalidate directive has the same meaning as the must-
|
||
revalidate directive, except that it does not apply to non-shared
|
||
user agent caches. It can be used on a response to an
|
||
authenticated request to permit the user's cache to store and
|
||
later return the response without needing to revalidate it (since
|
||
it has already been authenticated once by that user), while still
|
||
requiring proxies that service many users to revalidate each time
|
||
(in order to make sure that each user has been authenticated).
|
||
Note that such authenticated responses also need the public cache
|
||
control directive in order to allow them to be cached at all.
|
||
|
||
14.9.5 No-Transform Directive
|
||
|
||
no-transform
|
||
Implementors of intermediate caches (proxies) have found it useful
|
||
to convert the media type of certain entity bodies. A non-
|
||
transparent proxy might, for example, convert between image
|
||
formats in order to save cache space or to reduce the amount of
|
||
traffic on a slow link.
|
||
|
||
Serious operational problems occur, however, when these
|
||
transformations are applied to entity bodies intended for certain
|
||
kinds of applications. For example, applications for medical
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 115]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
imaging, scientific data analysis and those using end-to-end
|
||
authentication, all depend on receiving an entity body that is bit
|
||
for bit identical to the original entity-body.
|
||
|
||
Therefore, if a message includes the no-transform directive, an
|
||
intermediate cache or proxy MUST NOT change those headers that are
|
||
listed in section 13.5.2 as being subject to the no-transform
|
||
directive. This implies that the cache or proxy MUST NOT change
|
||
any aspect of the entity-body that is specified by these headers,
|
||
including the value of the entity-body itself.
|
||
|
||
14.9.6 Cache Control Extensions
|
||
|
||
The Cache-Control header field can be extended through the use of one
|
||
or more cache-extension tokens, each with an optional assigned value.
|
||
Informational extensions (those which do not require a change in
|
||
cache behavior) MAY be added without changing the semantics of other
|
||
directives. Behavioral extensions are designed to work by acting as
|
||
modifiers to the existing base of cache directives. Both the new
|
||
directive and the standard directive are supplied, such that
|
||
applications which do not understand the new directive will default
|
||
to the behavior specified by the standard directive, and those that
|
||
understand the new directive will recognize it as modifying the
|
||
requirements associated with the standard directive. In this way,
|
||
extensions to the cache-control directives can be made without
|
||
requiring changes to the base protocol.
|
||
|
||
This extension mechanism depends on an HTTP cache obeying all of the
|
||
cache-control directives defined for its native HTTP-version, obeying
|
||
certain extensions, and ignoring all directives that it does not
|
||
understand.
|
||
|
||
For example, consider a hypothetical new response directive called
|
||
community which acts as a modifier to the private directive. We
|
||
define this new directive to mean that, in addition to any non-shared
|
||
cache, any cache which is shared only by members of the community
|
||
named within its value may cache the response. An origin server
|
||
wishing to allow the UCI community to use an otherwise private
|
||
response in their shared cache(s) could do so by including
|
||
|
||
Cache-Control: private, community="UCI"
|
||
|
||
A cache seeing this header field will act correctly even if the cache
|
||
does not understand the community cache-extension, since it will also
|
||
see and understand the private directive and thus default to the safe
|
||
behavior.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 116]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Unrecognized cache-directives MUST be ignored; it is assumed that any
|
||
cache-directive likely to be unrecognized by an HTTP/1.1 cache will
|
||
be combined with standard directives (or the response's default
|
||
cacheability) such that the cache behavior will remain minimally
|
||
correct even if the cache does not understand the extension(s).
|
||
|
||
14.10 Connection
|
||
|
||
The Connection general-header field allows the sender to specify
|
||
options that are desired for that particular connection and MUST NOT
|
||
be communicated by proxies over further connections.
|
||
|
||
The Connection header has the following grammar:
|
||
|
||
Connection = "Connection" ":" 1#(connection-token)
|
||
connection-token = token
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 proxies MUST parse the Connection header field before a
|
||
message is forwarded and, for each connection-token in this field,
|
||
remove any header field(s) from the message with the same name as the
|
||
connection-token. Connection options are signaled by the presence of
|
||
a connection-token in the Connection header field, not by any
|
||
corresponding additional header field(s), since the additional header
|
||
field may not be sent if there are no parameters associated with that
|
||
connection option.
|
||
|
||
Message headers listed in the Connection header MUST NOT include
|
||
end-to-end headers, such as Cache-Control.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 defines the "close" connection option for the sender to
|
||
signal that the connection will be closed after completion of the
|
||
response. For example,
|
||
|
||
Connection: close
|
||
|
||
in either the request or the response header fields indicates that
|
||
the connection SHOULD NOT be considered `persistent' (section 8.1)
|
||
after the current request/response is complete.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 applications that do not support persistent connections MUST
|
||
include the "close" connection option in every message.
|
||
|
||
A system receiving an HTTP/1.0 (or lower-version) message that
|
||
includes a Connection header MUST, for each connection-token in this
|
||
field, remove and ignore any header field(s) from the message with
|
||
the same name as the connection-token. This protects against mistaken
|
||
forwarding of such header fields by pre-HTTP/1.1 proxies. See section
|
||
19.6.2.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 117]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
14.11 Content-Encoding
|
||
|
||
The Content-Encoding entity-header field is used as a modifier to the
|
||
media-type. When present, its value indicates what additional content
|
||
codings have been applied to the entity-body, and thus what decoding
|
||
mechanisms must be applied in order to obtain the media-type
|
||
referenced by the Content-Type header field. Content-Encoding is
|
||
primarily used to allow a document to be compressed without losing
|
||
the identity of its underlying media type.
|
||
|
||
Content-Encoding = "Content-Encoding" ":" 1#content-coding
|
||
|
||
Content codings are defined in section 3.5. An example of its use is
|
||
|
||
Content-Encoding: gzip
|
||
|
||
The content-coding is a characteristic of the entity identified by
|
||
the Request-URI. Typically, the entity-body is stored with this
|
||
encoding and is only decoded before rendering or analogous usage.
|
||
However, a non-transparent proxy MAY modify the content-coding if the
|
||
new coding is known to be acceptable to the recipient, unless the
|
||
"no-transform" cache-control directive is present in the message.
|
||
|
||
If the content-coding of an entity is not "identity", then the
|
||
response MUST include a Content-Encoding entity-header (section
|
||
14.11) that lists the non-identity content-coding(s) used.
|
||
|
||
If the content-coding of an entity in a request message is not
|
||
acceptable to the origin server, the server SHOULD respond with a
|
||
status code of 415 (Unsupported Media Type).
|
||
|
||
If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content
|
||
codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied.
|
||
Additional information about the encoding parameters MAY be provided
|
||
by other entity-header fields not defined by this specification.
|
||
|
||
14.12 Content-Language
|
||
|
||
The Content-Language entity-header field describes the natural
|
||
language(s) of the intended audience for the enclosed entity. Note
|
||
that this might not be equivalent to all the languages used within
|
||
the entity-body.
|
||
|
||
Content-Language = "Content-Language" ":" 1#language-tag
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 118]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Language tags are defined in section 3.10. The primary purpose of
|
||
Content-Language is to allow a user to identify and differentiate
|
||
entities according to the user's own preferred language. Thus, if the
|
||
body content is intended only for a Danish-literate audience, the
|
||
appropriate field is
|
||
|
||
Content-Language: da
|
||
|
||
If no Content-Language is specified, the default is that the content
|
||
is intended for all language audiences. This might mean that the
|
||
sender does not consider it to be specific to any natural language,
|
||
or that the sender does not know for which language it is intended.
|
||
|
||
Multiple languages MAY be listed for content that is intended for
|
||
multiple audiences. For example, a rendition of the "Treaty of
|
||
Waitangi," presented simultaneously in the original Maori and English
|
||
versions, would call for
|
||
|
||
Content-Language: mi, en
|
||
|
||
However, just because multiple languages are present within an entity
|
||
does not mean that it is intended for multiple linguistic audiences.
|
||
An example would be a beginner's language primer, such as "A First
|
||
Lesson in Latin," which is clearly intended to be used by an
|
||
English-literate audience. In this case, the Content-Language would
|
||
properly only include "en".
|
||
|
||
Content-Language MAY be applied to any media type -- it is not
|
||
limited to textual documents.
|
||
|
||
14.13 Content-Length
|
||
|
||
The Content-Length entity-header field indicates the size of the
|
||
entity-body, in decimal number of OCTETs, sent to the recipient or,
|
||
in the case of the HEAD method, the size of the entity-body that
|
||
would have been sent had the request been a GET.
|
||
|
||
Content-Length = "Content-Length" ":" 1*DIGIT
|
||
|
||
An example is
|
||
|
||
Content-Length: 3495
|
||
|
||
Applications SHOULD use this field to indicate the transfer-length of
|
||
the message-body, unless this is prohibited by the rules in section
|
||
4.4.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 119]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Any Content-Length greater than or equal to zero is a valid value.
|
||
Section 4.4 describes how to determine the length of a message-body
|
||
if a Content-Length is not given.
|
||
|
||
Note that the meaning of this field is significantly different from
|
||
the corresponding definition in MIME, where it is an optional field
|
||
used within the "message/external-body" content-type. In HTTP, it
|
||
SHOULD be sent whenever the message's length can be determined prior
|
||
to being transferred, unless this is prohibited by the rules in
|
||
section 4.4.
|
||
|
||
14.14 Content-Location
|
||
|
||
The Content-Location entity-header field MAY be used to supply the
|
||
resource location for the entity enclosed in the message when that
|
||
entity is accessible from a location separate from the requested
|
||
resource's URI. A server SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the
|
||
variant corresponding to the response entity; especially in the case
|
||
where a resource has multiple entities associated with it, and those
|
||
entities actually have separate locations by which they might be
|
||
individually accessed, the server SHOULD provide a Content-Location
|
||
for the particular variant which is returned.
|
||
|
||
Content-Location = "Content-Location" ":"
|
||
( absoluteURI | relativeURI )
|
||
|
||
The value of Content-Location also defines the base URI for the
|
||
entity.
|
||
|
||
The Content-Location value is not a replacement for the original
|
||
requested URI; it is only a statement of the location of the resource
|
||
corresponding to this particular entity at the time of the request.
|
||
Future requests MAY specify the Content-Location URI as the request-
|
||
URI if the desire is to identify the source of that particular
|
||
entity.
|
||
|
||
A cache cannot assume that an entity with a Content-Location
|
||
different from the URI used to retrieve it can be used to respond to
|
||
later requests on that Content-Location URI. However, the Content-
|
||
Location can be used to differentiate between multiple entities
|
||
retrieved from a single requested resource, as described in section
|
||
13.6.
|
||
|
||
If the Content-Location is a relative URI, the relative URI is
|
||
interpreted relative to the Request-URI.
|
||
|
||
The meaning of the Content-Location header in PUT or POST requests is
|
||
undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those cases.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 120]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
14.15 Content-MD5
|
||
|
||
The Content-MD5 entity-header field, as defined in RFC 1864 [23], is
|
||
an MD5 digest of the entity-body for the purpose of providing an
|
||
end-to-end message integrity check (MIC) of the entity-body. (Note: a
|
||
MIC is good for detecting accidental modification of the entity-body
|
||
in transit, but is not proof against malicious attacks.)
|
||
|
||
Content-MD5 = "Content-MD5" ":" md5-digest
|
||
md5-digest = <base64 of 128 bit MD5 digest as per RFC 1864>
|
||
|
||
The Content-MD5 header field MAY be generated by an origin server or
|
||
client to function as an integrity check of the entity-body. Only
|
||
origin servers or clients MAY generate the Content-MD5 header field;
|
||
proxies and gateways MUST NOT generate it, as this would defeat its
|
||
value as an end-to-end integrity check. Any recipient of the entity-
|
||
body, including gateways and proxies, MAY check that the digest value
|
||
in this header field matches that of the entity-body as received.
|
||
|
||
The MD5 digest is computed based on the content of the entity-body,
|
||
including any content-coding that has been applied, but not including
|
||
any transfer-encoding applied to the message-body. If the message is
|
||
received with a transfer-encoding, that encoding MUST be removed
|
||
prior to checking the Content-MD5 value against the received entity.
|
||
|
||
This has the result that the digest is computed on the octets of the
|
||
entity-body exactly as, and in the order that, they would be sent if
|
||
no transfer-encoding were being applied.
|
||
|
||
HTTP extends RFC 1864 to permit the digest to be computed for MIME
|
||
composite media-types (e.g., multipart/* and message/rfc822), but
|
||
this does not change how the digest is computed as defined in the
|
||
preceding paragraph.
|
||
|
||
There are several consequences of this. The entity-body for composite
|
||
types MAY contain many body-parts, each with its own MIME and HTTP
|
||
headers (including Content-MD5, Content-Transfer-Encoding, and
|
||
Content-Encoding headers). If a body-part has a Content-Transfer-
|
||
Encoding or Content-Encoding header, it is assumed that the content
|
||
of the body-part has had the encoding applied, and the body-part is
|
||
included in the Content-MD5 digest as is -- i.e., after the
|
||
application. The Transfer-Encoding header field is not allowed within
|
||
body-parts.
|
||
|
||
Conversion of all line breaks to CRLF MUST NOT be done before
|
||
computing or checking the digest: the line break convention used in
|
||
the text actually transmitted MUST be left unaltered when computing
|
||
the digest.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 121]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Note: while the definition of Content-MD5 is exactly the same for
|
||
HTTP as in RFC 1864 for MIME entity-bodies, there are several ways
|
||
in which the application of Content-MD5 to HTTP entity-bodies
|
||
differs from its application to MIME entity-bodies. One is that
|
||
HTTP, unlike MIME, does not use Content-Transfer-Encoding, and
|
||
does use Transfer-Encoding and Content-Encoding. Another is that
|
||
HTTP more frequently uses binary content types than MIME, so it is
|
||
worth noting that, in such cases, the byte order used to compute
|
||
the digest is the transmission byte order defined for the type.
|
||
Lastly, HTTP allows transmission of text types with any of several
|
||
line break conventions and not just the canonical form using CRLF.
|
||
|
||
14.16 Content-Range
|
||
|
||
The Content-Range entity-header is sent with a partial entity-body to
|
||
specify where in the full entity-body the partial body should be
|
||
applied. Range units are defined in section 3.12.
|
||
|
||
Content-Range = "Content-Range" ":" content-range-spec
|
||
|
||
content-range-spec = byte-content-range-spec
|
||
byte-content-range-spec = bytes-unit SP
|
||
byte-range-resp-spec "/"
|
||
( instance-length | "*" )
|
||
|
||
byte-range-resp-spec = (first-byte-pos "-" last-byte-pos)
|
||
| "*"
|
||
instance-length = 1*DIGIT
|
||
|
||
The header SHOULD indicate the total length of the full entity-body,
|
||
unless this length is unknown or difficult to determine. The asterisk
|
||
"*" character means that the instance-length is unknown at the time
|
||
when the response was generated.
|
||
|
||
Unlike byte-ranges-specifier values (see section 14.35.1), a byte-
|
||
range-resp-spec MUST only specify one range, and MUST contain
|
||
absolute byte positions for both the first and last byte of the
|
||
range.
|
||
|
||
A byte-content-range-spec with a byte-range-resp-spec whose last-
|
||
byte-pos value is less than its first-byte-pos value, or whose
|
||
instance-length value is less than or equal to its last-byte-pos
|
||
value, is invalid. The recipient of an invalid byte-content-range-
|
||
spec MUST ignore it and any content transferred along with it.
|
||
|
||
A server sending a response with status code 416 (Requested range not
|
||
satisfiable) SHOULD include a Content-Range field with a byte-range-
|
||
resp-spec of "*". The instance-length specifies the current length of
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 122]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
the selected resource. A response with status code 206 (Partial
|
||
Content) MUST NOT include a Content-Range field with a byte-range-
|
||
resp-spec of "*".
|
||
|
||
Examples of byte-content-range-spec values, assuming that the entity
|
||
contains a total of 1234 bytes:
|
||
|
||
. The first 500 bytes:
|
||
bytes 0-499/1234
|
||
|
||
. The second 500 bytes:
|
||
bytes 500-999/1234
|
||
|
||
. All except for the first 500 bytes:
|
||
bytes 500-1233/1234
|
||
|
||
. The last 500 bytes:
|
||
bytes 734-1233/1234
|
||
|
||
When an HTTP message includes the content of a single range (for
|
||
example, a response to a request for a single range, or to a request
|
||
for a set of ranges that overlap without any holes), this content is
|
||
transmitted with a Content-Range header, and a Content-Length header
|
||
showing the number of bytes actually transferred. For example,
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 206 Partial content
|
||
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
|
||
Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
|
||
Content-Range: bytes 21010-47021/47022
|
||
Content-Length: 26012
|
||
Content-Type: image/gif
|
||
|
||
When an HTTP message includes the content of multiple ranges (for
|
||
example, a response to a request for multiple non-overlapping
|
||
ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message. The multipart
|
||
media type used for this purpose is "multipart/byteranges" as defined
|
||
in appendix 19.2. See appendix 19.6.3 for a compatibility issue.
|
||
|
||
A response to a request for a single range MUST NOT be sent using the
|
||
multipart/byteranges media type. A response to a request for
|
||
multiple ranges, whose result is a single range, MAY be sent as a
|
||
multipart/byteranges media type with one part. A client that cannot
|
||
decode a multipart/byteranges message MUST NOT ask for multiple
|
||
byte-ranges in a single request.
|
||
|
||
When a client requests multiple byte-ranges in one request, the
|
||
server SHOULD return them in the order that they appeared in the
|
||
request.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 123]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If the server ignores a byte-range-spec because it is syntactically
|
||
invalid, the server SHOULD treat the request as if the invalid Range
|
||
header field did not exist. (Normally, this means return a 200
|
||
response containing the full entity).
|
||
|
||
If the server receives a request (other than one including an If-
|
||
Range request-header field) with an unsatisfiable Range request-
|
||
header field (that is, all of whose byte-range-spec values have a
|
||
first-byte-pos value greater than the current length of the selected
|
||
resource), it SHOULD return a response code of 416 (Requested range
|
||
not satisfiable) (section 10.4.17).
|
||
|
||
Note: clients cannot depend on servers to send a 416 (Requested
|
||
range not satisfiable) response instead of a 200 (OK) response for
|
||
an unsatisfiable Range request-header, since not all servers
|
||
implement this request-header.
|
||
|
||
14.17 Content-Type
|
||
|
||
The Content-Type entity-header field indicates the media type of the
|
||
entity-body sent to the recipient or, in the case of the HEAD method,
|
||
the media type that would have been sent had the request been a GET.
|
||
|
||
Content-Type = "Content-Type" ":" media-type
|
||
|
||
Media types are defined in section 3.7. An example of the field is
|
||
|
||
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4
|
||
|
||
Further discussion of methods for identifying the media type of an
|
||
entity is provided in section 7.2.1.
|
||
|
||
14.18 Date
|
||
|
||
The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which
|
||
the message was originated, having the same semantics as orig-date in
|
||
RFC 822. The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section
|
||
3.3.1; it MUST be sent in RFC 1123 [8]-date format.
|
||
|
||
Date = "Date" ":" HTTP-date
|
||
|
||
An example is
|
||
|
||
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:12:31 GMT
|
||
|
||
Origin servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses,
|
||
except in these cases:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 124]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. If the response status code is 100 (Continue) or 101 (Switching
|
||
Protocols), the response MAY include a Date header field, at
|
||
the server's option.
|
||
|
||
2. If the response status code conveys a server error, e.g. 500
|
||
(Internal Server Error) or 503 (Service Unavailable), and it is
|
||
inconvenient or impossible to generate a valid Date.
|
||
|
||
3. If the server does not have a clock that can provide a
|
||
reasonable approximation of the current time, its responses
|
||
MUST NOT include a Date header field. In this case, the rules
|
||
in section 14.18.1 MUST be followed.
|
||
|
||
A received message that does not have a Date header field MUST be
|
||
assigned one by the recipient if the message will be cached by that
|
||
recipient or gatewayed via a protocol which requires a Date. An HTTP
|
||
implementation without a clock MUST NOT cache responses without
|
||
revalidating them on every use. An HTTP cache, especially a shared
|
||
cache, SHOULD use a mechanism, such as NTP [28], to synchronize its
|
||
clock with a reliable external standard.
|
||
|
||
Clients SHOULD only send a Date header field in messages that include
|
||
an entity-body, as in the case of the PUT and POST requests, and even
|
||
then it is optional. A client without a clock MUST NOT send a Date
|
||
header field in a request.
|
||
|
||
The HTTP-date sent in a Date header SHOULD NOT represent a date and
|
||
time subsequent to the generation of the message. It SHOULD represent
|
||
the best available approximation of the date and time of message
|
||
generation, unless the implementation has no means of generating a
|
||
reasonably accurate date and time. In theory, the date ought to
|
||
represent the moment just before the entity is generated. In
|
||
practice, the date can be generated at any time during the message
|
||
origination without affecting its semantic value.
|
||
|
||
14.18.1 Clockless Origin Server Operation
|
||
|
||
Some origin server implementations might not have a clock available.
|
||
An origin server without a clock MUST NOT assign Expires or Last-
|
||
Modified values to a response, unless these values were associated
|
||
with the resource by a system or user with a reliable clock. It MAY
|
||
assign an Expires value that is known, at or before server
|
||
configuration time, to be in the past (this allows "pre-expiration"
|
||
of responses without storing separate Expires values for each
|
||
resource).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 125]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
14.19 ETag
|
||
|
||
The ETag response-header field provides the current value of the
|
||
entity tag for the requested variant. The headers used with entity
|
||
tags are described in sections 14.24, 14.26 and 14.44. The entity tag
|
||
MAY be used for comparison with other entities from the same resource
|
||
(see section 13.3.3).
|
||
|
||
ETag = "ETag" ":" entity-tag
|
||
|
||
Examples:
|
||
|
||
ETag: "xyzzy"
|
||
ETag: W/"xyzzy"
|
||
ETag: ""
|
||
|
||
14.20 Expect
|
||
|
||
The Expect request-header field is used to indicate that particular
|
||
server behaviors are required by the client.
|
||
|
||
Expect = "Expect" ":" 1#expectation
|
||
|
||
expectation = "100-continue" | expectation-extension
|
||
expectation-extension = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string )
|
||
*expect-params ]
|
||
expect-params = ";" token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ]
|
||
|
||
|
||
A server that does not understand or is unable to comply with any of
|
||
the expectation values in the Expect field of a request MUST respond
|
||
with appropriate error status. The server MUST respond with a 417
|
||
(Expectation Failed) status if any of the expectations cannot be met
|
||
or, if there are other problems with the request, some other 4xx
|
||
status.
|
||
|
||
This header field is defined with extensible syntax to allow for
|
||
future extensions. If a server receives a request containing an
|
||
Expect field that includes an expectation-extension that it does not
|
||
support, it MUST respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status.
|
||
|
||
Comparison of expectation values is case-insensitive for unquoted
|
||
tokens (including the 100-continue token), and is case-sensitive for
|
||
quoted-string expectation-extensions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 126]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Expect mechanism is hop-by-hop: that is, an HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST
|
||
return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a request
|
||
with an expectation that it cannot meet. However, the Expect
|
||
request-header itself is end-to-end; it MUST be forwarded if the
|
||
request is forwarded.
|
||
|
||
Many older HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 applications do not understand the
|
||
Expect header.
|
||
|
||
See section 8.2.3 for the use of the 100 (continue) status.
|
||
|
||
14.21 Expires
|
||
|
||
The Expires entity-header field gives the date/time after which the
|
||
response is considered stale. A stale cache entry may not normally be
|
||
returned by a cache (either a proxy cache or a user agent cache)
|
||
unless it is first validated with the origin server (or with an
|
||
intermediate cache that has a fresh copy of the entity). See section
|
||
13.2 for further discussion of the expiration model.
|
||
|
||
The presence of an Expires field does not imply that the original
|
||
resource will change or cease to exist at, before, or after that
|
||
time.
|
||
|
||
The format is an absolute date and time as defined by HTTP-date in
|
||
section 3.3.1; it MUST be in RFC 1123 date format:
|
||
|
||
Expires = "Expires" ":" HTTP-date
|
||
|
||
An example of its use is
|
||
|
||
Expires: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT
|
||
|
||
Note: if a response includes a Cache-Control field with the max-
|
||
age directive (see section 14.9.3), that directive overrides the
|
||
Expires field.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 clients and caches MUST treat other invalid date formats,
|
||
especially including the value "0", as in the past (i.e., "already
|
||
expired").
|
||
|
||
To mark a response as "already expired," an origin server sends an
|
||
Expires date that is equal to the Date header value. (See the rules
|
||
for expiration calculations in section 13.2.4.)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 127]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
To mark a response as "never expires," an origin server sends an
|
||
Expires date approximately one year from the time the response is
|
||
sent. HTTP/1.1 servers SHOULD NOT send Expires dates more than one
|
||
year in the future.
|
||
|
||
The presence of an Expires header field with a date value of some
|
||
time in the future on a response that otherwise would by default be
|
||
non-cacheable indicates that the response is cacheable, unless
|
||
indicated otherwise by a Cache-Control header field (section 14.9).
|
||
|
||
14.22 From
|
||
|
||
The From request-header field, if given, SHOULD contain an Internet
|
||
e-mail address for the human user who controls the requesting user
|
||
agent. The address SHOULD be machine-usable, as defined by "mailbox"
|
||
in RFC 822 [9] as updated by RFC 1123 [8]:
|
||
|
||
From = "From" ":" mailbox
|
||
|
||
An example is:
|
||
|
||
From: webmaster@w3.org
|
||
|
||
This header field MAY be used for logging purposes and as a means for
|
||
identifying the source of invalid or unwanted requests. It SHOULD NOT
|
||
be used as an insecure form of access protection. The interpretation
|
||
of this field is that the request is being performed on behalf of the
|
||
person given, who accepts responsibility for the method performed. In
|
||
particular, robot agents SHOULD include this header so that the
|
||
person responsible for running the robot can be contacted if problems
|
||
occur on the receiving end.
|
||
|
||
The Internet e-mail address in this field MAY be separate from the
|
||
Internet host which issued the request. For example, when a request
|
||
is passed through a proxy the original issuer's address SHOULD be
|
||
used.
|
||
|
||
The client SHOULD NOT send the From header field without the user's
|
||
approval, as it might conflict with the user's privacy interests or
|
||
their site's security policy. It is strongly recommended that the
|
||
user be able to disable, enable, and modify the value of this field
|
||
at any time prior to a request.
|
||
|
||
14.23 Host
|
||
|
||
The Host request-header field specifies the Internet host and port
|
||
number of the resource being requested, as obtained from the original
|
||
URI given by the user or referring resource (generally an HTTP URL,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 128]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
as described in section 3.2.2). The Host field value MUST represent
|
||
the naming authority of the origin server or gateway given by the
|
||
original URL. This allows the origin server or gateway to
|
||
differentiate between internally-ambiguous URLs, such as the root "/"
|
||
URL of a server for multiple host names on a single IP address.
|
||
|
||
Host = "Host" ":" host [ ":" port ] ; Section 3.2.2
|
||
|
||
A "host" without any trailing port information implies the default
|
||
port for the service requested (e.g., "80" for an HTTP URL). For
|
||
example, a request on the origin server for
|
||
<http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/> would properly include:
|
||
|
||
GET /pub/WWW/ HTTP/1.1
|
||
Host: www.w3.org
|
||
|
||
A client MUST include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request
|
||
messages . If the requested URI does not include an Internet host
|
||
name for the service being requested, then the Host header field MUST
|
||
be given with an empty value. An HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST ensure that any
|
||
request message it forwards does contain an appropriate Host header
|
||
field that identifies the service being requested by the proxy. All
|
||
Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a 400 (Bad Request)
|
||
status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host header
|
||
field.
|
||
|
||
See sections 5.2 and 19.6.1.1 for other requirements relating to
|
||
Host.
|
||
|
||
14.24 If-Match
|
||
|
||
The If-Match request-header field is used with a method to make it
|
||
conditional. A client that has one or more entities previously
|
||
obtained from the resource can verify that one of those entities is
|
||
current by including a list of their associated entity tags in the
|
||
If-Match header field. Entity tags are defined in section 3.11. The
|
||
purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached
|
||
information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. It is also
|
||
used, on updating requests, to prevent inadvertent modification of
|
||
the wrong version of a resource. As a special case, the value "*"
|
||
matches any current entity of the resource.
|
||
|
||
If-Match = "If-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#entity-tag )
|
||
|
||
If any of the entity tags match the entity tag of the entity that
|
||
would have been returned in the response to a similar GET request
|
||
(without the If-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 129]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
and any current entity exists for that resource, then the server MAY
|
||
perform the requested method as if the If-Match header field did not
|
||
exist.
|
||
|
||
A server MUST use the strong comparison function (see section 13.3.3)
|
||
to compare the entity tags in If-Match.
|
||
|
||
If none of the entity tags match, or if "*" is given and no current
|
||
entity exists, the server MUST NOT perform the requested method, and
|
||
MUST return a 412 (Precondition Failed) response. This behavior is
|
||
most useful when the client wants to prevent an updating method, such
|
||
as PUT, from modifying a resource that has changed since the client
|
||
last retrieved it.
|
||
|
||
If the request would, without the If-Match header field, result in
|
||
anything other than a 2xx or 412 status, then the If-Match header
|
||
MUST be ignored.
|
||
|
||
The meaning of "If-Match: *" is that the method SHOULD be performed
|
||
if the representation selected by the origin server (or by a cache,
|
||
possibly using the Vary mechanism, see section 14.44) exists, and
|
||
MUST NOT be performed if the representation does not exist.
|
||
|
||
A request intended to update a resource (e.g., a PUT) MAY include an
|
||
If-Match header field to signal that the request method MUST NOT be
|
||
applied if the entity corresponding to the If-Match value (a single
|
||
entity tag) is no longer a representation of that resource. This
|
||
allows the user to indicate that they do not wish the request to be
|
||
successful if the resource has been changed without their knowledge.
|
||
Examples:
|
||
|
||
If-Match: "xyzzy"
|
||
If-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
|
||
If-Match: *
|
||
|
||
The result of a request having both an If-Match header field and
|
||
either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since header fields is
|
||
undefined by this specification.
|
||
|
||
14.25 If-Modified-Since
|
||
|
||
The If-Modified-Since request-header field is used with a method to
|
||
make it conditional: if the requested variant has not been modified
|
||
since the time specified in this field, an entity will not be
|
||
returned from the server; instead, a 304 (not modified) response will
|
||
be returned without any message-body.
|
||
|
||
If-Modified-Since = "If-Modified-Since" ":" HTTP-date
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 130]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
An example of the field is:
|
||
|
||
If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
|
||
|
||
A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header and no Range header
|
||
requests that the identified entity be transferred only if it has
|
||
been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header.
|
||
The algorithm for determining this includes the following cases:
|
||
|
||
a) If the request would normally result in anything other than a
|
||
200 (OK) status, or if the passed If-Modified-Since date is
|
||
invalid, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET.
|
||
A date which is later than the server's current time is
|
||
invalid.
|
||
|
||
b) If the variant has been modified since the If-Modified-Since
|
||
date, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET.
|
||
|
||
c) If the variant has not been modified since a valid If-
|
||
Modified-Since date, the server SHOULD return a 304 (Not
|
||
Modified) response.
|
||
|
||
The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached
|
||
information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead.
|
||
|
||
Note: The Range request-header field modifies the meaning of If-
|
||
Modified-Since; see section 14.35 for full details.
|
||
|
||
Note: If-Modified-Since times are interpreted by the server, whose
|
||
clock might not be synchronized with the client.
|
||
|
||
Note: When handling an If-Modified-Since header field, some
|
||
servers will use an exact date comparison function, rather than a
|
||
less-than function, for deciding whether to send a 304 (Not
|
||
Modified) response. To get best results when sending an If-
|
||
Modified-Since header field for cache validation, clients are
|
||
advised to use the exact date string received in a previous Last-
|
||
Modified header field whenever possible.
|
||
|
||
Note: If a client uses an arbitrary date in the If-Modified-Since
|
||
header instead of a date taken from the Last-Modified header for
|
||
the same request, the client should be aware of the fact that this
|
||
date is interpreted in the server's understanding of time. The
|
||
client should consider unsynchronized clocks and rounding problems
|
||
due to the different encodings of time between the client and
|
||
server. This includes the possibility of race conditions if the
|
||
document has changed between the time it was first requested and
|
||
the If-Modified-Since date of a subsequent request, and the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 131]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
possibility of clock-skew-related problems if the If-Modified-
|
||
Since date is derived from the client's clock without correction
|
||
to the server's clock. Corrections for different time bases
|
||
between client and server are at best approximate due to network
|
||
latency.
|
||
|
||
The result of a request having both an If-Modified-Since header field
|
||
and either an If-Match or an If-Unmodified-Since header fields is
|
||
undefined by this specification.
|
||
|
||
14.26 If-None-Match
|
||
|
||
The If-None-Match request-header field is used with a method to make
|
||
it conditional. A client that has one or more entities previously
|
||
obtained from the resource can verify that none of those entities is
|
||
current by including a list of their associated entity tags in the
|
||
If-None-Match header field. The purpose of this feature is to allow
|
||
efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of
|
||
transaction overhead. It is also used to prevent a method (e.g. PUT)
|
||
from inadvertently modifying an existing resource when the client
|
||
believes that the resource does not exist.
|
||
|
||
As a special case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the
|
||
resource.
|
||
|
||
If-None-Match = "If-None-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#entity-tag )
|
||
|
||
If any of the entity tags match the entity tag of the entity that
|
||
would have been returned in the response to a similar GET request
|
||
(without the If-None-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is
|
||
given and any current entity exists for that resource, then the
|
||
server MUST NOT perform the requested method, unless required to do
|
||
so because the resource's modification date fails to match that
|
||
supplied in an If-Modified-Since header field in the request.
|
||
Instead, if the request method was GET or HEAD, the server SHOULD
|
||
respond with a 304 (Not Modified) response, including the cache-
|
||
related header fields (particularly ETag) of one of the entities that
|
||
matched. For all other request methods, the server MUST respond with
|
||
a status of 412 (Precondition Failed).
|
||
|
||
See section 13.3.3 for rules on how to determine if two entities tags
|
||
match. The weak comparison function can only be used with GET or HEAD
|
||
requests.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 132]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If none of the entity tags match, then the server MAY perform the
|
||
requested method as if the If-None-Match header field did not exist,
|
||
but MUST also ignore any If-Modified-Since header field(s) in the
|
||
request. That is, if no entity tags match, then the server MUST NOT
|
||
return a 304 (Not Modified) response.
|
||
|
||
If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, result
|
||
in anything other than a 2xx or 304 status, then the If-None-Match
|
||
header MUST be ignored. (See section 13.3.4 for a discussion of
|
||
server behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear
|
||
in the same request.)
|
||
|
||
The meaning of "If-None-Match: *" is that the method MUST NOT be
|
||
performed if the representation selected by the origin server (or by
|
||
a cache, possibly using the Vary mechanism, see section 14.44)
|
||
exists, and SHOULD be performed if the representation does not exist.
|
||
This feature is intended to be useful in preventing races between PUT
|
||
operations.
|
||
|
||
Examples:
|
||
|
||
If-None-Match: "xyzzy"
|
||
If-None-Match: W/"xyzzy"
|
||
If-None-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
|
||
If-None-Match: W/"xyzzy", W/"r2d2xxxx", W/"c3piozzzz"
|
||
If-None-Match: *
|
||
|
||
The result of a request having both an If-None-Match header field and
|
||
either an If-Match or an If-Unmodified-Since header fields is
|
||
undefined by this specification.
|
||
|
||
14.27 If-Range
|
||
|
||
If a client has a partial copy of an entity in its cache, and wishes
|
||
to have an up-to-date copy of the entire entity in its cache, it
|
||
could use the Range request-header with a conditional GET (using
|
||
either or both of If-Unmodified-Since and If-Match.) However, if the
|
||
condition fails because the entity has been modified, the client
|
||
would then have to make a second request to obtain the entire current
|
||
entity-body.
|
||
|
||
The If-Range header allows a client to "short-circuit" the second
|
||
request. Informally, its meaning is `if the entity is unchanged, send
|
||
me the part(s) that I am missing; otherwise, send me the entire new
|
||
entity'.
|
||
|
||
If-Range = "If-Range" ":" ( entity-tag | HTTP-date )
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 133]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If the client has no entity tag for an entity, but does have a Last-
|
||
Modified date, it MAY use that date in an If-Range header. (The
|
||
server can distinguish between a valid HTTP-date and any form of
|
||
entity-tag by examining no more than two characters.) The If-Range
|
||
header SHOULD only be used together with a Range header, and MUST be
|
||
ignored if the request does not include a Range header, or if the
|
||
server does not support the sub-range operation.
|
||
|
||
If the entity tag given in the If-Range header matches the current
|
||
entity tag for the entity, then the server SHOULD provide the
|
||
specified sub-range of the entity using a 206 (Partial content)
|
||
response. If the entity tag does not match, then the server SHOULD
|
||
return the entire entity using a 200 (OK) response.
|
||
|
||
14.28 If-Unmodified-Since
|
||
|
||
The If-Unmodified-Since request-header field is used with a method to
|
||
make it conditional. If the requested resource has not been modified
|
||
since the time specified in this field, the server SHOULD perform the
|
||
requested operation as if the If-Unmodified-Since header were not
|
||
present.
|
||
|
||
If the requested variant has been modified since the specified time,
|
||
the server MUST NOT perform the requested operation, and MUST return
|
||
a 412 (Precondition Failed).
|
||
|
||
If-Unmodified-Since = "If-Unmodified-Since" ":" HTTP-date
|
||
|
||
An example of the field is:
|
||
|
||
If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
|
||
|
||
If the request normally (i.e., without the If-Unmodified-Since
|
||
header) would result in anything other than a 2xx or 412 status, the
|
||
If-Unmodified-Since header SHOULD be ignored.
|
||
|
||
If the specified date is invalid, the header is ignored.
|
||
|
||
The result of a request having both an If-Unmodified-Since header
|
||
field and either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since header
|
||
fields is undefined by this specification.
|
||
|
||
14.29 Last-Modified
|
||
|
||
The Last-Modified entity-header field indicates the date and time at
|
||
which the origin server believes the variant was last modified.
|
||
|
||
Last-Modified = "Last-Modified" ":" HTTP-date
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 134]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
An example of its use is
|
||
|
||
Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT
|
||
|
||
The exact meaning of this header field depends on the implementation
|
||
of the origin server and the nature of the original resource. For
|
||
files, it may be just the file system last-modified time. For
|
||
entities with dynamically included parts, it may be the most recent
|
||
of the set of last-modify times for its component parts. For database
|
||
gateways, it may be the last-update time stamp of the record. For
|
||
virtual objects, it may be the last time the internal state changed.
|
||
|
||
An origin server MUST NOT send a Last-Modified date which is later
|
||
than the server's time of message origination. In such cases, where
|
||
the resource's last modification would indicate some time in the
|
||
future, the server MUST replace that date with the message
|
||
origination date.
|
||
|
||
An origin server SHOULD obtain the Last-Modified value of the entity
|
||
as close as possible to the time that it generates the Date value of
|
||
its response. This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment
|
||
of the entity's modification time, especially if the entity changes
|
||
near the time that the response is generated.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 servers SHOULD send Last-Modified whenever feasible.
|
||
|
||
14.30 Location
|
||
|
||
The Location response-header field is used to redirect the recipient
|
||
to a location other than the Request-URI for completion of the
|
||
request or identification of a new resource. For 201 (Created)
|
||
responses, the Location is that of the new resource which was created
|
||
by the request. For 3xx responses, the location SHOULD indicate the
|
||
server's preferred URI for automatic redirection to the resource. The
|
||
field value consists of a single absolute URI.
|
||
|
||
Location = "Location" ":" absoluteURI
|
||
|
||
An example is:
|
||
|
||
Location: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/People.html
|
||
|
||
Note: The Content-Location header field (section 14.14) differs
|
||
from Location in that the Content-Location identifies the original
|
||
location of the entity enclosed in the request. It is therefore
|
||
possible for a response to contain header fields for both Location
|
||
and Content-Location. Also see section 13.10 for cache
|
||
requirements of some methods.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 135]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
14.31 Max-Forwards
|
||
|
||
The Max-Forwards request-header field provides a mechanism with the
|
||
TRACE (section 9.8) and OPTIONS (section 9.2) methods to limit the
|
||
number of proxies or gateways that can forward the request to the
|
||
next inbound server. This can be useful when the client is attempting
|
||
to trace a request chain which appears to be failing or looping in
|
||
mid-chain.
|
||
|
||
Max-Forwards = "Max-Forwards" ":" 1*DIGIT
|
||
|
||
The Max-Forwards value is a decimal integer indicating the remaining
|
||
number of times this request message may be forwarded.
|
||
|
||
Each proxy or gateway recipient of a TRACE or OPTIONS request
|
||
containing a Max-Forwards header field MUST check and update its
|
||
value prior to forwarding the request. If the received value is zero
|
||
(0), the recipient MUST NOT forward the request; instead, it MUST
|
||
respond as the final recipient. If the received Max-Forwards value is
|
||
greater than zero, then the forwarded message MUST contain an updated
|
||
Max-Forwards field with a value decremented by one (1).
|
||
|
||
The Max-Forwards header field MAY be ignored for all other methods
|
||
defined by this specification and for any extension methods for which
|
||
it is not explicitly referred to as part of that method definition.
|
||
|
||
14.32 Pragma
|
||
|
||
The Pragma general-header field is used to include implementation-
|
||
specific directives that might apply to any recipient along the
|
||
request/response chain. All pragma directives specify optional
|
||
behavior from the viewpoint of the protocol; however, some systems
|
||
MAY require that behavior be consistent with the directives.
|
||
|
||
Pragma = "Pragma" ":" 1#pragma-directive
|
||
pragma-directive = "no-cache" | extension-pragma
|
||
extension-pragma = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ]
|
||
|
||
When the no-cache directive is present in a request message, an
|
||
application SHOULD forward the request toward the origin server even
|
||
if it has a cached copy of what is being requested. This pragma
|
||
directive has the same semantics as the no-cache cache-directive (see
|
||
section 14.9) and is defined here for backward compatibility with
|
||
HTTP/1.0. Clients SHOULD include both header fields when a no-cache
|
||
request is sent to a server not known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 136]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Pragma directives MUST be passed through by a proxy or gateway
|
||
application, regardless of their significance to that application,
|
||
since the directives might be applicable to all recipients along the
|
||
request/response chain. It is not possible to specify a pragma for a
|
||
specific recipient; however, any pragma directive not relevant to a
|
||
recipient SHOULD be ignored by that recipient.
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 caches SHOULD treat "Pragma: no-cache" as if the client had
|
||
sent "Cache-Control: no-cache". No new Pragma directives will be
|
||
defined in HTTP.
|
||
|
||
Note: because the meaning of "Pragma: no-cache as a response
|
||
header field is not actually specified, it does not provide a
|
||
reliable replacement for "Cache-Control: no-cache" in a response
|
||
|
||
14.33 Proxy-Authenticate
|
||
|
||
The Proxy-Authenticate response-header field MUST be included as part
|
||
of a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) response. The field value
|
||
consists of a challenge that indicates the authentication scheme and
|
||
parameters applicable to the proxy for this Request-URI.
|
||
|
||
Proxy-Authenticate = "Proxy-Authenticate" ":" 1#challenge
|
||
|
||
The HTTP access authentication process is described in "HTTP
|
||
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [43]. Unlike
|
||
WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies only to
|
||
the current connection and SHOULD NOT be passed on to downstream
|
||
clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to obtain its own
|
||
credentials by requesting them from the downstream client, which in
|
||
some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is forwarding the
|
||
Proxy-Authenticate header field.
|
||
|
||
14.34 Proxy-Authorization
|
||
|
||
The Proxy-Authorization request-header field allows the client to
|
||
identify itself (or its user) to a proxy which requires
|
||
authentication. The Proxy-Authorization field value consists of
|
||
credentials containing the authentication information of the user
|
||
agent for the proxy and/or realm of the resource being requested.
|
||
|
||
Proxy-Authorization = "Proxy-Authorization" ":" credentials
|
||
|
||
The HTTP access authentication process is described in "HTTP
|
||
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [43] . Unlike
|
||
Authorization, the Proxy-Authorization header field applies only to
|
||
the next outbound proxy that demanded authentication using the Proxy-
|
||
Authenticate field. When multiple proxies are used in a chain, the
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 137]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first outbound
|
||
proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy MAY relay
|
||
the credentials from the client request to the next proxy if that is
|
||
the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively authenticate a given
|
||
request.
|
||
|
||
14.35 Range
|
||
|
||
14.35.1 Byte Ranges
|
||
|
||
Since all HTTP entities are represented in HTTP messages as sequences
|
||
of bytes, the concept of a byte range is meaningful for any HTTP
|
||
entity. (However, not all clients and servers need to support byte-
|
||
range operations.)
|
||
|
||
Byte range specifications in HTTP apply to the sequence of bytes in
|
||
the entity-body (not necessarily the same as the message-body).
|
||
|
||
A byte range operation MAY specify a single range of bytes, or a set
|
||
of ranges within a single entity.
|
||
|
||
ranges-specifier = byte-ranges-specifier
|
||
byte-ranges-specifier = bytes-unit "=" byte-range-set
|
||
byte-range-set = 1#( byte-range-spec | suffix-byte-range-spec )
|
||
byte-range-spec = first-byte-pos "-" [last-byte-pos]
|
||
first-byte-pos = 1*DIGIT
|
||
last-byte-pos = 1*DIGIT
|
||
|
||
The first-byte-pos value in a byte-range-spec gives the byte-offset
|
||
of the first byte in a range. The last-byte-pos value gives the
|
||
byte-offset of the last byte in the range; that is, the byte
|
||
positions specified are inclusive. Byte offsets start at zero.
|
||
|
||
If the last-byte-pos value is present, it MUST be greater than or
|
||
equal to the first-byte-pos in that byte-range-spec, or the byte-
|
||
range-spec is syntactically invalid. The recipient of a byte-range-
|
||
set that includes one or more syntactically invalid byte-range-spec
|
||
values MUST ignore the header field that includes that byte-range-
|
||
set.
|
||
|
||
If the last-byte-pos value is absent, or if the value is greater than
|
||
or equal to the current length of the entity-body, last-byte-pos is
|
||
taken to be equal to one less than the current length of the entity-
|
||
body in bytes.
|
||
|
||
By its choice of last-byte-pos, a client can limit the number of
|
||
bytes retrieved without knowing the size of the entity.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 138]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
suffix-byte-range-spec = "-" suffix-length
|
||
suffix-length = 1*DIGIT
|
||
|
||
A suffix-byte-range-spec is used to specify the suffix of the
|
||
entity-body, of a length given by the suffix-length value. (That is,
|
||
this form specifies the last N bytes of an entity-body.) If the
|
||
entity is shorter than the specified suffix-length, the entire
|
||
entity-body is used.
|
||
|
||
If a syntactically valid byte-range-set includes at least one byte-
|
||
range-spec whose first-byte-pos is less than the current length of
|
||
the entity-body, or at least one suffix-byte-range-spec with a non-
|
||
zero suffix-length, then the byte-range-set is satisfiable.
|
||
Otherwise, the byte-range-set is unsatisfiable. If the byte-range-set
|
||
is unsatisfiable, the server SHOULD return a response with a status
|
||
of 416 (Requested range not satisfiable). Otherwise, the server
|
||
SHOULD return a response with a status of 206 (Partial Content)
|
||
containing the satisfiable ranges of the entity-body.
|
||
|
||
Examples of byte-ranges-specifier values (assuming an entity-body of
|
||
length 10000):
|
||
|
||
- The first 500 bytes (byte offsets 0-499, inclusive): bytes=0-
|
||
499
|
||
|
||
- The second 500 bytes (byte offsets 500-999, inclusive):
|
||
bytes=500-999
|
||
|
||
- The final 500 bytes (byte offsets 9500-9999, inclusive):
|
||
bytes=-500
|
||
|
||
- Or bytes=9500-
|
||
|
||
- The first and last bytes only (bytes 0 and 9999): bytes=0-0,-1
|
||
|
||
- Several legal but not canonical specifications of the second 500
|
||
bytes (byte offsets 500-999, inclusive):
|
||
bytes=500-600,601-999
|
||
bytes=500-700,601-999
|
||
|
||
14.35.2 Range Retrieval Requests
|
||
|
||
HTTP retrieval requests using conditional or unconditional GET
|
||
methods MAY request one or more sub-ranges of the entity, instead of
|
||
the entire entity, using the Range request header, which applies to
|
||
the entity returned as the result of the request:
|
||
|
||
Range = "Range" ":" ranges-specifier
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 139]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
A server MAY ignore the Range header. However, HTTP/1.1 origin
|
||
servers and intermediate caches ought to support byte ranges when
|
||
possible, since Range supports efficient recovery from partially
|
||
failed transfers, and supports efficient partial retrieval of large
|
||
entities.
|
||
|
||
If the server supports the Range header and the specified range or
|
||
ranges are appropriate for the entity:
|
||
|
||
- The presence of a Range header in an unconditional GET modifies
|
||
what is returned if the GET is otherwise successful. In other
|
||
words, the response carries a status code of 206 (Partial
|
||
Content) instead of 200 (OK).
|
||
|
||
- The presence of a Range header in a conditional GET (a request
|
||
using one or both of If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match, or
|
||
one or both of If-Unmodified-Since and If-Match) modifies what
|
||
is returned if the GET is otherwise successful and the
|
||
condition is true. It does not affect the 304 (Not Modified)
|
||
response returned if the conditional is false.
|
||
|
||
In some cases, it might be more appropriate to use the If-Range
|
||
header (see section 14.27) in addition to the Range header.
|
||
|
||
If a proxy that supports ranges receives a Range request, forwards
|
||
the request to an inbound server, and receives an entire entity in
|
||
reply, it SHOULD only return the requested range to its client. It
|
||
SHOULD store the entire received response in its cache if that is
|
||
consistent with its cache allocation policies.
|
||
|
||
14.36 Referer
|
||
|
||
The Referer[sic] request-header field allows the client to specify,
|
||
for the server's benefit, the address (URI) of the resource from
|
||
which the Request-URI was obtained (the "referrer", although the
|
||
header field is misspelled.) The Referer request-header allows a
|
||
server to generate lists of back-links to resources for interest,
|
||
logging, optimized caching, etc. It also allows obsolete or mistyped
|
||
links to be traced for maintenance. The Referer field MUST NOT be
|
||
sent if the Request-URI was obtained from a source that does not have
|
||
its own URI, such as input from the user keyboard.
|
||
|
||
Referer = "Referer" ":" ( absoluteURI | relativeURI )
|
||
|
||
Example:
|
||
|
||
Referer: http://www.w3.org/hypertext/DataSources/Overview.html
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 140]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If the field value is a relative URI, it SHOULD be interpreted
|
||
relative to the Request-URI. The URI MUST NOT include a fragment. See
|
||
section 15.1.3 for security considerations.
|
||
|
||
14.37 Retry-After
|
||
|
||
The Retry-After response-header field can be used with a 503 (Service
|
||
Unavailable) response to indicate how long the service is expected to
|
||
be unavailable to the requesting client. This field MAY also be used
|
||
with any 3xx (Redirection) response to indicate the minimum time the
|
||
user-agent is asked wait before issuing the redirected request. The
|
||
value of this field can be either an HTTP-date or an integer number
|
||
of seconds (in decimal) after the time of the response.
|
||
|
||
Retry-After = "Retry-After" ":" ( HTTP-date | delta-seconds )
|
||
|
||
Two examples of its use are
|
||
|
||
Retry-After: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 23:59:59 GMT
|
||
Retry-After: 120
|
||
|
||
In the latter example, the delay is 2 minutes.
|
||
|
||
14.38 Server
|
||
|
||
The Server response-header field contains information about the
|
||
software used by the origin server to handle the request. The field
|
||
can contain multiple product tokens (section 3.8) and comments
|
||
identifying the server and any significant subproducts. The product
|
||
tokens are listed in order of their significance for identifying the
|
||
application.
|
||
|
||
Server = "Server" ":" 1*( product | comment )
|
||
|
||
Example:
|
||
|
||
Server: CERN/3.0 libwww/2.17
|
||
|
||
If the response is being forwarded through a proxy, the proxy
|
||
application MUST NOT modify the Server response-header. Instead, it
|
||
SHOULD include a Via field (as described in section 14.45).
|
||
|
||
Note: Revealing the specific software version of the server might
|
||
allow the server machine to become more vulnerable to attacks
|
||
against software that is known to contain security holes. Server
|
||
implementors are encouraged to make this field a configurable
|
||
option.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 141]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
14.39 TE
|
||
|
||
The TE request-header field indicates what extension transfer-codings
|
||
it is willing to accept in the response and whether or not it is
|
||
willing to accept trailer fields in a chunked transfer-coding. Its
|
||
value may consist of the keyword "trailers" and/or a comma-separated
|
||
list of extension transfer-coding names with optional accept
|
||
parameters (as described in section 3.6).
|
||
|
||
TE = "TE" ":" #( t-codings )
|
||
t-codings = "trailers" | ( transfer-extension [ accept-params ] )
|
||
|
||
The presence of the keyword "trailers" indicates that the client is
|
||
willing to accept trailer fields in a chunked transfer-coding, as
|
||
defined in section 3.6.1. This keyword is reserved for use with
|
||
transfer-coding values even though it does not itself represent a
|
||
transfer-coding.
|
||
|
||
Examples of its use are:
|
||
|
||
TE: deflate
|
||
TE:
|
||
TE: trailers, deflate;q=0.5
|
||
|
||
The TE header field only applies to the immediate connection.
|
||
Therefore, the keyword MUST be supplied within a Connection header
|
||
field (section 14.10) whenever TE is present in an HTTP/1.1 message.
|
||
|
||
A server tests whether a transfer-coding is acceptable, according to
|
||
a TE field, using these rules:
|
||
|
||
1. The "chunked" transfer-coding is always acceptable. If the
|
||
keyword "trailers" is listed, the client indicates that it is
|
||
willing to accept trailer fields in the chunked response on
|
||
behalf of itself and any downstream clients. The implication is
|
||
that, if given, the client is stating that either all
|
||
downstream clients are willing to accept trailer fields in the
|
||
forwarded response, or that it will attempt to buffer the
|
||
response on behalf of downstream recipients.
|
||
|
||
Note: HTTP/1.1 does not define any means to limit the size of a
|
||
chunked response such that a client can be assured of buffering
|
||
the entire response.
|
||
|
||
2. If the transfer-coding being tested is one of the transfer-
|
||
codings listed in the TE field, then it is acceptable unless it
|
||
is accompanied by a qvalue of 0. (As defined in section 3.9, a
|
||
qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable.")
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 142]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
3. If multiple transfer-codings are acceptable, then the
|
||
acceptable transfer-coding with the highest non-zero qvalue is
|
||
preferred. The "chunked" transfer-coding always has a qvalue
|
||
of 1.
|
||
|
||
If the TE field-value is empty or if no TE field is present, the only
|
||
transfer-coding is "chunked". A message with no transfer-coding is
|
||
always acceptable.
|
||
|
||
14.40 Trailer
|
||
|
||
The Trailer general field value indicates that the given set of
|
||
header fields is present in the trailer of a message encoded with
|
||
chunked transfer-coding.
|
||
|
||
Trailer = "Trailer" ":" 1#field-name
|
||
|
||
An HTTP/1.1 message SHOULD include a Trailer header field in a
|
||
message using chunked transfer-coding with a non-empty trailer. Doing
|
||
so allows the recipient to know which header fields to expect in the
|
||
trailer.
|
||
|
||
If no Trailer header field is present, the trailer SHOULD NOT include
|
||
any header fields. See section 3.6.1 for restrictions on the use of
|
||
trailer fields in a "chunked" transfer-coding.
|
||
|
||
Message header fields listed in the Trailer header field MUST NOT
|
||
include the following header fields:
|
||
|
||
. Transfer-Encoding
|
||
|
||
. Content-Length
|
||
|
||
. Trailer
|
||
|
||
14.41 Transfer-Encoding
|
||
|
||
The Transfer-Encoding general-header field indicates what (if any)
|
||
type of transformation has been applied to the message body in order
|
||
to safely transfer it between the sender and the recipient. This
|
||
differs from the content-coding in that the transfer-coding is a
|
||
property of the message, not of the entity.
|
||
|
||
Transfer-Encoding = "Transfer-Encoding" ":" 1#transfer-coding
|
||
|
||
Transfer-codings are defined in section 3.6. An example is:
|
||
|
||
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 143]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the transfer-
|
||
codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied.
|
||
Additional information about the encoding parameters MAY be provided
|
||
by other entity-header fields not defined by this specification.
|
||
|
||
Many older HTTP/1.0 applications do not understand the Transfer-
|
||
Encoding header.
|
||
|
||
14.42 Upgrade
|
||
|
||
The Upgrade general-header allows the client to specify what
|
||
additional communication protocols it supports and would like to use
|
||
if the server finds it appropriate to switch protocols. The server
|
||
MUST use the Upgrade header field within a 101 (Switching Protocols)
|
||
response to indicate which protocol(s) are being switched.
|
||
|
||
Upgrade = "Upgrade" ":" 1#product
|
||
|
||
For example,
|
||
|
||
Upgrade: HTTP/2.0, SHTTP/1.3, IRC/6.9, RTA/x11
|
||
|
||
The Upgrade header field is intended to provide a simple mechanism
|
||
for transition from HTTP/1.1 to some other, incompatible protocol. It
|
||
does so by allowing the client to advertise its desire to use another
|
||
protocol, such as a later version of HTTP with a higher major version
|
||
number, even though the current request has been made using HTTP/1.1.
|
||
This eases the difficult transition between incompatible protocols by
|
||
allowing the client to initiate a request in the more commonly
|
||
supported protocol while indicating to the server that it would like
|
||
to use a "better" protocol if available (where "better" is determined
|
||
by the server, possibly according to the nature of the method and/or
|
||
resource being requested).
|
||
|
||
The Upgrade header field only applies to switching application-layer
|
||
protocols upon the existing transport-layer connection. Upgrade
|
||
cannot be used to insist on a protocol change; its acceptance and use
|
||
by the server is optional. The capabilities and nature of the
|
||
application-layer communication after the protocol change is entirely
|
||
dependent upon the new protocol chosen, although the first action
|
||
after changing the protocol MUST be a response to the initial HTTP
|
||
request containing the Upgrade header field.
|
||
|
||
The Upgrade header field only applies to the immediate connection.
|
||
Therefore, the upgrade keyword MUST be supplied within a Connection
|
||
header field (section 14.10) whenever Upgrade is present in an
|
||
HTTP/1.1 message.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 144]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Upgrade header field cannot be used to indicate a switch to a
|
||
protocol on a different connection. For that purpose, it is more
|
||
appropriate to use a 301, 302, 303, or 305 redirection response.
|
||
|
||
This specification only defines the protocol name "HTTP" for use by
|
||
the family of Hypertext Transfer Protocols, as defined by the HTTP
|
||
version rules of section 3.1 and future updates to this
|
||
specification. Any token can be used as a protocol name; however, it
|
||
will only be useful if both the client and server associate the name
|
||
with the same protocol.
|
||
|
||
14.43 User-Agent
|
||
|
||
The User-Agent request-header field contains information about the
|
||
user agent originating the request. This is for statistical purposes,
|
||
the tracing of protocol violations, and automated recognition of user
|
||
agents for the sake of tailoring responses to avoid particular user
|
||
agent limitations. User agents SHOULD include this field with
|
||
requests. The field can contain multiple product tokens (section 3.8)
|
||
and comments identifying the agent and any subproducts which form a
|
||
significant part of the user agent. By convention, the product tokens
|
||
are listed in order of their significance for identifying the
|
||
application.
|
||
|
||
User-Agent = "User-Agent" ":" 1*( product | comment )
|
||
|
||
Example:
|
||
|
||
User-Agent: CERN-LineMode/2.15 libwww/2.17b3
|
||
|
||
14.44 Vary
|
||
|
||
The Vary field value indicates the set of request-header fields that
|
||
fully determines, while the response is fresh, whether a cache is
|
||
permitted to use the response to reply to a subsequent request
|
||
without revalidation. For uncacheable or stale responses, the Vary
|
||
field value advises the user agent about the criteria that were used
|
||
to select the representation. A Vary field value of "*" implies that
|
||
a cache cannot determine from the request headers of a subsequent
|
||
request whether this response is the appropriate representation. See
|
||
section 13.6 for use of the Vary header field by caches.
|
||
|
||
Vary = "Vary" ":" ( "*" | 1#field-name )
|
||
|
||
An HTTP/1.1 server SHOULD include a Vary header field with any
|
||
cacheable response that is subject to server-driven negotiation.
|
||
Doing so allows a cache to properly interpret future requests on that
|
||
resource and informs the user agent about the presence of negotiation
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 145]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
on that resource. A server MAY include a Vary header field with a
|
||
non-cacheable response that is subject to server-driven negotiation,
|
||
since this might provide the user agent with useful information about
|
||
the dimensions over which the response varies at the time of the
|
||
response.
|
||
|
||
A Vary field value consisting of a list of field-names signals that
|
||
the representation selected for the response is based on a selection
|
||
algorithm which considers ONLY the listed request-header field values
|
||
in selecting the most appropriate representation. A cache MAY assume
|
||
that the same selection will be made for future requests with the
|
||
same values for the listed field names, for the duration of time for
|
||
which the response is fresh.
|
||
|
||
The field-names given are not limited to the set of standard
|
||
request-header fields defined by this specification. Field names are
|
||
case-insensitive.
|
||
|
||
A Vary field value of "*" signals that unspecified parameters not
|
||
limited to the request-headers (e.g., the network address of the
|
||
client), play a role in the selection of the response representation.
|
||
The "*" value MUST NOT be generated by a proxy server; it may only be
|
||
generated by an origin server.
|
||
|
||
14.45 Via
|
||
|
||
The Via general-header field MUST be used by gateways and proxies to
|
||
indicate the intermediate protocols and recipients between the user
|
||
agent and the server on requests, and between the origin server and
|
||
the client on responses. It is analogous to the "Received" field of
|
||
RFC 822 [9] and is intended to be used for tracking message forwards,
|
||
avoiding request loops, and identifying the protocol capabilities of
|
||
all senders along the request/response chain.
|
||
|
||
Via = "Via" ":" 1#( received-protocol received-by [ comment ] )
|
||
received-protocol = [ protocol-name "/" ] protocol-version
|
||
protocol-name = token
|
||
protocol-version = token
|
||
received-by = ( host [ ":" port ] ) | pseudonym
|
||
pseudonym = token
|
||
|
||
The received-protocol indicates the protocol version of the message
|
||
received by the server or client along each segment of the
|
||
request/response chain. The received-protocol version is appended to
|
||
the Via field value when the message is forwarded so that information
|
||
about the protocol capabilities of upstream applications remains
|
||
visible to all recipients.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 146]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The protocol-name is optional if and only if it would be "HTTP". The
|
||
received-by field is normally the host and optional port number of a
|
||
recipient server or client that subsequently forwarded the message.
|
||
However, if the real host is considered to be sensitive information,
|
||
it MAY be replaced by a pseudonym. If the port is not given, it MAY
|
||
be assumed to be the default port of the received-protocol.
|
||
|
||
Multiple Via field values represents each proxy or gateway that has
|
||
forwarded the message. Each recipient MUST append its information
|
||
such that the end result is ordered according to the sequence of
|
||
forwarding applications.
|
||
|
||
Comments MAY be used in the Via header field to identify the software
|
||
of the recipient proxy or gateway, analogous to the User-Agent and
|
||
Server header fields. However, all comments in the Via field are
|
||
optional and MAY be removed by any recipient prior to forwarding the
|
||
message.
|
||
|
||
For example, a request message could be sent from an HTTP/1.0 user
|
||
agent to an internal proxy code-named "fred", which uses HTTP/1.1 to
|
||
forward the request to a public proxy at nowhere.com, which completes
|
||
the request by forwarding it to the origin server at www.ics.uci.edu.
|
||
The request received by www.ics.uci.edu would then have the following
|
||
Via header field:
|
||
|
||
Via: 1.0 fred, 1.1 nowhere.com (Apache/1.1)
|
||
|
||
Proxies and gateways used as a portal through a network firewall
|
||
SHOULD NOT, by default, forward the names and ports of hosts within
|
||
the firewall region. This information SHOULD only be propagated if
|
||
explicitly enabled. If not enabled, the received-by host of any host
|
||
behind the firewall SHOULD be replaced by an appropriate pseudonym
|
||
for that host.
|
||
|
||
For organizations that have strong privacy requirements for hiding
|
||
internal structures, a proxy MAY combine an ordered subsequence of
|
||
Via header field entries with identical received-protocol values into
|
||
a single such entry. For example,
|
||
|
||
Via: 1.0 ricky, 1.1 ethel, 1.1 fred, 1.0 lucy
|
||
|
||
could be collapsed to
|
||
|
||
Via: 1.0 ricky, 1.1 mertz, 1.0 lucy
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 147]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Applications SHOULD NOT combine multiple entries unless they are all
|
||
under the same organizational control and the hosts have already been
|
||
replaced by pseudonyms. Applications MUST NOT combine entries which
|
||
have different received-protocol values.
|
||
|
||
14.46 Warning
|
||
|
||
The Warning general-header field is used to carry additional
|
||
information about the status or transformation of a message which
|
||
might not be reflected in the message. This information is typically
|
||
used to warn about a possible lack of semantic transparency from
|
||
caching operations or transformations applied to the entity body of
|
||
the message.
|
||
|
||
Warning headers are sent with responses using:
|
||
|
||
Warning = "Warning" ":" 1#warning-value
|
||
|
||
warning-value = warn-code SP warn-agent SP warn-text
|
||
[SP warn-date]
|
||
|
||
warn-code = 3DIGIT
|
||
warn-agent = ( host [ ":" port ] ) | pseudonym
|
||
; the name or pseudonym of the server adding
|
||
; the Warning header, for use in debugging
|
||
warn-text = quoted-string
|
||
warn-date = <"> HTTP-date <">
|
||
|
||
A response MAY carry more than one Warning header.
|
||
|
||
The warn-text SHOULD be in a natural language and character set that
|
||
is most likely to be intelligible to the human user receiving the
|
||
response. This decision MAY be based on any available knowledge, such
|
||
as the location of the cache or user, the Accept-Language field in a
|
||
request, the Content-Language field in a response, etc. The default
|
||
language is English and the default character set is ISO-8859-1.
|
||
|
||
If a character set other than ISO-8859-1 is used, it MUST be encoded
|
||
in the warn-text using the method described in RFC 2047 [14].
|
||
|
||
Warning headers can in general be applied to any message, however
|
||
some specific warn-codes are specific to caches and can only be
|
||
applied to response messages. New Warning headers SHOULD be added
|
||
after any existing Warning headers. A cache MUST NOT delete any
|
||
Warning header that it received with a message. However, if a cache
|
||
successfully validates a cache entry, it SHOULD remove any Warning
|
||
headers previously attached to that entry except as specified for
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 148]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
specific Warning codes. It MUST then add any Warning headers received
|
||
in the validating response. In other words, Warning headers are those
|
||
that would be attached to the most recent relevant response.
|
||
|
||
When multiple Warning headers are attached to a response, the user
|
||
agent ought to inform the user of as many of them as possible, in the
|
||
order that they appear in the response. If it is not possible to
|
||
inform the user of all of the warnings, the user agent SHOULD follow
|
||
these heuristics:
|
||
|
||
- Warnings that appear early in the response take priority over
|
||
those appearing later in the response.
|
||
|
||
- Warnings in the user's preferred character set take priority
|
||
over warnings in other character sets but with identical warn-
|
||
codes and warn-agents.
|
||
|
||
Systems that generate multiple Warning headers SHOULD order them with
|
||
this user agent behavior in mind.
|
||
|
||
Requirements for the behavior of caches with respect to Warnings are
|
||
stated in section 13.1.2.
|
||
|
||
This is a list of the currently-defined warn-codes, each with a
|
||
recommended warn-text in English, and a description of its meaning.
|
||
|
||
110 Response is stale
|
||
MUST be included whenever the returned response is stale.
|
||
|
||
111 Revalidation failed
|
||
MUST be included if a cache returns a stale response because an
|
||
attempt to revalidate the response failed, due to an inability to
|
||
reach the server.
|
||
|
||
112 Disconnected operation
|
||
SHOULD be included if the cache is intentionally disconnected from
|
||
the rest of the network for a period of time.
|
||
|
||
113 Heuristic expiration
|
||
MUST be included if the cache heuristically chose a freshness
|
||
lifetime greater than 24 hours and the response's age is greater
|
||
than 24 hours.
|
||
|
||
199 Miscellaneous warning
|
||
The warning text MAY include arbitrary information to be presented
|
||
to a human user, or logged. A system receiving this warning MUST
|
||
NOT take any automated action, besides presenting the warning to
|
||
the user.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 149]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
214 Transformation applied
|
||
MUST be added by an intermediate cache or proxy if it applies any
|
||
transformation changing the content-coding (as specified in the
|
||
Content-Encoding header) or media-type (as specified in the
|
||
Content-Type header) of the response, or the entity-body of the
|
||
response, unless this Warning code already appears in the response.
|
||
|
||
299 Miscellaneous persistent warning
|
||
The warning text MAY include arbitrary information to be presented
|
||
to a human user, or logged. A system receiving this warning MUST
|
||
NOT take any automated action.
|
||
|
||
If an implementation sends a message with one or more Warning headers
|
||
whose version is HTTP/1.0 or lower, then the sender MUST include in
|
||
each warning-value a warn-date that matches the date in the response.
|
||
|
||
If an implementation receives a message with a warning-value that
|
||
includes a warn-date, and that warn-date is different from the Date
|
||
value in the response, then that warning-value MUST be deleted from
|
||
the message before storing, forwarding, or using it. (This prevents
|
||
bad consequences of naive caching of Warning header fields.) If all
|
||
of the warning-values are deleted for this reason, the Warning header
|
||
MUST be deleted as well.
|
||
|
||
14.47 WWW-Authenticate
|
||
|
||
The WWW-Authenticate response-header field MUST be included in 401
|
||
(Unauthorized) response messages. The field value consists of at
|
||
least one challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and
|
||
parameters applicable to the Request-URI.
|
||
|
||
WWW-Authenticate = "WWW-Authenticate" ":" 1#challenge
|
||
|
||
The HTTP access authentication process is described in "HTTP
|
||
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [43]. User
|
||
agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW-
|
||
Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge,
|
||
or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the
|
||
contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of
|
||
authentication parameters.
|
||
|
||
15 Security Considerations
|
||
|
||
This section is meant to inform application developers, information
|
||
providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as
|
||
described by this document. The discussion does not include
|
||
definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make
|
||
some suggestions for reducing security risks.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 150]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
15.1 Personal Information
|
||
|
||
HTTP clients are often privy to large amounts of personal information
|
||
(e.g. the user's name, location, mail address, passwords, encryption
|
||
keys, etc.), and SHOULD be very careful to prevent unintentional
|
||
leakage of this information via the HTTP protocol to other sources.
|
||
We very strongly recommend that a convenient interface be provided
|
||
for the user to control dissemination of such information, and that
|
||
designers and implementors be particularly careful in this area.
|
||
History shows that errors in this area often create serious security
|
||
and/or privacy problems and generate highly adverse publicity for the
|
||
implementor's company.
|
||
|
||
15.1.1 Abuse of Server Log Information
|
||
|
||
A server is in the position to save personal data about a user's
|
||
requests which might identify their reading patterns or subjects of
|
||
interest. This information is clearly confidential in nature and its
|
||
handling can be constrained by law in certain countries. People using
|
||
the HTTP protocol to provide data are responsible for ensuring that
|
||
such material is not distributed without the permission of any
|
||
individuals that are identifiable by the published results.
|
||
|
||
15.1.2 Transfer of Sensitive Information
|
||
|
||
Like any generic data transfer protocol, HTTP cannot regulate the
|
||
content of the data that is transferred, nor is there any a priori
|
||
method of determining the sensitivity of any particular piece of
|
||
information within the context of any given request. Therefore,
|
||
applications SHOULD supply as much control over this information as
|
||
possible to the provider of that information. Four header fields are
|
||
worth special mention in this context: Server, Via, Referer and From.
|
||
|
||
Revealing the specific software version of the server might allow the
|
||
server machine to become more vulnerable to attacks against software
|
||
that is known to contain security holes. Implementors SHOULD make the
|
||
Server header field a configurable option.
|
||
|
||
Proxies which serve as a portal through a network firewall SHOULD
|
||
take special precautions regarding the transfer of header information
|
||
that identifies the hosts behind the firewall. In particular, they
|
||
SHOULD remove, or replace with sanitized versions, any Via fields
|
||
generated behind the firewall.
|
||
|
||
The Referer header allows reading patterns to be studied and reverse
|
||
links drawn. Although it can be very useful, its power can be abused
|
||
if user details are not separated from the information contained in
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 151]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
the Referer. Even when the personal information has been removed, the
|
||
Referer header might indicate a private document's URI whose
|
||
publication would be inappropriate.
|
||
|
||
The information sent in the From field might conflict with the user's
|
||
privacy interests or their site's security policy, and hence it
|
||
SHOULD NOT be transmitted without the user being able to disable,
|
||
enable, and modify the contents of the field. The user MUST be able
|
||
to set the contents of this field within a user preference or
|
||
application defaults configuration.
|
||
|
||
We suggest, though do not require, that a convenient toggle interface
|
||
be provided for the user to enable or disable the sending of From and
|
||
Referer information.
|
||
|
||
The User-Agent (section 14.43) or Server (section 14.38) header
|
||
fields can sometimes be used to determine that a specific client or
|
||
server have a particular security hole which might be exploited.
|
||
Unfortunately, this same information is often used for other valuable
|
||
purposes for which HTTP currently has no better mechanism.
|
||
|
||
15.1.3 Encoding Sensitive Information in URI's
|
||
|
||
Because the source of a link might be private information or might
|
||
reveal an otherwise private information source, it is strongly
|
||
recommended that the user be able to select whether or not the
|
||
Referer field is sent. For example, a browser client could have a
|
||
toggle switch for browsing openly/anonymously, which would
|
||
respectively enable/disable the sending of Referer and From
|
||
information.
|
||
|
||
Clients SHOULD NOT include a Referer header field in a (non-secure)
|
||
HTTP request if the referring page was transferred with a secure
|
||
protocol.
|
||
|
||
Authors of services which use the HTTP protocol SHOULD NOT use GET
|
||
based forms for the submission of sensitive data, because this will
|
||
cause this data to be encoded in the Request-URI. Many existing
|
||
servers, proxies, and user agents will log the request URI in some
|
||
place where it might be visible to third parties. Servers can use
|
||
POST-based form submission instead
|
||
|
||
15.1.4 Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers
|
||
|
||
Accept request-headers can reveal information about the user to all
|
||
servers which are accessed. The Accept-Language header in particular
|
||
can reveal information the user would consider to be of a private
|
||
nature, because the understanding of particular languages is often
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 152]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
strongly correlated to the membership of a particular ethnic group.
|
||
User agents which offer the option to configure the contents of an
|
||
Accept-Language header to be sent in every request are strongly
|
||
encouraged to let the configuration process include a message which
|
||
makes the user aware of the loss of privacy involved.
|
||
|
||
An approach that limits the loss of privacy would be for a user agent
|
||
to omit the sending of Accept-Language headers by default, and to ask
|
||
the user whether or not to start sending Accept-Language headers to a
|
||
server if it detects, by looking for any Vary response-header fields
|
||
generated by the server, that such sending could improve the quality
|
||
of service.
|
||
|
||
Elaborate user-customized accept header fields sent in every request,
|
||
in particular if these include quality values, can be used by servers
|
||
as relatively reliable and long-lived user identifiers. Such user
|
||
identifiers would allow content providers to do click-trail tracking,
|
||
and would allow collaborating content providers to match cross-server
|
||
click-trails or form submissions of individual users. Note that for
|
||
many users not behind a proxy, the network address of the host
|
||
running the user agent will also serve as a long-lived user
|
||
identifier. In environments where proxies are used to enhance
|
||
privacy, user agents ought to be conservative in offering accept
|
||
header configuration options to end users. As an extreme privacy
|
||
measure, proxies could filter the accept headers in relayed requests.
|
||
General purpose user agents which provide a high degree of header
|
||
configurability SHOULD warn users about the loss of privacy which can
|
||
be involved.
|
||
|
||
15.2 Attacks Based On File and Path Names
|
||
|
||
Implementations of HTTP origin servers SHOULD be careful to restrict
|
||
the documents returned by HTTP requests to be only those that were
|
||
intended by the server administrators. If an HTTP server translates
|
||
HTTP URIs directly into file system calls, the server MUST take
|
||
special care not to serve files that were not intended to be
|
||
delivered to HTTP clients. For example, UNIX, Microsoft Windows, and
|
||
other operating systems use ".." as a path component to indicate a
|
||
directory level above the current one. On such a system, an HTTP
|
||
server MUST disallow any such construct in the Request-URI if it
|
||
would otherwise allow access to a resource outside those intended to
|
||
be accessible via the HTTP server. Similarly, files intended for
|
||
reference only internally to the server (such as access control
|
||
files, configuration files, and script code) MUST be protected from
|
||
inappropriate retrieval, since they might contain sensitive
|
||
information. Experience has shown that minor bugs in such HTTP server
|
||
implementations have turned into security risks.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 153]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
15.3 DNS Spoofing
|
||
|
||
Clients using HTTP rely heavily on the Domain Name Service, and are
|
||
thus generally prone to security attacks based on the deliberate
|
||
mis-association of IP addresses and DNS names. Clients need to be
|
||
cautious in assuming the continuing validity of an IP number/DNS name
|
||
association.
|
||
|
||
In particular, HTTP clients SHOULD rely on their name resolver for
|
||
confirmation of an IP number/DNS name association, rather than
|
||
caching the result of previous host name lookups. Many platforms
|
||
already can cache host name lookups locally when appropriate, and
|
||
they SHOULD be configured to do so. It is proper for these lookups to
|
||
be cached, however, only when the TTL (Time To Live) information
|
||
reported by the name server makes it likely that the cached
|
||
information will remain useful.
|
||
|
||
If HTTP clients cache the results of host name lookups in order to
|
||
achieve a performance improvement, they MUST observe the TTL
|
||
information reported by DNS.
|
||
|
||
If HTTP clients do not observe this rule, they could be spoofed when
|
||
a previously-accessed server's IP address changes. As network
|
||
renumbering is expected to become increasingly common [24], the
|
||
possibility of this form of attack will grow. Observing this
|
||
requirement thus reduces this potential security vulnerability.
|
||
|
||
This requirement also improves the load-balancing behavior of clients
|
||
for replicated servers using the same DNS name and reduces the
|
||
likelihood of a user's experiencing failure in accessing sites which
|
||
use that strategy.
|
||
|
||
15.4 Location Headers and Spoofing
|
||
|
||
If a single server supports multiple organizations that do not trust
|
||
one another, then it MUST check the values of Location and Content-
|
||
Location headers in responses that are generated under control of
|
||
said organizations to make sure that they do not attempt to
|
||
invalidate resources over which they have no authority.
|
||
|
||
15.5 Content-Disposition Issues
|
||
|
||
RFC 1806 [35], from which the often implemented Content-Disposition
|
||
(see section 19.5.1) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very
|
||
serious security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of
|
||
the HTTP standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are
|
||
documenting its use and risks for implementors. See RFC 2183 [49]
|
||
(which updates RFC 1806) for details.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 154]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
15.6 Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients
|
||
|
||
Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication
|
||
information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1. does not provide a method for a
|
||
server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This is
|
||
a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP.
|
||
Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the
|
||
application's security model include but are not limited to:
|
||
|
||
- Clients which have been idle for an extended period following
|
||
which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the
|
||
user for credentials.
|
||
|
||
- Applications which include a session termination indication
|
||
(such as a `logout' or `commit' button on a page) after which
|
||
the server side of the application `knows' that there is no
|
||
further reason for the client to retain the credentials.
|
||
|
||
This is currently under separate study. There are a number of work-
|
||
arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of
|
||
password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other
|
||
methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this
|
||
problem. In particular, user agents which cache credentials are
|
||
encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding
|
||
cached credentials under user control.
|
||
|
||
15.7 Proxies and Caching
|
||
|
||
By their very nature, HTTP proxies are men-in-the-middle, and
|
||
represent an opportunity for man-in-the-middle attacks. Compromise of
|
||
the systems on which the proxies run can result in serious security
|
||
and privacy problems. Proxies have access to security-related
|
||
information, personal information about individual users and
|
||
organizations, and proprietary information belonging to users and
|
||
content providers. A compromised proxy, or a proxy implemented or
|
||
configured without regard to security and privacy considerations,
|
||
might be used in the commission of a wide range of potential attacks.
|
||
|
||
Proxy operators should protect the systems on which proxies run as
|
||
they would protect any system that contains or transports sensitive
|
||
information. In particular, log information gathered at proxies often
|
||
contains highly sensitive personal information, and/or information
|
||
about organizations. Log information should be carefully guarded, and
|
||
appropriate guidelines for use developed and followed. (Section
|
||
15.1.1).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 155]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Caching proxies provide additional potential vulnerabilities, since
|
||
the contents of the cache represent an attractive target for
|
||
malicious exploitation. Because cache contents persist after an HTTP
|
||
request is complete, an attack on the cache can reveal information
|
||
long after a user believes that the information has been removed from
|
||
the network. Therefore, cache contents should be protected as
|
||
sensitive information.
|
||
|
||
Proxy implementors should consider the privacy and security
|
||
implications of their design and coding decisions, and of the
|
||
configuration options they provide to proxy operators (especially the
|
||
default configuration).
|
||
|
||
Users of a proxy need to be aware that they are no trustworthier than
|
||
the people who run the proxy; HTTP itself cannot solve this problem.
|
||
|
||
The judicious use of cryptography, when appropriate, may suffice to
|
||
protect against a broad range of security and privacy attacks. Such
|
||
cryptography is beyond the scope of the HTTP/1.1 specification.
|
||
|
||
15.7.1 Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies
|
||
|
||
They exist. They are hard to defend against. Research continues.
|
||
Beware.
|
||
|
||
16 Acknowledgments
|
||
|
||
This specification makes heavy use of the augmented BNF and generic
|
||
constructs defined by David H. Crocker for RFC 822 [9]. Similarly, it
|
||
reuses many of the definitions provided by Nathaniel Borenstein and
|
||
Ned Freed for MIME [7]. We hope that their inclusion in this
|
||
specification will help reduce past confusion over the relationship
|
||
between HTTP and Internet mail message formats.
|
||
|
||
The HTTP protocol has evolved considerably over the years. It has
|
||
benefited from a large and active developer community--the many
|
||
people who have participated on the www-talk mailing list--and it is
|
||
that community which has been most responsible for the success of
|
||
HTTP and of the World-Wide Web in general. Marc Andreessen, Robert
|
||
Cailliau, Daniel W. Connolly, Bob Denny, John Franks, Jean-Francois
|
||
Groff, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Hakon W. Lie, Ari Luotonen, Rob
|
||
McCool, Lou Montulli, Dave Raggett, Tony Sanders, and Marc
|
||
VanHeyningen deserve special recognition for their efforts in
|
||
defining early aspects of the protocol.
|
||
|
||
This document has benefited greatly from the comments of all those
|
||
participating in the HTTP-WG. In addition to those already mentioned,
|
||
the following individuals have contributed to this specification:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 156]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Gary Adams Ross Patterson
|
||
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Albert Lunde
|
||
Keith Ball John C. Mallery
|
||
Brian Behlendorf Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin
|
||
Paul Burchard Mitra
|
||
Maurizio Codogno David Morris
|
||
Mike Cowlishaw Gavin Nicol
|
||
Roman Czyborra Bill Perry
|
||
Michael A. Dolan Jeffrey Perry
|
||
David J. Fiander Scott Powers
|
||
Alan Freier Owen Rees
|
||
Marc Hedlund Luigi Rizzo
|
||
Greg Herlihy David Robinson
|
||
Koen Holtman Marc Salomon
|
||
Alex Hopmann Rich Salz
|
||
Bob Jernigan Allan M. Schiffman
|
||
Shel Kaphan Jim Seidman
|
||
Rohit Khare Chuck Shotton
|
||
John Klensin Eric W. Sink
|
||
Martijn Koster Simon E. Spero
|
||
Alexei Kosut Richard N. Taylor
|
||
David M. Kristol Robert S. Thau
|
||
Daniel LaLiberte Bill (BearHeart) Weinman
|
||
Ben Laurie Francois Yergeau
|
||
Paul J. Leach Mary Ellen Zurko
|
||
Daniel DuBois Josh Cohen
|
||
|
||
|
||
Much of the content and presentation of the caching design is due to
|
||
suggestions and comments from individuals including: Shel Kaphan,
|
||
Paul Leach, Koen Holtman, David Morris, and Larry Masinter.
|
||
|
||
Most of the specification of ranges is based on work originally done
|
||
by Ari Luotonen and John Franks, with additional input from Steve
|
||
Zilles.
|
||
|
||
Thanks to the "cave men" of Palo Alto. You know who you are.
|
||
|
||
Jim Gettys (the current editor of this document) wishes particularly
|
||
to thank Roy Fielding, the previous editor of this document, along
|
||
with John Klensin, Jeff Mogul, Paul Leach, Dave Kristol, Koen
|
||
Holtman, John Franks, Josh Cohen, Alex Hopmann, Scott Lawrence, and
|
||
Larry Masinter for their help. And thanks go particularly to Jeff
|
||
Mogul and Scott Lawrence for performing the "MUST/MAY/SHOULD" audit.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 157]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Apache Group, Anselm Baird-Smith, author of Jigsaw, and Henrik
|
||
Frystyk implemented RFC 2068 early, and we wish to thank them for the
|
||
discovery of many of the problems that this document attempts to
|
||
rectify.
|
||
|
||
17 References
|
||
|
||
[1] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC
|
||
1766, March 1995.
|
||
|
||
[2] Anklesaria, F., McCahill, M., Lindner, P., Johnson, D., Torrey,
|
||
D. and B. Alberti, "The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed
|
||
document search and retrieval protocol)", RFC 1436, March 1993.
|
||
|
||
[3] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW", RFC
|
||
1630, June 1994.
|
||
|
||
[4] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform Resource
|
||
Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
|
||
|
||
[5] Berners-Lee, T. and D. Connolly, "Hypertext Markup Language -
|
||
2.0", RFC 1866, November 1995.
|
||
|
||
[6] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and H. Frystyk, "Hypertext Transfer
|
||
Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996.
|
||
|
||
[7] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
|
||
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
|
||
RFC 2045, November 1996.
|
||
|
||
[8] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication
|
||
Layers", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
|
||
|
||
[9] Crocker, D., "Standard for The Format of ARPA Internet Text
|
||
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
|
||
|
||
[10] Davis, F., Kahle, B., Morris, H., Salem, J., Shen, T., Wang, R.,
|
||
Sui, J., and M. Grinbaum, "WAIS Interface Protocol Prototype
|
||
Functional Specification," (v1.5), Thinking Machines
|
||
Corporation, April 1990.
|
||
|
||
[11] Fielding, R., "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 1808,
|
||
June 1995.
|
||
|
||
[12] Horton, M. and R. Adams, "Standard for Interchange of USENET
|
||
Messages", RFC 1036, December 1987.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 158]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
[13] Kantor, B. and P. Lapsley, "Network News Transfer Protocol", RFC
|
||
977, February 1986.
|
||
|
||
[14] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part
|
||
Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047,
|
||
November 1996.
|
||
|
||
[15] Nebel, E. and L. Masinter, "Form-based File Upload in HTML", RFC
|
||
1867, November 1995.
|
||
|
||
[16] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
|
||
August 1982.
|
||
|
||
[17] Postel, J., "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590,
|
||
November 1996.
|
||
|
||
[18] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC
|
||
959, October 1985.
|
||
|
||
[19] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700,
|
||
October 1994.
|
||
|
||
[20] Sollins, K. and L. Masinter, "Functional Requirements for
|
||
Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994.
|
||
|
||
[21] US-ASCII. Coded Character Set - 7-Bit American Standard Code for
|
||
Information Interchange. Standard ANSI X3.4-1986, ANSI, 1986.
|
||
|
||
[22] ISO-8859. International Standard -- Information Processing --
|
||
8-bit Single-Byte Coded Graphic Character Sets --
|
||
Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987.
|
||
Part 2: Latin alphabet No. 2, ISO-8859-2, 1987.
|
||
Part 3: Latin alphabet No. 3, ISO-8859-3, 1988.
|
||
Part 4: Latin alphabet No. 4, ISO-8859-4, 1988.
|
||
Part 5: Latin/Cyrillic alphabet, ISO-8859-5, 1988.
|
||
Part 6: Latin/Arabic alphabet, ISO-8859-6, 1987.
|
||
Part 7: Latin/Greek alphabet, ISO-8859-7, 1987.
|
||
Part 8: Latin/Hebrew alphabet, ISO-8859-8, 1988.
|
||
Part 9: Latin alphabet No. 5, ISO-8859-9, 1990.
|
||
|
||
[23] Meyers, J. and M. Rose, "The Content-MD5 Header Field", RFC
|
||
1864, October 1995.
|
||
|
||
[24] Carpenter, B. and Y. Rekhter, "Renumbering Needs Work", RFC
|
||
1900, February 1996.
|
||
|
||
[25] Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3", RFC
|
||
1952, May 1996.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 159]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
[26] Venkata N. Padmanabhan, and Jeffrey C. Mogul. "Improving HTTP
|
||
Latency", Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, v. 28, pp. 25-35,
|
||
Dec. 1995. Slightly revised version of paper in Proc. 2nd
|
||
International WWW Conference '94: Mosaic and the Web, Oct. 1994,
|
||
which is available at
|
||
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/DDay/mogul/HTTPLat
|
||
ency.html.
|
||
|
||
[27] Joe Touch, John Heidemann, and Katia Obraczka. "Analysis of HTTP
|
||
Performance", <URL: http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/http-perf96/>,
|
||
ISI Research Report ISI/RR-98-463, (original report dated Aug.
|
||
1996), USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1998.
|
||
|
||
[28] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification,
|
||
Implementation and Analysis", RFC 1305, March 1992.
|
||
|
||
[29] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification
|
||
version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996.
|
||
|
||
[30] S. Spero, "Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems,"
|
||
http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdma-release/http-prob.html.
|
||
|
||
[31] Deutsch, P. and J. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format
|
||
Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996.
|
||
|
||
[32] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Leach, P.,
|
||
Luotonen, A., Sink, E. and L. Stewart, "An Extension to HTTP:
|
||
Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2069, January 1997.
|
||
|
||
[33] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H. and T.
|
||
Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC
|
||
2068, January 1997.
|
||
|
||
[34] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
|
||
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
|
||
|
||
[35] Troost, R. and Dorner, S., "Communicating Presentation
|
||
Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition
|
||
Header", RFC 1806, June 1995.
|
||
|
||
[36] Mogul, J., Fielding, R., Gettys, J. and H. Frystyk, "Use and
|
||
Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers", RFC 2145, May 1997.
|
||
[jg639]
|
||
|
||
[37] Palme, J., "Common Internet Message Headers", RFC 2076, February
|
||
1997. [jg640]
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 160]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
[38] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and
|
||
ISO-10646", RFC 2279, January 1998. [jg641]
|
||
|
||
[39] Nielsen, H.F., Gettys, J., Baird-Smith, A., Prud'hommeaux, E.,
|
||
Lie, H., and C. Lilley. "Network Performance Effects of
|
||
HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG," Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '97, Cannes
|
||
France, September 1997.[jg642]
|
||
|
||
[40] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
|
||
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November
|
||
1996. [jg643]
|
||
|
||
[41] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages",
|
||
BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998. [jg644]
|
||
|
||
[42] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource
|
||
Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics", RFC 2396,
|
||
August 1998. [jg645]
|
||
|
||
[43] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
|
||
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., Sink, E. and L. Stewart, "HTTP
|
||
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", RFC
|
||
2617, June 1999. [jg646]
|
||
|
||
[44] Luotonen, A., "Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web proxy
|
||
servers," Work in Progress. [jg647]
|
||
|
||
[45] Palme, J. and A. Hopmann, "MIME E-mail Encapsulation of
|
||
Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", RFC 2110, March
|
||
1997.
|
||
|
||
[46] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
|
||
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
|
||
|
||
[47] Masinter, L., "Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol
|
||
(HTCPCP/1.0)", RFC 2324, 1 April 1998.
|
||
|
||
[48] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
|
||
Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples",
|
||
RFC 2049, November 1996.
|
||
|
||
[49] Troost, R., Dorner, S. and K. Moore, "Communicating Presentation
|
||
Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header
|
||
Field", RFC 2183, August 1997.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 161]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
18 Authors' Addresses
|
||
|
||
Roy T. Fielding
|
||
Information and Computer Science
|
||
University of California, Irvine
|
||
Irvine, CA 92697-3425, USA
|
||
|
||
Fax: +1 (949) 824-1715
|
||
EMail: fielding@ics.uci.edu
|
||
|
||
|
||
James Gettys
|
||
World Wide Web Consortium
|
||
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
|
||
545 Technology Square
|
||
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
|
||
|
||
Fax: +1 (617) 258 8682
|
||
EMail: jg@w3.org
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jeffrey C. Mogul
|
||
Western Research Laboratory
|
||
Compaq Computer Corporation
|
||
250 University Avenue
|
||
Palo Alto, California, 94305, USA
|
||
|
||
EMail: mogul@wrl.dec.com
|
||
|
||
|
||
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
|
||
World Wide Web Consortium
|
||
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
|
||
545 Technology Square
|
||
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
|
||
|
||
Fax: +1 (617) 258 8682
|
||
EMail: frystyk@w3.org
|
||
|
||
|
||
Larry Masinter
|
||
Xerox Corporation
|
||
3333 Coyote Hill Road
|
||
Palo Alto, CA 94034, USA
|
||
|
||
EMail: masinter@parc.xerox.com
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 162]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Paul J. Leach
|
||
Microsoft Corporation
|
||
1 Microsoft Way
|
||
Redmond, WA 98052, USA
|
||
|
||
EMail: paulle@microsoft.com
|
||
|
||
|
||
Tim Berners-Lee
|
||
Director, World Wide Web Consortium
|
||
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
|
||
545 Technology Square
|
||
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
|
||
|
||
Fax: +1 (617) 258 8682
|
||
EMail: timbl@w3.org
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 163]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
19 Appendices
|
||
|
||
19.1 Internet Media Type message/http and application/http
|
||
|
||
In addition to defining the HTTP/1.1 protocol, this document serves
|
||
as the specification for the Internet media type "message/http" and
|
||
"application/http". The message/http type can be used to enclose a
|
||
single HTTP request or response message, provided that it obeys the
|
||
MIME restrictions for all "message" types regarding line length and
|
||
encodings. The application/http type can be used to enclose a
|
||
pipeline of one or more HTTP request or response messages (not
|
||
intermixed). The following is to be registered with IANA [17].
|
||
|
||
Media Type name: message
|
||
Media subtype name: http
|
||
Required parameters: none
|
||
Optional parameters: version, msgtype
|
||
version: The HTTP-Version number of the enclosed message
|
||
(e.g., "1.1"). If not present, the version can be
|
||
determined from the first line of the body.
|
||
msgtype: The message type -- "request" or "response". If not
|
||
present, the type can be determined from the first
|
||
line of the body.
|
||
Encoding considerations: only "7bit", "8bit", or "binary" are
|
||
permitted
|
||
Security considerations: none
|
||
|
||
Media Type name: application
|
||
Media subtype name: http
|
||
Required parameters: none
|
||
Optional parameters: version, msgtype
|
||
version: The HTTP-Version number of the enclosed messages
|
||
(e.g., "1.1"). If not present, the version can be
|
||
determined from the first line of the body.
|
||
msgtype: The message type -- "request" or "response". If not
|
||
present, the type can be determined from the first
|
||
line of the body.
|
||
Encoding considerations: HTTP messages enclosed by this type
|
||
are in "binary" format; use of an appropriate
|
||
Content-Transfer-Encoding is required when
|
||
transmitted via E-mail.
|
||
Security considerations: none
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 164]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
19.2 Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges
|
||
|
||
When an HTTP 206 (Partial Content) response message includes the
|
||
content of multiple ranges (a response to a request for multiple
|
||
non-overlapping ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart
|
||
message-body. The media type for this purpose is called
|
||
"multipart/byteranges".
|
||
|
||
The multipart/byteranges media type includes two or more parts, each
|
||
with its own Content-Type and Content-Range fields. The required
|
||
boundary parameter specifies the boundary string used to separate
|
||
each body-part.
|
||
|
||
Media Type name: multipart
|
||
Media subtype name: byteranges
|
||
Required parameters: boundary
|
||
Optional parameters: none
|
||
Encoding considerations: only "7bit", "8bit", or "binary" are
|
||
permitted
|
||
Security considerations: none
|
||
|
||
|
||
For example:
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
|
||
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
|
||
Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
|
||
Content-type: multipart/byteranges; boundary=THIS_STRING_SEPARATES
|
||
|
||
--THIS_STRING_SEPARATES
|
||
Content-type: application/pdf
|
||
Content-range: bytes 500-999/8000
|
||
|
||
...the first range...
|
||
--THIS_STRING_SEPARATES
|
||
Content-type: application/pdf
|
||
Content-range: bytes 7000-7999/8000
|
||
|
||
...the second range
|
||
--THIS_STRING_SEPARATES--
|
||
|
||
Notes:
|
||
|
||
1) Additional CRLFs may precede the first boundary string in the
|
||
entity.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 165]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
2) Although RFC 2046 [40] permits the boundary string to be
|
||
quoted, some existing implementations handle a quoted boundary
|
||
string incorrectly.
|
||
|
||
3) A number of browsers and servers were coded to an early draft
|
||
of the byteranges specification to use a media type of
|
||
multipart/x-byteranges, which is almost, but not quite
|
||
compatible with the version documented in HTTP/1.1.
|
||
|
||
19.3 Tolerant Applications
|
||
|
||
Although this document specifies the requirements for the generation
|
||
of HTTP/1.1 messages, not all applications will be correct in their
|
||
implementation. We therefore recommend that operational applications
|
||
be tolerant of deviations whenever those deviations can be
|
||
interpreted unambiguously.
|
||
|
||
Clients SHOULD be tolerant in parsing the Status-Line and servers
|
||
tolerant when parsing the Request-Line. In particular, they SHOULD
|
||
accept any amount of SP or HT characters between fields, even though
|
||
only a single SP is required.
|
||
|
||
The line terminator for message-header fields is the sequence CRLF.
|
||
However, we recommend that applications, when parsing such headers,
|
||
recognize a single LF as a line terminator and ignore the leading CR.
|
||
|
||
The character set of an entity-body SHOULD be labeled as the lowest
|
||
common denominator of the character codes used within that body, with
|
||
the exception that not labeling the entity is preferred over labeling
|
||
the entity with the labels US-ASCII or ISO-8859-1. See section 3.7.1
|
||
and 3.4.1.
|
||
|
||
Additional rules for requirements on parsing and encoding of dates
|
||
and other potential problems with date encodings include:
|
||
|
||
- HTTP/1.1 clients and caches SHOULD assume that an RFC-850 date
|
||
which appears to be more than 50 years in the future is in fact
|
||
in the past (this helps solve the "year 2000" problem).
|
||
|
||
- An HTTP/1.1 implementation MAY internally represent a parsed
|
||
Expires date as earlier than the proper value, but MUST NOT
|
||
internally represent a parsed Expires date as later than the
|
||
proper value.
|
||
|
||
- All expiration-related calculations MUST be done in GMT. The
|
||
local time zone MUST NOT influence the calculation or comparison
|
||
of an age or expiration time.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 166]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
- If an HTTP header incorrectly carries a date value with a time
|
||
zone other than GMT, it MUST be converted into GMT using the
|
||
most conservative possible conversion.
|
||
|
||
19.4 Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 uses many of the constructs defined for Internet Mail (RFC
|
||
822 [9]) and the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME [7]) to
|
||
allow entities to be transmitted in an open variety of
|
||
representations and with extensible mechanisms. However, RFC 2045
|
||
discusses mail, and HTTP has a few features that are different from
|
||
those described in RFC 2045. These differences were carefully chosen
|
||
to optimize performance over binary connections, to allow greater
|
||
freedom in the use of new media types, to make date comparisons
|
||
easier, and to acknowledge the practice of some early HTTP servers
|
||
and clients.
|
||
|
||
This appendix describes specific areas where HTTP differs from RFC
|
||
2045. Proxies and gateways to strict MIME environments SHOULD be
|
||
aware of these differences and provide the appropriate conversions
|
||
where necessary. Proxies and gateways from MIME environments to HTTP
|
||
also need to be aware of the differences because some conversions
|
||
might be required.
|
||
|
||
19.4.1 MIME-Version
|
||
|
||
HTTP is not a MIME-compliant protocol. However, HTTP/1.1 messages MAY
|
||
include a single MIME-Version general-header field to indicate what
|
||
version of the MIME protocol was used to construct the message. Use
|
||
of the MIME-Version header field indicates that the message is in
|
||
full compliance with the MIME protocol (as defined in RFC 2045[7]).
|
||
Proxies/gateways are responsible for ensuring full compliance (where
|
||
possible) when exporting HTTP messages to strict MIME environments.
|
||
|
||
MIME-Version = "MIME-Version" ":" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
|
||
|
||
MIME version "1.0" is the default for use in HTTP/1.1. However,
|
||
HTTP/1.1 message parsing and semantics are defined by this document
|
||
and not the MIME specification.
|
||
|
||
19.4.2 Conversion to Canonical Form
|
||
|
||
RFC 2045 [7] requires that an Internet mail entity be converted to
|
||
canonical form prior to being transferred, as described in section 4
|
||
of RFC 2049 [48]. Section 3.7.1 of this document describes the forms
|
||
allowed for subtypes of the "text" media type when transmitted over
|
||
HTTP. RFC 2046 requires that content with a type of "text" represent
|
||
line breaks as CRLF and forbids the use of CR or LF outside of line
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 167]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
break sequences. HTTP allows CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF to indicate a
|
||
line break within text content when a message is transmitted over
|
||
HTTP.
|
||
|
||
Where it is possible, a proxy or gateway from HTTP to a strict MIME
|
||
environment SHOULD translate all line breaks within the text media
|
||
types described in section 3.7.1 of this document to the RFC 2049
|
||
canonical form of CRLF. Note, however, that this might be complicated
|
||
by the presence of a Content-Encoding and by the fact that HTTP
|
||
allows the use of some character sets which do not use octets 13 and
|
||
10 to represent CR and LF, as is the case for some multi-byte
|
||
character sets.
|
||
|
||
Implementors should note that conversion will break any cryptographic
|
||
checksums applied to the original content unless the original content
|
||
is already in canonical form. Therefore, the canonical form is
|
||
recommended for any content that uses such checksums in HTTP.
|
||
|
||
19.4.3 Conversion of Date Formats
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 uses a restricted set of date formats (section 3.3.1) to
|
||
simplify the process of date comparison. Proxies and gateways from
|
||
other protocols SHOULD ensure that any Date header field present in a
|
||
message conforms to one of the HTTP/1.1 formats and rewrite the date
|
||
if necessary.
|
||
|
||
19.4.4 Introduction of Content-Encoding
|
||
|
||
RFC 2045 does not include any concept equivalent to HTTP/1.1's
|
||
Content-Encoding header field. Since this acts as a modifier on the
|
||
media type, proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant
|
||
protocols MUST either change the value of the Content-Type header
|
||
field or decode the entity-body before forwarding the message. (Some
|
||
experimental applications of Content-Type for Internet mail have used
|
||
a media-type parameter of ";conversions=<content-coding>" to perform
|
||
a function equivalent to Content-Encoding. However, this parameter is
|
||
not part of RFC 2045.)
|
||
|
||
19.4.5 No Content-Transfer-Encoding
|
||
|
||
HTTP does not use the Content-Transfer-Encoding (CTE) field of RFC
|
||
2045. Proxies and gateways from MIME-compliant protocols to HTTP MUST
|
||
remove any non-identity CTE ("quoted-printable" or "base64") encoding
|
||
prior to delivering the response message to an HTTP client.
|
||
|
||
Proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols are
|
||
responsible for ensuring that the message is in the correct format
|
||
and encoding for safe transport on that protocol, where "safe
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 168]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
transport" is defined by the limitations of the protocol being used.
|
||
Such a proxy or gateway SHOULD label the data with an appropriate
|
||
Content-Transfer-Encoding if doing so will improve the likelihood of
|
||
safe transport over the destination protocol.
|
||
|
||
19.4.6 Introduction of Transfer-Encoding
|
||
|
||
HTTP/1.1 introduces the Transfer-Encoding header field (section
|
||
14.41). Proxies/gateways MUST remove any transfer-coding prior to
|
||
forwarding a message via a MIME-compliant protocol.
|
||
|
||
A process for decoding the "chunked" transfer-coding (section 3.6)
|
||
can be represented in pseudo-code as:
|
||
|
||
length := 0
|
||
read chunk-size, chunk-extension (if any) and CRLF
|
||
while (chunk-size > 0) {
|
||
read chunk-data and CRLF
|
||
append chunk-data to entity-body
|
||
length := length + chunk-size
|
||
read chunk-size and CRLF
|
||
}
|
||
read entity-header
|
||
while (entity-header not empty) {
|
||
append entity-header to existing header fields
|
||
read entity-header
|
||
}
|
||
Content-Length := length
|
||
Remove "chunked" from Transfer-Encoding
|
||
|
||
19.4.7 MHTML and Line Length Limitations
|
||
|
||
HTTP implementations which share code with MHTML [45] implementations
|
||
need to be aware of MIME line length limitations. Since HTTP does not
|
||
have this limitation, HTTP does not fold long lines. MHTML messages
|
||
being transported by HTTP follow all conventions of MHTML, including
|
||
line length limitations and folding, canonicalization, etc., since
|
||
HTTP transports all message-bodies as payload (see section 3.7.2) and
|
||
does not interpret the content or any MIME header lines that might be
|
||
contained therein.
|
||
|
||
19.5 Additional Features
|
||
|
||
RFC 1945 and RFC 2068 document protocol elements used by some
|
||
existing HTTP implementations, but not consistently and correctly
|
||
across most HTTP/1.1 applications. Implementors are advised to be
|
||
aware of these features, but cannot rely upon their presence in, or
|
||
interoperability with, other HTTP/1.1 applications. Some of these
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 169]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
describe proposed experimental features, and some describe features
|
||
that experimental deployment found lacking that are now addressed in
|
||
the base HTTP/1.1 specification.
|
||
|
||
A number of other headers, such as Content-Disposition and Title,
|
||
from SMTP and MIME are also often implemented (see RFC 2076 [37]).
|
||
|
||
19.5.1 Content-Disposition
|
||
|
||
The Content-Disposition response-header field has been proposed as a
|
||
means for the origin server to suggest a default filename if the user
|
||
requests that the content is saved to a file. This usage is derived
|
||
from the definition of Content-Disposition in RFC 1806 [35].
|
||
|
||
content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":"
|
||
disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm )
|
||
disposition-type = "attachment" | disp-extension-token
|
||
disposition-parm = filename-parm | disp-extension-parm
|
||
filename-parm = "filename" "=" quoted-string
|
||
disp-extension-token = token
|
||
disp-extension-parm = token "=" ( token | quoted-string )
|
||
|
||
An example is
|
||
|
||
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="fname.ext"
|
||
|
||
The receiving user agent SHOULD NOT respect any directory path
|
||
information present in the filename-parm parameter, which is the only
|
||
parameter believed to apply to HTTP implementations at this time. The
|
||
filename SHOULD be treated as a terminal component only.
|
||
|
||
If this header is used in a response with the application/octet-
|
||
stream content-type, the implied suggestion is that the user agent
|
||
should not display the response, but directly enter a `save response
|
||
as...' dialog.
|
||
|
||
See section 15.5 for Content-Disposition security issues.
|
||
|
||
19.6 Compatibility with Previous Versions
|
||
|
||
It is beyond the scope of a protocol specification to mandate
|
||
compliance with previous versions. HTTP/1.1 was deliberately
|
||
designed, however, to make supporting previous versions easy. It is
|
||
worth noting that, at the time of composing this specification
|
||
(1996), we would expect commercial HTTP/1.1 servers to:
|
||
|
||
- recognize the format of the Request-Line for HTTP/0.9, 1.0, and
|
||
1.1 requests;
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 170]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
- understand any valid request in the format of HTTP/0.9, 1.0, or
|
||
1.1;
|
||
|
||
- respond appropriately with a message in the same major version
|
||
used by the client.
|
||
|
||
And we would expect HTTP/1.1 clients to:
|
||
|
||
- recognize the format of the Status-Line for HTTP/1.0 and 1.1
|
||
responses;
|
||
|
||
- understand any valid response in the format of HTTP/0.9, 1.0, or
|
||
1.1.
|
||
|
||
For most implementations of HTTP/1.0, each connection is established
|
||
by the client prior to the request and closed by the server after
|
||
sending the response. Some implementations implement the Keep-Alive
|
||
version of persistent connections described in section 19.7.1 of RFC
|
||
2068 [33].
|
||
|
||
19.6.1 Changes from HTTP/1.0
|
||
|
||
This section summarizes major differences between versions HTTP/1.0
|
||
and HTTP/1.1.
|
||
|
||
19.6.1.1 Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and Conserve IP
|
||
Addresses
|
||
|
||
The requirements that clients and servers support the Host request-
|
||
header, report an error if the Host request-header (section 14.23) is
|
||
missing from an HTTP/1.1 request, and accept absolute URIs (section
|
||
5.1.2) are among the most important changes defined by this
|
||
specification.
|
||
|
||
Older HTTP/1.0 clients assumed a one-to-one relationship of IP
|
||
addresses and servers; there was no other established mechanism for
|
||
distinguishing the intended server of a request than the IP address
|
||
to which that request was directed. The changes outlined above will
|
||
allow the Internet, once older HTTP clients are no longer common, to
|
||
support multiple Web sites from a single IP address, greatly
|
||
simplifying large operational Web servers, where allocation of many
|
||
IP addresses to a single host has created serious problems. The
|
||
Internet will also be able to recover the IP addresses that have been
|
||
allocated for the sole purpose of allowing special-purpose domain
|
||
names to be used in root-level HTTP URLs. Given the rate of growth of
|
||
the Web, and the number of servers already deployed, it is extremely
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 171]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
important that all implementations of HTTP (including updates to
|
||
existing HTTP/1.0 applications) correctly implement these
|
||
requirements:
|
||
|
||
- Both clients and servers MUST support the Host request-header.
|
||
|
||
- A client that sends an HTTP/1.1 request MUST send a Host header.
|
||
|
||
- Servers MUST report a 400 (Bad Request) error if an HTTP/1.1
|
||
request does not include a Host request-header.
|
||
|
||
- Servers MUST accept absolute URIs.
|
||
|
||
19.6.2 Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections
|
||
|
||
Some clients and servers might wish to be compatible with some
|
||
previous implementations of persistent connections in HTTP/1.0
|
||
clients and servers. Persistent connections in HTTP/1.0 are
|
||
explicitly negotiated as they are not the default behavior. HTTP/1.0
|
||
experimental implementations of persistent connections are faulty,
|
||
and the new facilities in HTTP/1.1 are designed to rectify these
|
||
problems. The problem was that some existing 1.0 clients may be
|
||
sending Keep-Alive to a proxy server that doesn't understand
|
||
Connection, which would then erroneously forward it to the next
|
||
inbound server, which would establish the Keep-Alive connection and
|
||
result in a hung HTTP/1.0 proxy waiting for the close on the
|
||
response. The result is that HTTP/1.0 clients must be prevented from
|
||
using Keep-Alive when talking to proxies.
|
||
|
||
However, talking to proxies is the most important use of persistent
|
||
connections, so that prohibition is clearly unacceptable. Therefore,
|
||
we need some other mechanism for indicating a persistent connection
|
||
is desired, which is safe to use even when talking to an old proxy
|
||
that ignores Connection. Persistent connections are the default for
|
||
HTTP/1.1 messages; we introduce a new keyword (Connection: close) for
|
||
declaring non-persistence. See section 14.10.
|
||
|
||
The original HTTP/1.0 form of persistent connections (the Connection:
|
||
Keep-Alive and Keep-Alive header) is documented in RFC 2068. [33]
|
||
|
||
19.6.3 Changes from RFC 2068
|
||
|
||
This specification has been carefully audited to correct and
|
||
disambiguate key word usage; RFC 2068 had many problems in respect to
|
||
the conventions laid out in RFC 2119 [34].
|
||
|
||
Clarified which error code should be used for inbound server failures
|
||
(e.g. DNS failures). (Section 10.5.5).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 172]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
CREATE had a race that required an Etag be sent when a resource is
|
||
first created. (Section 10.2.2).
|
||
|
||
Content-Base was deleted from the specification: it was not
|
||
implemented widely, and there is no simple, safe way to introduce it
|
||
without a robust extension mechanism. In addition, it is used in a
|
||
similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML [45].
|
||
|
||
Transfer-coding and message lengths all interact in ways that
|
||
required fixing exactly when chunked encoding is used (to allow for
|
||
transfer encoding that may not be self delimiting); it was important
|
||
to straighten out exactly how message lengths are computed. (Sections
|
||
3.6, 4.4, 7.2.2, 13.5.2, 14.13, 14.16)
|
||
|
||
A content-coding of "identity" was introduced, to solve problems
|
||
discovered in caching. (section 3.5)
|
||
|
||
Quality Values of zero should indicate that "I don't want something"
|
||
to allow clients to refuse a representation. (Section 3.9)
|
||
|
||
The use and interpretation of HTTP version numbers has been clarified
|
||
by RFC 2145. Require proxies to upgrade requests to highest protocol
|
||
version they support to deal with problems discovered in HTTP/1.0
|
||
implementations (Section 3.1)
|
||
|
||
Charset wildcarding is introduced to avoid explosion of character set
|
||
names in accept headers. (Section 14.2)
|
||
|
||
A case was missed in the Cache-Control model of HTTP/1.1; s-maxage
|
||
was introduced to add this missing case. (Sections 13.4, 14.8, 14.9,
|
||
14.9.3)
|
||
|
||
The Cache-Control: max-age directive was not properly defined for
|
||
responses. (Section 14.9.3)
|
||
|
||
There are situations where a server (especially a proxy) does not
|
||
know the full length of a response but is capable of serving a
|
||
byterange request. We therefore need a mechanism to allow byteranges
|
||
with a content-range not indicating the full length of the message.
|
||
(Section 14.16)
|
||
|
||
Range request responses would become very verbose if all meta-data
|
||
were always returned; by allowing the server to only send needed
|
||
headers in a 206 response, this problem can be avoided. (Section
|
||
10.2.7, 13.5.3, and 14.27)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 173]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fix problem with unsatisfiable range requests; there are two cases:
|
||
syntactic problems, and range doesn't exist in the document. The 416
|
||
status code was needed to resolve this ambiguity needed to indicate
|
||
an error for a byte range request that falls outside of the actual
|
||
contents of a document. (Section 10.4.17, 14.16)
|
||
|
||
Rewrite of message transmission requirements to make it much harder
|
||
for implementors to get it wrong, as the consequences of errors here
|
||
can have significant impact on the Internet, and to deal with the
|
||
following problems:
|
||
|
||
1. Changing "HTTP/1.1 or later" to "HTTP/1.1", in contexts where
|
||
this was incorrectly placing a requirement on the behavior of
|
||
an implementation of a future version of HTTP/1.x
|
||
|
||
2. Made it clear that user-agents should retry requests, not
|
||
"clients" in general.
|
||
|
||
3. Converted requirements for clients to ignore unexpected 100
|
||
(Continue) responses, and for proxies to forward 100 responses,
|
||
into a general requirement for 1xx responses.
|
||
|
||
4. Modified some TCP-specific language, to make it clearer that
|
||
non-TCP transports are possible for HTTP.
|
||
|
||
5. Require that the origin server MUST NOT wait for the request
|
||
body before it sends a required 100 (Continue) response.
|
||
|
||
6. Allow, rather than require, a server to omit 100 (Continue) if
|
||
it has already seen some of the request body.
|
||
|
||
7. Allow servers to defend against denial-of-service attacks and
|
||
broken clients.
|
||
|
||
This change adds the Expect header and 417 status code. The message
|
||
transmission requirements fixes are in sections 8.2, 10.4.18,
|
||
8.1.2.2, 13.11, and 14.20.
|
||
|
||
Proxies should be able to add Content-Length when appropriate.
|
||
(Section 13.5.2)
|
||
|
||
Clean up confusion between 403 and 404 responses. (Section 10.4.4,
|
||
10.4.5, and 10.4.11)
|
||
|
||
Warnings could be cached incorrectly, or not updated appropriately.
|
||
(Section 13.1.2, 13.2.4, 13.5.2, 13.5.3, 14.9.3, and 14.46) Warning
|
||
also needed to be a general header, as PUT or other methods may have
|
||
need for it in requests.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 174]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
Transfer-coding had significant problems, particularly with
|
||
interactions with chunked encoding. The solution is that transfer-
|
||
codings become as full fledged as content-codings. This involves
|
||
adding an IANA registry for transfer-codings (separate from content
|
||
codings), a new header field (TE) and enabling trailer headers in the
|
||
future. Transfer encoding is a major performance benefit, so it was
|
||
worth fixing [39]. TE also solves another, obscure, downward
|
||
interoperability problem that could have occurred due to interactions
|
||
between authentication trailers, chunked encoding and HTTP/1.0
|
||
clients.(Section 3.6, 3.6.1, and 14.39)
|
||
|
||
The PATCH, LINK, UNLINK methods were defined but not commonly
|
||
implemented in previous versions of this specification. See RFC 2068
|
||
[33].
|
||
|
||
The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and
|
||
Content-Base header fields were defined in previous versions of this
|
||
specification, but not commonly implemented. See RFC 2068 [33].
|
||
|
||
20 Index
|
||
|
||
Please see the PostScript version of this RFC for the INDEX.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 175]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999
|
||
|
||
|
||
21. Full Copyright Statement
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
|
||
|
||
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
|
||
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
|
||
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
|
||
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
|
||
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
|
||
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
|
||
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
|
||
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
|
||
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
|
||
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
|
||
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
|
||
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
|
||
English.
|
||
|
||
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
|
||
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
|
||
|
||
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
|
||
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
|
||
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
|
||
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
|
||
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
|
||
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
|
||
|
||
Acknowledgement
|
||
|
||
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
|
||
Internet Society.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 176]
|
||
|