source: draft-ietf-httpbis/20/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-20.txt @ 2013

HTTPbis Working Group                                   R. Fielding, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Adobe
Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved)                              Y. Lafon, Ed.
Updates: 2817 (if approved)                                          W3C
Intended status: Standards Track                         J. Reschke, Ed.
Expires: January 17, 2013                                     greenbytes
                                                           July 16, 2012


                HTTP/1.1, part 2: Semantics and Payloads
                   draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-20

Abstract

   The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
   protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information
   systems.  This document defines the semantics of HTTP/1.1 messages,
   as expressed by request methods, request header fields, response
   status codes, and response header fields, along with the payload of
   messages (metadata and body content) and mechanisms for content
   negotiation.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group
   mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.

   The current issues list is at
   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3> and related
   documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at
   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.

   The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix F.40.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     1.1.  Conformance and Error Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     1.2.  Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   2.  Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.1.  Safe and Idempotent Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.1.1.  Safe Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.1.2.  Idempotent Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.2.  Method Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.1.  Considerations for New Methods  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.3.  Method Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.1.  OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.3.2.  GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.3.3.  HEAD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.3.4.  POST  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.3.5.  PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


       2.3.6.  DELETE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.3.7.  TRACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.3.8.  CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   3.  Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     3.1.  Considerations for Creating Header Fields . . . . . . . .  18
     3.2.  Request Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     3.3.  Response Header Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   4.  Status Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     4.1.  Overview of Status Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     4.2.  Status Code Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       4.2.1.  Considerations for New Status Codes . . . . . . . . .  24
     4.3.  Informational 1xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       4.3.1.  100 Continue  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       4.3.2.  101 Switching Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     4.4.  Successful 2xx  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       4.4.1.  200 OK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       4.4.2.  201 Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       4.4.3.  202 Accepted  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       4.4.4.  203 Non-Authoritative Information . . . . . . . . . .  27
       4.4.5.  204 No Content  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       4.4.6.  205 Reset Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     4.5.  Redirection 3xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
       4.5.1.  300 Multiple Choices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       4.5.2.  301 Moved Permanently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       4.5.3.  302 Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       4.5.4.  303 See Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       4.5.5.  305 Use Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       4.5.6.  306 (Unused)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       4.5.7.  307 Temporary Redirect  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     4.6.  Client Error 4xx  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       4.6.1.  400 Bad Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       4.6.2.  402 Payment Required  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       4.6.3.  403 Forbidden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       4.6.4.  404 Not Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       4.6.5.  405 Method Not Allowed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       4.6.6.  406 Not Acceptable  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       4.6.7.  408 Request Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       4.6.8.  409 Conflict  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
       4.6.9.  410 Gone  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
       4.6.10. 411 Length Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
       4.6.11. 413 Request Representation Too Large  . . . . . . . .  35
       4.6.12. 414 URI Too Long  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
       4.6.13. 415 Unsupported Media Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
       4.6.14. 417 Expectation Failed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
       4.6.15. 426 Upgrade Required  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     4.7.  Server Error 5xx  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       4.7.1.  500 Internal Server Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       4.7.2.  501 Not Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


       4.7.3.  502 Bad Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       4.7.4.  503 Service Unavailable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       4.7.5.  504 Gateway Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
       4.7.6.  505 HTTP Version Not Supported  . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   5.  Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     5.1.  Date/Time Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     5.2.  Product Tokens  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     5.3.  Character Encodings (charset) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     5.4.  Content Codings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
       5.4.1.  Content Coding Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     5.5.  Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       5.5.1.  Canonicalization and Text Defaults  . . . . . . . . .  43
       5.5.2.  Multipart Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     5.6.  Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   6.  Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
     6.1.  Payload Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
     6.2.  Payload Body  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   7.  Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
     7.1.  Identifying the Resource Associated with a
           Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
     7.2.  Representation Header Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
     7.3.  Representation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
   8.  Content Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
     8.1.  Server-driven Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
     8.2.  Agent-driven Negotiation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
   9.  Header Field Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
     9.1.  Accept  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
     9.2.  Accept-Charset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
     9.3.  Accept-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
     9.4.  Accept-Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
     9.5.  Allow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
     9.6.  Content-Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
     9.7.  Content-Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
     9.8.  Content-Location  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
     9.9.  Content-Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  61
     9.10. Date  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  61
     9.11. Expect  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  62
     9.12. From  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  63
     9.13. Location  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  63
     9.14. Max-Forwards  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  65
     9.15. Referer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  65
     9.16. Retry-After . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  66
     9.17. Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  66
     9.18. User-Agent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
     10.1. Method Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
     10.2. Status Code Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  68
     10.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


     10.4. Content Coding Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  70
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  71
     11.1. Transfer of Sensitive Information . . . . . . . . . . . .  71
     11.2. Encoding Sensitive Information in URIs  . . . . . . . . .  72
     11.3. Location Header Fields: Spoofing and Information
           Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  72
     11.4. Security Considerations for CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . .  73
     11.5. Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Header Fields  . . . .  73
   12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74
     13.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74
     13.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  75
   Appendix A.  Differences between HTTP and MIME  . . . . . . . . .  77
     A.1.  MIME-Version  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  78
     A.2.  Conversion to Canonical Form  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  78
     A.3.  Conversion of Date Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79
     A.4.  Introduction of Content-Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . .  79
     A.5.  No Content-Transfer-Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79
     A.6.  MHTML and Line Length Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
   Appendix B.  Additional Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
   Appendix C.  Changes from RFC 2616  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
   Appendix D.  Imported ABNF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  82
   Appendix E.  Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  83
   Appendix F.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
                publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  85
     F.1.  Since RFC 2616  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  85
     F.2.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-00  . . . . . . . .  86
     F.3.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-00  . . . . . . . . .  86
     F.4.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01  . . . . . . . .  87
     F.5.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01  . . . . . . . . .  88
     F.6.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-02  . . . . . . . .  88
     F.7.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02  . . . . . . . . .  89
     F.8.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-03  . . . . . . . .  89
     F.9.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03  . . . . . . . . .  89
     F.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-04  . . . . . . . .  90
     F.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04  . . . . . . . . .  90
     F.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-05  . . . . . . . .  91
     F.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-05  . . . . . . . . .  91
     F.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-06  . . . . . . . .  91
     F.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-06  . . . . . . . . .  92
     F.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-07  . . . . . . . .  92
     F.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-07  . . . . . . . . .  92
     F.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-08  . . . . . . . .  93
     F.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-08  . . . . . . . . .  93
     F.20. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-09  . . . . . . . .  93
     F.21. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-09  . . . . . . . . .  94
     F.22. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-10  . . . . . . . .  94
     F.23. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-10  . . . . . . . . .  95



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


     F.24. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-11  . . . . . . . .  95
     F.25. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-11  . . . . . . . . .  96
     F.26. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12  . . . . . . . .  96
     F.27. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-12  . . . . . . . . .  97
     F.28. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13  . . . . . . . .  97
     F.29. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-13  . . . . . . . . .  98
     F.30. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-14  . . . . . . . .  98
     F.31. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-14  . . . . . . . . .  98
     F.32. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-15  . . . . . . . .  98
     F.33. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-15  . . . . . . . . .  99
     F.34. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-16  . . . . . . . .  99
     F.35. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-16  . . . . . . . . .  99
     F.36. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-17  . . . . . . . .  99
     F.37. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-17  . . . . . . . . . 100
     F.38. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18  . . . . . . . . 100
     F.39. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-18  . . . . . . . . . 101
     F.40. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19 and
           draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-19  . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
   Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
































Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


1.  Introduction

   Each HTTP message is either a request or a response.  A server
   listens on a connection for a request, parses each message received,
   interprets the message semantics in relation to the identified
   request target, and responds to that request with one or more
   response messages.  This document defines HTTP/1.1 request and
   response semantics in terms of the architecture, syntax notation, and
   conformance criteria defined in [Part1].

   HTTP provides a uniform interface for interacting with resources
   regardless of their type, nature, or implementation.  HTTP semantics
   includes the intentions defined by each request method, extensions to
   those semantics that might be described in request header fields, the
   meaning of status codes to indicate a machine-readable response, and
   additional control data and resource metadata that might be given in
   response header fields.

   In addition, this document defines the payload of messages (a.k.a.,
   content), the associated metadata header fields that define how the
   payload is intended to be interpreted by a recipient, the request
   header fields that might influence content selection, and the various
   selection algorithms that are collectively referred to as "content
   negotiation".

      Note: This document is currently disorganized in order to minimize
      changes between drafts and enable reviewers to see the smaller
      errata changes.  A future draft will reorganize the sections to
      better reflect the content.  In particular, the sections will be
      ordered according to the typical processing of an HTTP request
      message (after message parsing): resource mapping, methods,
      request modifying header fields, response status, status modifying
      header fields, and resource metadata.  The current mess reflects
      how widely dispersed these topics and associated requirements had
      become in [RFC2616].

1.1.  Conformance and Error Handling

   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 [RFC2119].

   This specification targets conformance criteria according to the role
   of a participant in HTTP communication.  Hence, HTTP requirements are
   placed on senders, recipients, clients, servers, user agents,
   intermediaries, origin servers, proxies, gateways, or caches,
   depending on what behavior is being constrained by the requirement.
   See Section 2 of [Part1] for definitions of these terms.



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   The verb "generate" is used instead of "send" where a requirement
   differentiates between creating a protocol element and merely
   forwarding a received element downstream.

   An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of
   the requirements associated with the roles it partakes in HTTP.  Note
   that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant here, unless one of the
   documented exceptions is applicable.

   This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements
   (Section 1.2).  In addition to the prose requirements placed upon
   them, senders MUST NOT generate protocol elements that do not match
   the grammar defined by the ABNF rules for those protocol elements
   that are applicable to the sender's role.  If a received protocol
   element is processed, the recipient MUST be able to parse any value
   that would match the ABNF rules for that protocol element, excluding
   only those rules not applicable to the recipient's role.

   Unless noted otherwise, a recipient MAY attempt to recover a usable
   protocol element from an invalid construct.  HTTP does not define
   specific error handling mechanisms except when they have a direct
   impact on security, since different applications of the protocol
   require different error handling strategies.  For example, a Web
   browser might wish to transparently recover from a response where the
   Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF, whereas a
   systems control client might consider any form of error recovery to
   be dangerous.

1.2.  Syntax Notation

   This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
   notation of [RFC5234] with the list rule extension defined in Section
   1.2 of [Part1].  Appendix D describes rules imported from other
   documents.  Appendix E shows the collected ABNF with the list rule
   expanded.

2.  Methods

   The method token indicates the request method to be performed on the
   target resource (Section 5.5 of [Part1]).  The method is case-
   sensitive.

     method         = token

   The list of methods allowed by a resource can be specified in an
   Allow header field (Section 9.5).  The status 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.



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   An origin server SHOULD respond with the status code 405 (Method Not
   Allowed) if the method is known by the origin server but not allowed
   for the 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 2.3.

2.1.  Safe and Idempotent Methods

2.1.1.  Safe Methods

   Implementers need to be aware that the software represents the user
   in their interactions over the Internet, and need to allow the user
   to be aware of any actions they take which might have an unexpected
   significance to themselves or others.

   In particular, the convention has been established that the GET,
   HEAD, OPTIONS, and TRACE request methods SHOULD NOT have the
   significance of taking an action other than retrieval.  These request
   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.

2.1.2.  Idempotent Methods

   Request methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that,
   aside from error or expiration issues, the intended effect of
   multiple identical requests is the same as for a single request.
   PUT, DELETE, and all safe request methods are idempotent.  It is
   important to note that idempotence refers only to changes requested
   by the client: a server is free to change its state due to multiple
   requests for the purpose of tracking those requests, versioning of
   results, etc.

2.2.  Method Registry

   The HTTP Method Registry defines the name space for the method token
   in the Request line of an HTTP request.




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   Registrations MUST include the following fields:

   o  Method Name (see Section 2)

   o  Safe ("yes" or "no", see Section 2.1.1)

   o  Idempotent ("yes" or "no", see Section 2.1.1)

   o  Pointer to specification text

   Values to be added to this name space require IETF Review (see
   [RFC5226], Section 4.1).

   The registry itself is maintained at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods>.

2.2.1.  Considerations for New Methods

   When it is necessary to express new semantics for a HTTP request that
   aren't specific to a single application or media type, and currently
   defined methods are inadequate, it might be appropriate to register a
   new method.

   HTTP methods are generic; that is, they are potentially applicable to
   any resource, not just one particular media type, "type" of resource,
   or application.  As such, it is preferred that new HTTP methods be
   registered in a document that isn't specific to a single application,
   so that this is clear.

   Due to the parsing rules defined in Section 3.3 of [Part1],
   definitions of HTTP methods cannot prohibit the presence of a message
   body on either the request or the response message (with responses to
   HEAD requests being the single exception).  Definitions of new
   methods cannot change this rule, but they can specify that only zero-
   length bodies (as opposed to absent bodies) are allowed.

   New method definitions need to indicate whether they are safe
   (Section 2.1.1), what semantics (if any) the request body has, and
   whether they are idempotent (Section 2.1.2).  They also need to state
   whether they can be cached ([Part6]); in particular under what
   conditions a cache can store the response, and under what conditions
   such a stored response can be used to satisfy a subsequent request.

2.3.  Method Definitions







Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


2.3.1.  OPTIONS

   The OPTIONS method requests information about the communication
   options available on the request/response chain identified by the
   effective request URI.  This method allows a 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 the OPTIONS method are not cacheable.

   If the OPTIONS request includes a message 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.

   If the request-target (Section 5.3 of [Part1]) 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 conformance
   (or lack thereof).

   If the request-target is not an asterisk, the OPTIONS request applies
   only to the options that are available when communicating with that
   resource.

   A 200 (OK) 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
   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 header field MAY be used to target a specific proxy
   in the request chain (see Section 9.14).  If no Max-Forwards field is
   present in the request, then the forwarded request MUST NOT include a
   Max-Forwards field.





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


2.3.2.  GET

   The GET method requests transfer of a current representation of the
   target resource.

   If the target resource is a data-producing process, it is the
   produced data which shall be returned as the representation 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 ([Part4]).  A
   conditional GET requests that the representation be transferred only
   under the circumstances described by the conditional header field(s).
   The conditional GET request is intended to reduce unnecessary network
   usage by allowing cached representations 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 ([Part5]).  A partial
   GET requests that only part of the representation be transferred, as
   described in Section 5.4 of [Part5].  The partial GET request is
   intended to reduce unnecessary network usage by allowing partially-
   retrieved representations to be completed without transferring data
   already held by the client.

   Bodies on GET requests have no defined semantics.  Note that sending
   a body on a GET request might cause some existing implementations to
   reject the request.

   The response to a GET request is cacheable and MAY be used to satisfy
   subsequent GET and HEAD requests (see [Part6]).

   See Section 11.2 for security considerations when used for forms.

2.3.3.  HEAD

   The HEAD method is identical to GET except that the server MUST NOT
   return a message body in the response.  The metadata contained in the
   HTTP header fields 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 metadata about the representation implied
   by the request without transferring the representation body.  This
   method is often used for testing hypertext links for validity,
   accessibility, and recent modification.




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   The response to a HEAD request is cacheable and MAY be used to
   satisfy a subsequent HEAD request.  It also has potential side
   effects on previously stored responses to GET; see Section 5 of
   [Part6].

   Bodies on HEAD requests have no defined semantics.  Note that sending
   a body on a HEAD request might cause some existing implementations to
   reject the request.

2.3.4.  POST

   The POST method requests that the origin server accept the
   representation enclosed in the request as data to be processed by the
   target resource.  POST is designed to allow a uniform method to cover
   the following functions:

   o  Annotation of existing resources;

   o  Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list, or
      similar group of articles;

   o  Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a
      form, to a data-handling process;

   o  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 effective request URI.

   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 code,
   depending on whether or not the response includes a representation
   that describes the result.

   If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response
   SHOULD be 201 (Created) and contain a representation which describes
   the status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a
   Location header field (see Section 9.13).

   Responses to POST requests are only cacheable when they include
   explicit freshness information (see Section 4.1.1 of [Part6]).  A
   cached POST response with a Content-Location header field (see
   Section 9.8) whose value is the effective Request URI MAY be used to
   satisfy subsequent GET and HEAD requests.

   Note that POST caching is not widely implemented.  However, the 303
   (See Other) response can be used to direct the user agent to retrieve



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   a cacheable representation of the resource.

2.3.5.  PUT

   The PUT method requests that the state of the target resource be
   created or replaced with the state defined by the representation
   enclosed in the request message payload.  A successful PUT of a given
   representation would suggest that a subsequent GET on that same
   target resource will result in an equivalent representation being
   returned in a 200 (OK) response.  However, there is no guarantee that
   such a state change will be observable, since the target resource
   might be acted upon by other user agents in parallel, or might be
   subject to dynamic processing by the origin server, before any
   subsequent GET is received.  A successful response only implies that
   the user agent's intent was achieved at the time of its processing by
   the origin server.

   If the target resource does not have a current representation and the
   PUT successfully creates one, then the origin server MUST inform the
   user agent by sending a 201 (Created) response.  If the target
   resource does have a current representation and that representation
   is successfully modified in accordance with the state of the enclosed
   representation, then either a 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) response
   SHOULD be sent to indicate successful completion of the request.

   Unrecognized header fields SHOULD be ignored (i.e., not saved as part
   of the resource state).

   An origin server SHOULD verify that the PUT representation is
   consistent with any constraints which the server has for the target
   resource that cannot or will not be changed by the PUT.  This is
   particularly important when the origin server uses internal
   configuration information related to the URI in order to set the
   values for representation metadata on GET responses.  When a PUT
   representation is inconsistent with the target resource, the origin
   server SHOULD either make them consistent, by transforming the
   representation or changing the resource configuration, or respond
   with an appropriate error message containing sufficient information
   to explain why the representation is unsuitable.  The 409 (Conflict)
   or 415 (Unsupported Media Type) status codes are suggested, with the
   latter being specific to constraints on Content-Type values.

   For example, if the target resource is configured to always have a
   Content-Type of "text/html" and the representation being PUT has a
   Content-Type of "image/jpeg", then the origin server SHOULD do one
   of:





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   a.  reconfigure the target resource to reflect the new media type;

   b.  transform the PUT representation to a format consistent with that
       of the resource before saving it as the new resource state; or,

   c.  reject the request with a 415 (Unsupported Media Type) response
       indicating that the target resource is limited to "text/html",
       perhaps including a link to a different resource that would be a
       suitable target for the new representation.

   HTTP does not define exactly how a PUT method affects the state of an
   origin server beyond what can be expressed by the intent of the user
   agent request and the semantics of the origin server response.  It
   does not define what a resource might be, in any sense of that word,
   beyond the interface provided via HTTP.  It does not define how
   resource state is "stored", nor how such storage might change as a
   result of a change in resource state, nor how the origin server
   translates resource state into representations.  Generally speaking,
   all implementation details behind the resource interface are
   intentionally hidden by the server.

   The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT methods is
   highlighted by the different intent for the target resource.  The
   target resource in a POST request is intended to handle the enclosed
   representation as a data-accepting process, such as for a gateway to
   some other protocol or a document that accepts annotations.  In
   contrast, the target resource in a PUT request is intended to take
   the enclosed representation as a new or replacement value.  Hence,
   the intent of PUT is idempotent and visible to intermediaries, even
   though the exact effect is only known by the origin server.

   Proper interpretation of a PUT request presumes that the user agent
   knows what target resource is desired.  A service that is intended to
   select a proper URI on behalf of the client, after receiving a state-
   changing request, SHOULD be implemented using the POST method rather
   than PUT.  If the origin server will not make the requested PUT state
   change to the target resource and instead wishes to have it applied
   to a different resource, such as when the resource has been moved to
   a different URI, then the origin server 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 PUT request applied to the target resource MAY have side-effects on
   other resources.  For example, an article might have a URI for
   identifying "the current version" (a resource) which is separate from
   the URIs identifying each particular version (different resources
   that at one point shared the same state as the current version
   resource).  A successful PUT request on "the current version" URI



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   might therefore create a new version resource in addition to changing
   the state of the target resource, and might also cause links to be
   added between the related resources.

   An origin server SHOULD reject any PUT request that contains a
   Content-Range header field (Section 5.2 of [Part5]), since it might
   be misinterpreted as partial content (or might be partial content
   that is being mistakenly PUT as a full representation).  Partial
   content updates are possible by targeting a separately identified
   resource with state that overlaps a portion of the larger resource,
   or by using a different method that has been specifically defined for
   partial updates (for example, the PATCH method defined in [RFC5789]).

   Responses to the PUT method are not cacheable.  If a PUT request
   passes through a cache that has one or more stored responses for the
   effective request URI, those stored responses will be invalidated
   (see Section 6 of [Part6]).

2.3.6.  DELETE

   The DELETE method requests that the origin server delete the target
   resource.  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 a
   representation 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 a representation.

   Bodies on DELETE requests have no defined semantics.  Note that
   sending a body on a DELETE request might cause some existing
   implementations to reject the request.

   Responses to the DELETE method are not cacheable.  If a DELETE
   request passes through a cache that has one or more stored responses
   for the effective request URI, those stored responses will be
   invalidated (see Section 6 of [Part6]).

2.3.7.  TRACE

   The TRACE method requests 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 message body



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   of a 200 (OK) response.  The final recipient is either the origin
   server or the first proxy to receive a Max-Forwards value of zero (0)
   in the request (see Section 9.14).  A TRACE request MUST NOT include
   a message body.

   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 6.2 of
   [Part1]) 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 have a Content-Type of
   "message/http" (see Section 7.3.1 of [Part1]) and contain a message
   body that encloses a copy of the entire request message.  Responses
   to the TRACE method are not cacheable.

2.3.8.  CONNECT

   The CONNECT method requests that the proxy establish a tunnel to the
   request-target and, if successful, thereafter restrict its behavior
   to blind forwarding of packets until the connection is closed.

   When using CONNECT, the request-target MUST use the authority form
   (Section 5.3 of [Part1]); i.e., the request-target consists of only
   the host name and port number of the tunnel destination, separated by
   a colon.  For example,

     CONNECT server.example.com:80 HTTP/1.1
     Host: server.example.com:80


   Any 2xx (Successful) response to a CONNECT request indicates that the
   proxy has established a connection to the requested host and port,
   and has switched to tunneling the current connection to that server
   connection.  The tunneled data from the server begins immediately
   after the blank line that concludes the successful response's header
   block.

   A server SHOULD NOT send any Transfer-Encoding or Content-Length
   header fields in a successful response.  A client MUST ignore any
   Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header fields received in a
   successful response.

   Any response other than a successful response indicates that the
   tunnel has not yet been formed and that the connection remains
   governed by HTTP.



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   Proxy authentication might be used to establish the authority to
   create a tunnel:

     CONNECT server.example.com:80 HTTP/1.1
     Host: server.example.com:80
     Proxy-Authorization: basic aGVsbG86d29ybGQ=


   A message body on a CONNECT request has no defined semantics.
   Sending a body on a CONNECT request might cause existing
   implementations to reject the request.

   Similar to a pipelined HTTP/1.1 request, data to be tunneled from
   client to server MAY be sent immediately after the request (before a
   response is received).  The usual caveats also apply: data can be
   discarded if the eventual response is negative, and the connection
   can be reset with no response if more than one TCP segment is
   outstanding.

   It might be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the
   requested origin server through another proxy.  In this case, the
   first proxy SHOULD make a CONNECT request of that next proxy,
   requesting a tunnel to the authority.  A proxy MUST NOT respond with
   any 2xx status code unless it has either a direct or tunnel
   connection established to the authority.

   If at any point either one of the peers gets disconnected, any
   outstanding data that came from that peer will be passed to the other
   one, and after that also the other connection will be terminated by
   the proxy.  If there is outstanding data to that peer undelivered,
   that data will be discarded.

   An origin server which receives a CONNECT request for itself MAY
   respond with a 2xx status code to indicate that a connection is
   established.  However, most origin servers do not implement CONNECT.

3.  Header Fields

   Header fields are key value pairs that can be used to communicate
   data about the message, its payload, the target resource, or about
   the connection itself (i.e., control data).  See Section 3.2 of
   [Part1] for a general definition of their syntax.

3.1.  Considerations for Creating Header Fields

   New header fields are registered using the procedures described in
   [RFC3864].




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   The requirements for header field names are defined in Section 4.1 of
   [RFC3864].  Authors of specifications defining new fields are advised
   to keep the name as short as practical, and not to prefix them with
   "X-" if they are to be registered (either immediately or in the
   future).

   New header field values typically have their syntax defined using
   ABNF ([RFC5234]), using the extension defined in Appendix B of
   [Part1] as necessary, and are usually constrained to the range of
   ASCII characters.  Header fields needing a greater range of
   characters can use an encoding such as the one defined in [RFC5987].

   Because commas (",") are used as a generic delimiter between field-
   values, they need to be treated with care if they are allowed in the
   field-value's payload.  Typically, components that might contain a
   comma are protected with double-quotes using the quoted-string ABNF
   production (Section 3.2.4 of [Part1]).

   For example, a textual date and a URI (either of which might contain
   a comma) could be safely carried in field-values like these:

     Example-URI-Field: "http://example.com/a.html,foo",
                        "http://without-a-comma.example.com/"
     Example-Date-Field: "Sat, 04 May 1996", "Wed, 14 Sep 2005"

   Note that double quote delimiters almost always are used with the
   quoted-string production; using a different syntax inside double
   quotes will likely cause unnecessary confusion.

   Many header fields use a format including (case-insensitively) named
   parameters (for instance, Content-Type, defined in Section 9.9).
   Allowing both unquoted (token) and quoted (quoted-string) syntax for
   the parameter value enables recipients to use existing parser
   components.  When allowing both forms, the meaning of a parameter
   value ought to be independent of the syntax used for it (for an
   example, see the notes on parameter handling for media types in
   Section 5.5).

   Authors of specifications defining new header fields are advised to
   consider documenting:

   o  Whether the field is a single value, or whether it can be a list
      (delimited by commas; see Section 3.2 of [Part1]).

      If it does not use the list syntax, document how to treat messages
      where the header field occurs multiple times (a sensible default
      would be to ignore the header field, but this might not always be
      the right choice).



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


      Note that intermediaries and software libraries might combine
      multiple header field instances into a single one, despite the
      header field not allowing this.  A robust format enables
      recipients to discover these situations (good example: "Content-
      Type", as the comma can only appear inside quoted strings; bad
      example: "Location", as a comma can occur inside a URI).

   o  Under what conditions the header field can be used; e.g., only in
      responses or requests, in all messages, only on responses to a
      particular request method.

   o  Whether it is appropriate to list the field-name in the Connection
      header field (i.e., if the header field is to be hop-by-hop, see
      Section 6.1 of [Part1]).

   o  Under what conditions intermediaries are allowed to modify the
      header field's value, insert or delete it.

   o  How the header field might interact with caching (see [Part6]).

   o  Whether the header field is useful or allowable in trailers (see
      Section 4.1 of [Part1]).

   o  Whether the header field ought to be preserved across redirects.

3.2.  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.



















Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   +---------------------+------------------------+
   | Header Field Name   | Defined in...          |
   +---------------------+------------------------+
   | Accept              | Section 9.1            |
   | Accept-Charset      | Section 9.2            |
   | Accept-Encoding     | Section 9.3            |
   | Accept-Language     | Section 9.4            |
   | Authorization       | Section 4.1 of [Part7] |
   | Expect              | Section 9.11           |
   | From                | Section 9.12           |
   | Host                | Section 5.4 of [Part1] |
   | If-Match            | Section 3.1 of [Part4] |
   | If-Modified-Since   | Section 3.3 of [Part4] |
   | If-None-Match       | Section 3.2 of [Part4] |
   | If-Range            | Section 5.3 of [Part5] |
   | If-Unmodified-Since | Section 3.4 of [Part4] |
   | Max-Forwards        | Section 9.14           |
   | Proxy-Authorization | Section 4.3 of [Part7] |
   | Range               | Section 5.4 of [Part5] |
   | Referer             | Section 9.15           |
   | TE                  | Section 4.3 of [Part1] |
   | User-Agent          | Section 9.18           |
   +---------------------+------------------------+

3.3.  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 target resource (Section 5.5 of [Part1]).

   +--------------------+------------------------+
   | Header Field Name  | Defined in...          |
   +--------------------+------------------------+
   | Accept-Ranges      | Section 5.1 of [Part5] |
   | Age                | Section 7.1 of [Part6] |
   | Allow              | Section 9.5            |
   | Date               | Section 9.10           |
   | ETag               | Section 2.3 of [Part4] |
   | Location           | Section 9.13           |
   | Proxy-Authenticate | Section 4.2 of [Part7] |
   | Retry-After        | Section 9.16           |
   | Server             | Section 9.17           |
   | Vary               | Section 7.5 of [Part6] |
   | WWW-Authenticate   | Section 4.4 of [Part7] |
   +--------------------+------------------------+





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


4.  Status Codes

   The status-code element is a 3-digit integer result code of the
   attempt to understand and satisfy the request.

   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 representation
   enclosed with the response, since that representation is likely to
   include human-readable information which will explain the unusual
   status.

   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:

   o  1xx (Informational): Request received, continuing process

   o  2xx (Successful): The action was successfully received,
      understood, and accepted

   o  3xx (Redirection): Further action needs to be taken in order to
      complete the request

   o  4xx (Client Error): The request contains bad syntax or cannot be
      fulfilled

   o  5xx (Server Error): The server failed to fulfill an apparently
      valid request

   For most status codes the response can carry a payload, in which case
   a Content-Type header field indicates the payload's media type
   (Section 9.9).

4.1.  Overview of Status Codes

   The status codes listed below are defined in this specification,
   Section 4 of [Part4], Section 3 of [Part5], and Section 3 of [Part7].
   The reason phrases listed here are only recommendations -- they can
   be replaced by local equivalents without affecting the protocol.



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   +-------------+------------------------------+----------------------+
   | status-code | reason-phrase                | Defined in...        |
   +-------------+------------------------------+----------------------+
   | 100         | Continue                     | Section 4.3.1        |
   | 101         | Switching Protocols          | Section 4.3.2        |
   | 200         | OK                           | Section 4.4.1        |
   | 201         | Created                      | Section 4.4.2        |
   | 202         | Accepted                     | Section 4.4.3        |
   | 203         | Non-Authoritative            | Section 4.4.4        |
   |             | Information                  |                      |
   | 204         | No Content                   | Section 4.4.5        |
   | 205         | Reset Content                | Section 4.4.6        |
   | 206         | Partial Content              | Section 3.1 of       |
   |             |                              | [Part5]              |
   | 300         | Multiple Choices             | Section 4.5.1        |
   | 301         | Moved Permanently            | Section 4.5.2        |
   | 302         | Found                        | Section 4.5.3        |
   | 303         | See Other                    | Section 4.5.4        |
   | 304         | Not Modified                 | Section 4.1 of       |
   |             |                              | [Part4]              |
   | 305         | Use Proxy                    | Section 4.5.5        |
   | 307         | Temporary Redirect           | Section 4.5.7        |
   | 400         | Bad Request                  | Section 4.6.1        |
   | 401         | Unauthorized                 | Section 3.1 of       |
   |             |                              | [Part7]              |
   | 402         | Payment Required             | Section 4.6.2        |
   | 403         | Forbidden                    | Section 4.6.3        |
   | 404         | Not Found                    | Section 4.6.4        |
   | 405         | Method Not Allowed           | Section 4.6.5        |
   | 406         | Not Acceptable               | Section 4.6.6        |
   | 407         | Proxy Authentication         | Section 3.2 of       |
   |             | Required                     | [Part7]              |
   | 408         | Request Time-out             | Section 4.6.7        |
   | 409         | Conflict                     | Section 4.6.8        |
   | 410         | Gone                         | Section 4.6.9        |
   | 411         | Length Required              | Section 4.6.10       |
   | 412         | Precondition Failed          | Section 4.2 of       |
   |             |                              | [Part4]              |
   | 413         | Request Representation Too   | Section 4.6.11       |
   |             | Large                        |                      |
   | 414         | URI Too Long                 | Section 4.6.12       |
   | 415         | Unsupported Media Type       | Section 4.6.13       |
   | 416         | Requested range not          | Section 3.2 of       |
   |             | satisfiable                  | [Part5]              |
   | 417         | Expectation Failed           | Section 4.6.14       |
   | 426         | Upgrade Required             | Section 4.6.15       |
   | 500         | Internal Server Error        | Section 4.7.1        |
   | 501         | Not Implemented              | Section 4.7.2        |



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   | 502         | Bad Gateway                  | Section 4.7.3        |
   | 503         | Service Unavailable          | Section 4.7.4        |
   | 504         | Gateway Time-out             | Section 4.7.5        |
   | 505         | HTTP Version not supported   | Section 4.7.6        |
   +-------------+------------------------------+----------------------+

   Note that this list is not exhaustive -- it does not include
   extension status codes defined in other specifications.

4.2.  Status Code Registry

   The HTTP Status Code Registry defines the name space for the status-
   code token in the status-line of an HTTP response.

   Values to be added to this name space require IETF Review (see
   [RFC5226], Section 4.1).

   The registry itself is maintained at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>.

4.2.1.  Considerations for New Status Codes

   When it is necessary to express new semantics for a HTTP response
   that aren't specific to a single application or media type, and
   currently defined status codes are inadequate, a new status code can
   be registered.

   HTTP status codes are generic; that is, they are potentially
   applicable to any resource, not just one particular media type,
   "type" of resource, or application.  As such, it is preferred that
   new HTTP status codes be registered in a document that isn't specific
   to a single application, so that this is clear.

   Definitions of new HTTP status codes typically explain the request
   conditions that produce a response containing the status code (e.g.,
   combinations of request header fields and/or method(s)), along with
   any interactions with response header fields (e.g., those that are
   required, those that modify the semantics of the response).

   New HTTP status codes are required to fall under one of the
   categories defined in Section 4.  To allow existing parsers to
   properly handle them, new status codes cannot disallow a response
   body, although they can mandate a zero-length response body.  They
   can require the presence of one or more particular HTTP response
   header field(s).

   Likewise, their definitions can specify that caches are allowed to
   use heuristics to determine their freshness (see [Part6]; by default,



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   it is not allowed), and can define how to determine the resource
   which they carry a representation for (see Section 7.1; by default,
   it is anonymous).

4.3.  Informational 1xx

   This class of status code indicates a provisional response,
   consisting only of the status-line and optional header fields, and is
   terminated by an empty line.  There are no required header fields 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
   proxy adds an "Expect: 100-continue" field when it forwards a
   request, then it need not forward the corresponding 100 (Continue)
   response(s).)

4.3.1.  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 6.4.3 of [Part1] for detailed discussion of
   the use and handling of this status code.

4.3.2.  101 Switching Protocols

   The server understands and is willing to comply with the client's
   request, via the Upgrade message header field (Section 6.5 of
   [Part1]), 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,



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   synchronous protocol might be advantageous when delivering resources
   that use such features.

4.4.  Successful 2xx

   This class of status code indicates that the client's request was
   successfully received, understood, and accepted.

4.4.1.  200 OK

   The request has succeeded.  The payload returned with the response is
   dependent on the method used in the request, for example:

   GET  a representation of the target resource is sent in the response;

   HEAD  the same representation as GET, except without the message
      body;

   POST  a representation describing or containing the result of the
      action;

   TRACE  a representation containing the request message as received by
      the end server.

   Caches MAY use a heuristic (see Section 4.1.2 of [Part6]) to
   determine freshness for 200 responses.

4.4.2.  201 Created

   The request has been fulfilled and has resulted in one or more new
   resources being created.

   Newly created resources are typically linked to from the response
   payload, with the most relevant URI also being carried in the
   Location header field.  If the newly created resource's URI is the
   same as the Effective Request URI, this information can be omitted
   (e.g., in the case of a response to a PUT request).

   The origin server MUST create the resource(s) 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 representation of the
   resource identified by the Location header field or, in case the
   Location header field was omitted, by the Effective Request URI (see
   Section 2.3 of [Part4]).




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


4.4.3.  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 representation 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.

4.4.4.  203 Non-Authoritative Information

   The representation in the response has been transformed or otherwise
   modified by a transforming proxy (Section 2.4 of [Part1]).  Note that
   the behavior of transforming intermediaries is controlled by the no-
   transform Cache-Control directive (Section 7.2 of [Part6]).

   This status code is only appropriate when the response status code
   would have been 200 (OK) otherwise.  When the status code before
   transformation would have been different, the 214 Transformation
   Applied warn-code (Section 7.6 of [Part6]) is appropriate.

   Caches MAY use a heuristic (see Section 4.1.2 of [Part6]) to
   determine freshness for 203 responses.

4.4.5.  204 No Content

   The 204 (No Content) status code indicates that the server has
   successfully fulfilled the request and that there is no additional
   content to return in the response payload body.  Metadata in the
   response header fields refer to the target resource and its current
   representation after the requested action.

   For example, if a 204 status code is received in response to a PUT
   request and the response contains an ETag header field, then the PUT
   was successful and the ETag field-value contains the entity-tag for
   the new representation of that target resource.

   The 204 response allows a server to indicate that the action has been
   successfully applied to the target resource while implying that the
   user agent SHOULD NOT traverse away from its current "document view"



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   (if any).  The server assumes that the user agent will provide some
   indication of the success to its user, in accord with its own
   interface, and apply any new or updated metadata in the response to
   the active representation.

   For example, a 204 status code is commonly used with document editing
   interfaces corresponding to a "save" action, such that the document
   being saved remains available to the user for editing.  It is also
   frequently used with interfaces that expect automated data transfers
   to be prevalent, such as within distributed version control systems.

   The 204 response MUST NOT include a message body, and thus is always
   terminated by the first empty line after the header fields.

4.4.6.  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 message body included with the response MUST be empty.  Note that
   receivers still need to parse the response according to the algorithm
   defined in Section 3.3 of [Part1].

4.5.  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.  If the
   required action involves a subsequent HTTP request, it 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 known to be "safe", as
   defined in Section 2.1.1.

   There are several types of redirects:

   1.  Redirects of the request to another URI, either temporarily or
       permanently.  The new URI is specified in the Location header
       field.  In this specification, the status codes 301 (Moved
       Permanently), 302 (Found), and 307 (Temporary Redirect) fall
       under this category.

   2.  Redirection to a new location that represents an indirect
       response to the request, such as the result of a POST operation
       to be retrieved with a subsequent GET request.  This is status
       code 303 (See Other).




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   3.  Redirection offering a choice of matching resources for use by
       agent-driven content negotiation (Section 8.2).  This is status
       code 300 (Multiple Choices).

   4.  Other kinds of redirection, such as to a cached result (status
       code 304 (Not Modified), see Section 4.1 of [Part4]).

      Note: In HTTP/1.0, only the status codes 301 (Moved Permanently)
      and 302 (Found) were defined for the first type of redirect, and
      the second type did not exist at all ([RFC1945], Section 9.3).
      However it turned out that web forms using POST expected redirects
      to change the operation for the subsequent request to retrieval
      (GET).  To address this use case, HTTP/1.1 introduced the second
      type of redirect with the status code 303 (See Other) ([RFC2068],
      Section 10.3.4).  As user agents did not change their behavior to
      maintain backwards compatibility, the first revision of HTTP/1.1
      added yet another status code, 307 (Temporary Redirect), for which
      the backwards compatibility problems did not apply ([RFC2616],
      Section 10.3.8).  Over 10 years later, most user agents still do
      method rewriting for status codes 301 and 302, therefore this
      specification makes that behavior conformant in case the original
      request was POST.

   A Location header field on a 3xx response indicates that a client MAY
   automatically redirect to the URI provided; see Section 9.13.

   Note that for methods not known to be "safe", as defined in
   Section 2.1.1, automatic redirection needs to done with care, since
   the redirect might change the conditions under which the request was
   issued.

   Clients SHOULD detect and intervene in cyclical redirections (i.e.,
   "infinite" redirection loops).

      Note: An earlier version of this specification recommended a
      maximum of five redirections ([RFC2068], Section 10.3).  Content
      developers need to be aware that some clients might implement such
      a fixed limitation.

4.5.1.  300 Multiple Choices

   The target resource has more than one representation, each with its
   own specific location, and agent-driven negotiation information
   (Section 8) is being provided so that the user (or user agent) can
   select a preferred representation by redirecting its request to that
   location.

   Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include a



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   representation containing a list of representation metadata and
   location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose the one most
   appropriate.  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.

   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.

   Caches MAY use a heuristic (see Section 4.1.2 of [Part6]) to
   determine freshness for 300 responses.

4.5.2.  301 Moved Permanently

   The target 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 effective request URI to one or more of the
   new references returned by the server, where possible.

   Caches MAY use a heuristic (see Section 4.1.2 of [Part6]) to
   determine freshness for 301 responses.

   The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
   response.  A response payload can contain a short hypertext note with
   a hyperlink to the new URI(s).

      Note: For historic reasons, user agents MAY change the request
      method from POST to GET for the subsequent request.  If this
      behavior is undesired, status code 307 (Temporary Redirect) can be
      used instead.

4.5.3.  302 Found

   The target resource resides temporarily under a different URI.  Since
   the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD
   continue to use the effective request URI for future requests.

   The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
   response.  A response payload can contain a short hypertext note with
   a hyperlink to the new URI(s).

      Note: For historic reasons, user agents MAY change the request
      method from POST to GET for the subsequent request.  If this
      behavior is undesired, status code 307 (Temporary Redirect) can be



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


      used instead.

4.5.4.  303 See Other

   The 303 status code indicates that the server is redirecting the user
   agent to a different resource, as indicated by a URI in the Location
   header field, that is intended to provide an indirect response to the
   original request.  In order to satisfy the original request, a user
   agent SHOULD perform a retrieval request using the Location URI (a
   GET or HEAD request if using HTTP), which can itself be redirected
   further, and present the eventual result as an answer to the original
   request.  Note that the new URI in the Location header field is not
   considered equivalent to the effective request URI.

   This status code is generally applicable to any HTTP method.  It is
   primarily used to allow the output of a POST action to redirect the
   user agent to a selected resource, since doing so provides the
   information corresponding to the POST response in a form that can be
   separately identified, bookmarked, and cached independent of the
   original request.

   A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the requested resource
   does not have a representation of its own that can be transferred by
   the server over HTTP.  The Location URI indicates a resource that is
   descriptive of the target resource, such that the follow-on
   representation might be useful to recipients without implying that it
   adequately represents the target resource.  Note that answers to the
   questions of what can be represented, what representations are
   adequate, and what might be a useful description are outside the
   scope of HTTP and thus entirely determined by the URI owner(s).

   Except for responses to a HEAD request, the representation of a 303
   response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to
   the Location URI.

4.5.5.  305 Use Proxy

   The 305 status code was defined in a previous version of this
   specification (see Appendix C), and is now deprecated.

4.5.6.  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.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


4.5.7.  307 Temporary Redirect

   The target resource resides temporarily under a different URI.  Since
   the redirection can change over time, the client SHOULD continue to
   use the effective request URI for future requests.

   The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
   response.  A response payload can contain a short hypertext note with
   a hyperlink to the new URI(s).

      Note: This status code is similar to 302 (Found), except that it
      does not allow rewriting the request method from POST to GET.
      This specification defines no equivalent counterpart for 301
      (Moved Permanently) ([draft-reschke-http-status-308], however,
      defines the status code 308 (Permanent Redirect) for this
      purpose).

4.6.  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 a representation 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
   representation to the user.

4.6.1.  400 Bad Request

   The server cannot or will not process the request, due to a client
   error (e.g., malformed syntax).

4.6.2.  402 Payment Required

   This code is reserved for future use.

4.6.3.  403 Forbidden

   The server understood the request, but refuses to authorize it.
   Providing different user authentication credentials might be
   successful, but any credentials that were provided in the request are
   insufficient.  The request SHOULD NOT be repeated with the same
   credentials.

   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 representation.  If the server does not
   wish to make this information available to the client, the status



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   code 404 (Not Found) MAY be used instead.

4.6.4.  404 Not Found

   The server has not found anything matching the effective 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.

4.6.5.  405 Method Not Allowed

   The method specified in the request-line is not allowed for the
   target resource.  The response MUST include an Allow header field
   containing a list of valid methods for the requested resource.

4.6.6.  406 Not Acceptable

   The resource identified by the request is only capable of generating
   response representations which have content characteristics not
   acceptable according to the Accept and Accept-* header fields sent in
   the request.

   Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include a
   representation containing a list of available representation
   characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can
   choose the one most appropriate.  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 header fields sent in the
      request.  In some cases, this might even be preferable to sending
      a 406 response.  User agents are encouraged to inspect the header
      fields 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.

4.6.7.  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



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   modifications at any later time.

4.6.8.  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
   information for the user to recognize the source of the conflict.
   Ideally, the response representation 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 representation 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 representation would likely contain a list of the
   differences between the two versions.

4.6.9.  410 Gone

   The target 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 effective 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.

   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.

   Caches MAY use a heuristic (see Section 4.1.2 of [Part6]) to
   determine freshness for 410 responses.

4.6.10.  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



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   Content-Length header field containing the length of the message body
   in the request message.

4.6.11.  413 Request Representation Too Large

   The server is refusing to process a request because the request
   representation 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.

4.6.12.  414 URI Too Long

   The server is refusing to service the request because the effective
   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-target.

4.6.13.  415 Unsupported Media Type

   The server is refusing to service the request because the request
   payload is in a format not supported by this request method on the
   target resource.

4.6.14.  417 Expectation Failed

   The expectation given in an Expect header field (see Section 9.11)
   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.

4.6.15.  426 Upgrade Required

   The request can not be completed without a prior protocol upgrade.
   This response MUST include an Upgrade header field (Section 6.5 of
   [Part1]) specifying the required protocols.







Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   Example:

     HTTP/1.1 426 Upgrade Required
     Upgrade: HTTP/3.0
     Connection: Upgrade
     Content-Length: 53
     Content-Type: text/plain

     This service requires use of the HTTP/3.0 protocol.

   The server SHOULD include a message body in the 426 response which
   indicates in human readable form the reason for the error and
   describes any alternative courses which might be available to the
   user.

4.7.  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 a representation containing an explanation
   of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent
   condition.  User agents SHOULD display any included representation to
   the user.  These response codes are applicable to any request method.

4.7.1.  500 Internal Server Error

   The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it
   from fulfilling the request.

4.7.2.  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.

4.7.3.  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.

4.7.4.  503 Service Unavailable

   The server is currently unable to handle the request due to a
   temporary overloading or maintenance of the server.




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   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 field (Section 9.16).  If no
   Retry-After is given, the client SHOULD handle the response as it
   would for a 500 (Internal Server Error) response.

      Note: The existence of the 503 status code does not imply that a
      server has to use it when becoming overloaded.  Some servers might
      wish to simply refuse the connection.

4.7.5.  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 to implementers: some deployed proxies are known to return
      400 (Bad Request) or 500 (Internal Server Error) when DNS lookups
      time out.

4.7.6.  505 HTTP Version Not Supported

   The server does not support, or refuses to support, the 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
   2.7 of [Part1], other than with this error message.  The response
   SHOULD contain a representation describing why that version is not
   supported and what other protocols are supported by that server.

5.  Protocol Parameters

5.1.  Date/Time Formats

   HTTP applications have historically allowed three different formats
   for date/time stamps.  However, the preferred format is a fixed-
   length subset of that defined by [RFC1123]:

     Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT  ; RFC 1123

   The other formats are described here only for compatibility with
   obsolete implementations.

     Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; obsolete RFC 850 format
     Sun Nov  6 08:49:37 1994       ; ANSI C's asctime() format

   HTTP/1.1 clients and servers that parse a date value MUST accept all



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   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.

   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 whitespace beyond that specifically included as SP in the
   grammar.

     HTTP-date    = rfc1123-date / obs-date

   Preferred format:



































Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


     rfc1123-date = day-name "," SP date1 SP time-of-day SP GMT
     ; fixed length subset of the format defined in
     ; Section 5.2.14 of [RFC1123]

     day-name     = %x4D.6F.6E ; "Mon", case-sensitive
                  / %x54.75.65 ; "Tue", case-sensitive
                  / %x57.65.64 ; "Wed", case-sensitive
                  / %x54.68.75 ; "Thu", case-sensitive
                  / %x46.72.69 ; "Fri", case-sensitive
                  / %x53.61.74 ; "Sat", case-sensitive
                  / %x53.75.6E ; "Sun", case-sensitive

     date1        = day SP month SP year
                  ; e.g., 02 Jun 1982

     day          = 2DIGIT
     month        = %x4A.61.6E ; "Jan", case-sensitive
                  / %x46.65.62 ; "Feb", case-sensitive
                  / %x4D.61.72 ; "Mar", case-sensitive
                  / %x41.70.72 ; "Apr", case-sensitive
                  / %x4D.61.79 ; "May", case-sensitive
                  / %x4A.75.6E ; "Jun", case-sensitive
                  / %x4A.75.6C ; "Jul", case-sensitive
                  / %x41.75.67 ; "Aug", case-sensitive
                  / %x53.65.70 ; "Sep", case-sensitive
                  / %x4F.63.74 ; "Oct", case-sensitive
                  / %x4E.6F.76 ; "Nov", case-sensitive
                  / %x44.65.63 ; "Dec", case-sensitive
     year         = 4DIGIT

     GMT   = %x47.4D.54 ; "GMT", case-sensitive

     time-of-day  = hour ":" minute ":" second
                    ; 00:00:00 - 23:59:59

     hour         = 2DIGIT
     minute       = 2DIGIT
     second       = 2DIGIT

   The semantics of day-name, day, month, year, and time-of-day are the
   same as those defined for the RFC 5322 constructs with the
   corresponding name ([RFC5322], Section 3.3).

   Obsolete formats:

     obs-date     = rfc850-date / asctime-date





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


     rfc850-date  = day-name-l "," SP date2 SP time-of-day SP GMT
     date2        = day "-" month "-" 2DIGIT
                    ; day-month-year (e.g., 02-Jun-82)

     day-name-l   = %x4D.6F.6E.64.61.79 ; "Monday", case-sensitive
            / %x54.75.65.73.64.61.79 ; "Tuesday", case-sensitive
            / %x57.65.64.6E.65.73.64.61.79 ; "Wednesday", case-sensitive
            / %x54.68.75.72.73.64.61.79 ; "Thursday", case-sensitive
            / %x46.72.69.64.61.79 ; "Friday", case-sensitive
            / %x53.61.74.75.72.64.61.79 ; "Saturday", case-sensitive
            / %x53.75.6E.64.61.79 ; "Sunday", case-sensitive


     asctime-date = day-name SP date3 SP time-of-day SP year
     date3        = month SP ( 2DIGIT / ( SP 1DIGIT ))
                    ; month day (e.g., Jun  2)

      Note: Recipients of date values are encouraged to be robust in
      accepting date values that might have been sent by non-HTTP
      applications, as is sometimes the case when retrieving or posting
      messages via proxies/gateways to SMTP or NNTP.

      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.

5.2.  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 whitespace.  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

   Product tokens SHOULD be short and to the point.  They MUST NOT be
   used for advertising or other non-essential information.  Although
   any token octet MAY appear in a product-version, this token SHOULD
   only be used for a version identifier (i.e., successive versions of



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   the same product SHOULD only differ in the product-version portion of
   the product value).

5.3.  Character Encodings (charset)

   HTTP uses charset names to indicate the character encoding of a
   textual representation.

   A character encoding is identified by a case-insensitive token.  The
   complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character Set registry
   (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets>).

     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 MUST represent the character encoding defined
   by that registry.  Applications SHOULD limit their use of character
   encodings to those defined within the IANA registry.

   HTTP uses charset in two contexts: within an Accept-Charset request
   header field (in which the charset value is an unquoted token) and as
   the value of a parameter in a Content-Type header field (within a
   request or response), in which case the parameter value of the
   charset parameter can be quoted.

   Implementers need to be aware of IETF character set requirements
   [RFC3629] [RFC2277].

5.4.  Content Codings

   Content coding values indicate an encoding transformation that has
   been or can be applied to a representation.  Content codings are
   primarily used to allow a representation to be compressed or
   otherwise usefully transformed without losing the identity of its
   underlying media type and without loss of information.  Frequently,
   the representation 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 9.3) and
   Content-Encoding (Section 9.6) 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.




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   compress

      See Section 4.2.1 of [Part1].

   deflate

      See Section 4.2.2 of [Part1].

   gzip

      See Section 4.2.3 of [Part1].

5.4.1.  Content Coding Registry

   The HTTP Content Coding Registry defines the name space for the
   content coding names.

   Registrations MUST include the following fields:

   o  Name

   o  Description

   o  Pointer to specification text

   Names of content codings MUST NOT overlap with names of transfer
   codings (Section 4 of [Part1]), unless the encoding transformation is
   identical (as is the case for the compression codings defined in
   Section 4.2 of [Part1]).

   Values to be added to this name space require IETF Review (see
   Section 4.1 of [RFC5226]), and MUST conform to the purpose of content
   coding defined in this section.

   The registry itself is maintained at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters>.

5.5.  Media Types

   HTTP uses Internet Media Types [RFC2046] in the Content-Type
   (Section 9.9) and Accept (Section 9.1) header fields in order to
   provide open and extensible data typing and type negotiation.

     media-type = type "/" subtype *( OWS ";" OWS parameter )
     type       = token
     subtype    = token

   The type/subtype MAY be followed by parameters in the form of



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   attribute/value pairs.

     parameter      = attribute "=" value
     attribute      = token
     value          = word

   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.  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.

   A parameter value that matches the token production can be
   transmitted as either a token or within a quoted-string.  The quoted
   and unquoted values are equivalent.

   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).  The media type registration process is outlined in
   [RFC4288].  Use of non-registered media types is discouraged.

5.5.1.  Canonicalization and Text Defaults

   Internet media types are registered with a canonical form.  A
   representation transferred via HTTP messages MUST be 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 representation.
   HTTP applications MUST accept CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF as
   indicating a line break in text media received via HTTP.  In
   addition, if the text is in a character encoding that does not use
   octets 13 and 10 for CR and LF respectively, as is the case for some
   multi-byte character encodings, HTTP allows the use of whatever octet
   sequences are defined by that character encoding to represent the
   equivalent of CR and LF for line breaks.  This flexibility regarding
   line breaks applies only to text media in the payload 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).




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   If a representation is encoded with a content-coding, the underlying
   data MUST be in a form defined above prior to being encoded.

5.5.2.  Multipart Types

   MIME provides for a number of "multipart" types -- encapsulations of
   one or more representations within a single message body.  All
   multipart types share a common syntax, as defined in Section 5.1.1 of
   [RFC2046], 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.

   In general, HTTP treats a multipart message body no differently than
   any other media type: strictly as payload.  HTTP does not use the
   multipart boundary as an indicator of message body length.  In all
   other respects, 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.

   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 [RFC2388].

5.6.  Language Tags

   A language tag, as defined in [RFC5646], 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.

   In summary, a language tag is composed of one or more parts: A
   primary language subtag followed by a possibly empty series of
   subtags:

     language-tag = <Language-Tag, defined in [RFC5646], Section 2.1>

   White space is not allowed within the tag and all tags are case-
   insensitive.  The name space of language subtags is administered by
   the IANA (see
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry>).





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 44]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   Example tags include:

     en, en-US, es-419, az-Arab, x-pig-latin, man-Nkoo-GN

   See [RFC5646] for further information.

6.  Payload

   HTTP messages MAY transfer a payload if not otherwise restricted by
   the request method or response status code.  The payload consists of
   metadata, in the form of header fields, and data, in the form of the
   sequence of octets in the message body after any transfer-coding has
   been decoded.

   A "payload" in HTTP is always a partial or complete representation of
   some resource.  We use separate terms for payload and representation
   because some messages contain only the associated representation's
   header fields (e.g., responses to HEAD) or only some part(s) of the
   representation (e.g., the 206 (Partial Content) status code).

6.1.  Payload Header Fields

   HTTP header fields that specifically define the payload, rather than
   the associated representation, are referred to as "payload header
   fields".  The following payload header fields are defined by
   HTTP/1.1:

   +-------------------+--------------------------+
   | Header Field Name | Defined in...            |
   +-------------------+--------------------------+
   | Content-Length    | Section 3.3.2 of [Part1] |
   | Content-Range     | Section 5.2 of [Part5]   |
   +-------------------+--------------------------+

6.2.  Payload Body

   A payload body is only present in a message when a message body is
   present, as described in Section 3.3 of [Part1].  The payload 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.  Representation

   A "representation" is information in a format that can be readily
   communicated from one party to another.  A resource representation is
   information that reflects the state of that resource, as observed at
   some point in the past (e.g., in a response to GET) or to be desired



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 45]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   at some point in the future (e.g., in a PUT request).

   Most, but not all, representations transferred via HTTP are intended
   to be a representation of the target resource (the resource
   identified by the effective request URI).  The precise semantics of a
   representation are determined by the type of message (request or
   response), the request method, the response status code, and the
   representation metadata.  For example, the above semantic is true for
   the representation in any 200 (OK) response to GET and for the
   representation in any PUT request.  A 200 response to PUT, in
   contrast, contains either a representation that describes the
   successful action or a representation of the target resource, with
   the latter indicated by a Content-Location header field with the same
   value as the effective request URI.  Likewise, response messages with
   an error status code usually contain a representation that describes
   the error and what next steps are suggested for resolving it.

   Request and Response messages MAY transfer a representation if not
   otherwise restricted by the request method or response status code.
   A representation consists of metadata (representation header fields)
   and data (representation body).  When a complete or partial
   representation is enclosed in an HTTP message, it is referred to as
   the payload of the message.

   A representation body is only present in a message when a message
   body is present, as described in Section 3.3 of [Part1].  The
   representation 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.

7.1.  Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation

   It is sometimes necessary to determine an identifier for the resource
   associated with a representation.

   An HTTP request representation, when present, is always associated
   with an anonymous (i.e., unidentified) resource.

   In the common case, an HTTP response is a representation of the
   target resource (see Section 5.5 of [Part1]).  However, this is not
   always the case.  To determine the URI of the resource a response is
   associated with, the following rules are used (with the first
   applicable one being selected):

   1.  If the response status code is 200 (OK) or 203 (Non-Authoritative
       Information) and the request method was GET, the response payload
       is a representation of the target resource.




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 46]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   2.  If the response status code is 204 (No Content), 206 (Partial
       Content), or 304 (Not Modified) and the request method was GET or
       HEAD, the response payload is a partial representation of the
       target resource.

   3.  If the response has a Content-Location header field, and that URI
       is the same as the effective request URI, the response payload is
       a representation of the target resource.

   4.  If the response has a Content-Location header field, and that URI
       is not the same as the effective request URI, then the response
       asserts that its payload is a representation of the resource
       identified by the Content-Location URI.  However, such an
       assertion cannot be trusted unless it can be verified by other
       means (not defined by HTTP).

   5.  Otherwise, the response is a representation of an anonymous
       (i.e., unidentified) resource.

   [[TODO-req-uri: The comparison function is going to have to be
   defined somewhere, because we already need to compare URIs for things
   like cache invalidation.]]

7.2.  Representation Header Fields

   Representation header fields define metadata about the representation
   data enclosed in the message body or, if no message body is present,
   about the representation that would have been transferred in a 200
   (OK) response to a simultaneous GET request with the same effective
   request URI.

   The following header fields are defined as representation metadata:

   +-------------------+------------------------+
   | Header Field Name | Defined in...          |
   +-------------------+------------------------+
   | Content-Encoding  | Section 9.6            |
   | Content-Language  | Section 9.7            |
   | Content-Location  | Section 9.8            |
   | Content-Type      | Section 9.9            |
   | Expires           | Section 7.3 of [Part6] |
   +-------------------+------------------------+

   We use the term "selected representation" to refer to the the current
   representation of a target resource that would have been selected in
   a successful response if the same request had used the method GET and
   excluded any conditional request header fields.




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 47]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   Additional header fields define metadata about the selected
   representation, which might differ from the representation included
   in the message for responses to some state-changing methods.  The
   following header fields are defined as selected representation
   metadata:

   +-------------------+------------------------+
   | Header Field Name | Defined in...          |
   +-------------------+------------------------+
   | ETag              | Section 2.3 of [Part4] |
   | Last-Modified     | Section 2.2 of [Part4] |
   +-------------------+------------------------+

7.3.  Representation Data

   The representation body associated with an HTTP message is either
   provided as the payload body of the message or referred to by the
   message semantics and the effective request URI.  The representation
   data is in a format and encoding defined by the representation
   metadata header fields.

   The data type of the representation data is determined via the header
   fields Content-Type and Content-Encoding.  These define a two-layer,
   ordered encoding model:

     representation-data := Content-Encoding( Content-Type( bits ) )

   Content-Type specifies the media type of the underlying data, which
   defines both the data format and how that data SHOULD be processed by
   the recipient (within the scope of the request method semantics).
   Any HTTP/1.1 message containing a payload body SHOULD include a
   Content-Type header field defining the media type of the associated
   representation unless that metadata is unknown to the sender.  If the
   Content-Type header field is not present, it indicates that the
   sender does not know the media type of the representation; recipients
   MAY either assume that the media type is "application/octet-stream"
   ([RFC2046], Section 4.5.1) or examine the content to determine its
   type.

   In practice, resource owners do not always properly configure their
   origin server to provide the correct Content-Type for a given
   representation, with the result that some clients will examine a
   response body's content and override the specified type.  Clients
   that do so risk drawing incorrect conclusions, which might expose
   additional security risks (e.g., "privilege escalation").
   Furthermore, it is impossible to determine the sender's intent by
   examining the data format: many data formats match multiple media
   types that differ only in processing semantics.  Implementers are



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 48]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   encouraged to provide a means of disabling such "content sniffing"
   when it is used.

   Content-Encoding is used to indicate any additional content codings
   applied to the data, usually for the purpose of data compression,
   that are a property of the representation.  If Content-Encoding is
   not present, then there is no additional encoding beyond that defined
   by the Content-Type header field.

8.  Content Negotiation

   HTTP responses include a representation which contains information
   for interpretation, whether by a human user or for further
   processing.  Often, the server has different ways of representing the
   same information; for example, in different formats, languages, or
   using different character encodings.

   HTTP clients and their users might have different or variable
   capabilities, characteristics or preferences which would influence
   which representation, among those available from the server, would be
   best for the server to deliver.  For this reason, HTTP provides
   mechanisms for "content negotiation" -- a process of allowing
   selection of a representation of a given resource, when more than one
   is available.

   This specification defines two patterns of content negotiation;
   "server-driven", where the server selects the representation based
   upon the client's stated preferences, and "agent-driven" negotiation,
   where the server provides a list of representations for the client to
   choose from, based upon their metadata.  In addition, there are other
   patterns: some applications use an "active content" pattern, where
   the server returns active content which runs on the client and, based
   on client available parameters, selects additional resources to
   invoke.  "Transparent Content Negotiation" ([RFC2295]) has also been
   proposed.

   These patterns are all widely used, and have trade-offs in
   applicability and practicality.  In particular, when the number of
   preferences or capabilities to be expressed by a client are large
   (such as when many different formats are supported by a user-agent),
   server-driven negotiation becomes unwieldy, and might not be
   appropriate.  Conversely, when the number of representations to
   choose from is very large, agent-driven negotiation might not be
   appropriate.

   Note that in all cases, the supplier of representations has the
   responsibility for determining which representations might be
   considered to be the "same information".



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 49]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


8.1.  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.

   4.  It might limit a public cache's ability to use the same response
       for multiple user's requests.

   Server-driven negotiation allows the user agent to specify its
   preferences, but it cannot expect responses to always honor them.
   For example, the origin server might not implement server-driven
   negotiation, or it might decide that sending a response that doesn't
   conform to them is better than sending a 406 (Not Acceptable)
   response.

   Many of the mechanisms for expressing preferences use quality values
   to declare relative preference.  See Section 4.3.1 of [Part1] for



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 50]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   more information.

   HTTP/1.1 includes the following header fields for enabling server-
   driven negotiation through description of user agent capabilities and
   user preferences: Accept (Section 9.1), Accept-Charset (Section 9.2),
   Accept-Encoding (Section 9.3), Accept-Language (Section 9.4), and
   User-Agent (Section 9.18).  However, an origin server is not limited
   to these dimensions and MAY vary the response based on any aspect of
   the request, including aspects of the connection (e.g., IP address)
   or information within extension header fields not defined by this
   specification.

      Note: In practice, User-Agent based negotiation is fragile,
      because new clients might not be recognized.

   The Vary header field (Section 7.5 of [Part6]) can be used to express
   the parameters the server uses to select a representation that is
   subject to server-driven negotiation.

8.2.  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 body of the initial response, with each
   representation identified by its own URI.  Selection from among the
   representations can 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.

   This specification 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



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 51]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   server-driven negotiation.

9.  Header Field Definitions

   This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header
   fields related to request and response semantics and to the payload
   of messages.

9.1.  Accept

   The "Accept" header field can be used by user agents to specify
   response media types that are acceptable.  Accept header fields 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 = #( media-range [ accept-params ] )

     media-range    = ( "*/*"
                      / ( type "/" "*" )
                      / ( type "/" subtype )
                      ) *( OWS ";" OWS parameter )
     accept-params  = OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue *( accept-ext )
     accept-ext     = OWS ";" OWS token [ "=" word ]

   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 4.3.1 of
   [Part1]).  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".

   The example



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 52]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


     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".

   A request without any Accept header field implies that the user agent
   will accept any media type in response.  If an Accept header field is
   present in a request and none of the available representations for
   the response have a media type that is listed as acceptable, the
   origin server MAY either honor the Accept header field by sending a
   406 (Not Acceptable) response or disregard the Accept header field by
   treating the response as if it is not subject to content negotiation.

   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 representation, and if that does not exist, send the text/
   plain representation".

   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/plain, text/plain;format=flowed, */*

   have the following precedence:

   1.  text/plain;format=flowed

   2.  text/plain

   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:




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 53]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   +-------------------+---------------+
   | Media Type        | Quality Value |
   +-------------------+---------------+
   | text/html;level=1 | 1             |
   | text/html         | 0.7           |
   | text/plain        | 0.3           |
   | 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.

9.2.  Accept-Charset

   The "Accept-Charset" header field can be used by user agents to
   indicate what character encodings are acceptable in a response
   payload.  This field allows clients capable of understanding more
   comprehensive or special-purpose character encodings to signal that
   capability to a server which is capable of representing documents in
   those character encodings.

     Accept-Charset = 1#( ( charset / "*" )
                            [ OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue ] )

   Character encoding values (a.k.a., charsets) are described in
   Section 5.3.  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 encoding which is not mentioned elsewhere in
   the Accept-Charset field.  If no "*" is present in an Accept-Charset
   field, then all character encodings not explicitly mentioned get a
   quality value of 0.

   A request without any Accept-Charset header field implies that the
   user agent will accept any character encoding in response.  If an
   Accept-Charset header field is present in a request and none of the
   available representations for the response have a character encoding
   that is listed as acceptable, the origin server MAY either honor the
   Accept-Charset header field by sending a 406 (Not Acceptable)
   response or disregard the Accept-Charset header field by treating the



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 54]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   response as if it is not subject to content negotiation.

9.3.  Accept-Encoding

   The "Accept-Encoding" header field can be used by user agents to
   indicate what response content-codings (Section 5.4) are acceptable
   in the response.  An "identity" token is used as a synonym for "no
   encoding" in order to communicate when no encoding is preferred.

     Accept-Encoding  = #( codings [ OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue ] )
     codings          = content-coding / "identity" / "*"

   Each codings value MAY be given an associated quality value which
   represents the preference for that encoding.  The default value is
   q=1.

   For example,

     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 for a given representation is
   acceptable, according to an Accept-Encoding field, using these rules:

   1.  The special "*" symbol in an Accept-Encoding field matches any
       available content-coding not explicitly listed in the header
       field.

   2.  If the representation has no content-coding, then it is
       acceptable by default unless specifically excluded by the Accept-
       Encoding field stating either "identity;q=0" or "*;q=0" without a
       more specific entry for "identity".

   3.  If the representation's 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 4.3.1 of [Part1], a qvalue of 0 means "not
       acceptable".)

   4.  If multiple content-codings are acceptable, then the acceptable
       content-coding with the highest non-zero qvalue is preferred.

   An Accept-Encoding header field with a combined field-value that is
   empty implies that the user agent does not want any content-coding in
   response.  If an Accept-Encoding header field is present in a request



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 55]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   and none of the available representations for the response have a
   content-coding that is listed as acceptable, the origin server SHOULD
   send a response without any content-coding.

   A request without an Accept-Encoding header field implies that the
   user agent will accept any content-coding in response, but a
   representation without content-coding is preferred for compatibility
   with the widest variety of user agents.

      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.

9.4.  Accept-Language

   The "Accept-Language" header field can be used by user agents to
   indicate the set of natural languages that are preferred in the
   response.  Language tags are defined in Section 5.6.

     Accept-Language =
                       1#( language-range [ OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue ] )
     language-range  =
               <language-range, defined in [RFC4647], Section 2.1>

   Each language-range can 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". (see also Section 2.3 of [RFC4647])

   For matching, Section 3 of [RFC4647] defines several matching
   schemes.  Implementations can offer the most appropriate matching
   scheme for their requirements.

      Note: The "Basic Filtering" scheme ([RFC4647], Section 3.3.1) is
      identical to the matching scheme that was previously defined in
      Section 14.4 of [RFC2616].

   It might be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send
   an Accept-Language header field with the complete linguistic
   preferences of the user in every request.  For a discussion of this
   issue, see Section 11.5.

   As intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, it is



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 56]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   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 implementers of the fact that users are not
      familiar with the details of language matching as described above,
      and ought to be provided 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.

9.5.  Allow

   The "Allow" header field lists the set of methods advertised as
   supported by the target resource.  The purpose of this field is
   strictly to inform the recipient of valid request methods associated
   with the resource.

     Allow = #method

   Example of use:

     Allow: GET, HEAD, PUT

   The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server at
   the time of each request.

   A proxy MUST NOT modify the Allow header field -- it does not need to
   understand all the methods specified in order to handle them
   according to the generic message handling rules.

9.6.  Content-Encoding

   The "Content-Encoding" header field indicates what content-codings
   have been applied to the representation beyond those inherent in the
   media type, and thus what decoding mechanisms have to be applied in
   order to obtain the media-type referenced by the Content-Type header
   field.  Content-Encoding is primarily used to allow a representation
   to be compressed without losing the identity of its underlying media
   type.

     Content-Encoding = 1#content-coding

   Content codings are defined in Section 5.4.  An example of its use is




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 57]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


     Content-Encoding: gzip

   The content-coding is a characteristic of the representation.
   Typically, the representation body is stored with this encoding and
   is only decoded before rendering or analogous usage.  However, a
   transforming 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 media type includes an inherent encoding, such as a data
   format that is always compressed, then that encoding would not be
   restated as a Content-Encoding even if it happens to be the same
   algorithm as one of the content-codings.  Such a content-coding would
   only be listed if, for some bizarre reason, it is applied a second
   time to form the representation.  Likewise, an origin server might
   choose to publish the same payload data as multiple representations
   that differ only in whether the coding is defined as part of Content-
   Type or Content-Encoding, since some user agents will behave
   differently in their handling of each response (e.g., open a "Save as
   ..." dialog instead of automatic decompression and rendering of
   content).

   A representation that has a content-coding applied to it MUST include
   a Content-Encoding header field that lists the content-coding(s)
   applied.

   If multiple encodings have been applied to a representation, 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 header fields not defined by this specification.

   If the content-coding of a representation in a request message is not
   acceptable to the origin server, the server SHOULD respond with a
   status code of 415 (Unsupported Media Type).

9.7.  Content-Language

   The "Content-Language" header field describes the natural language(s)
   of the intended audience for the representation.  Note that this
   might not be equivalent to all the languages used within the
   representation.

     Content-Language = 1#language-tag

   Language tags are defined in Section 5.6.  The primary purpose of
   Content-Language is to allow a user to identify and differentiate
   representations according to the user's own preferred language.
   Thus, if the body content is intended only for a Danish-literate



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 58]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   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 a
   representation 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.

9.8.  Content-Location

   The "Content-Location" header field supplies a URI that can be used
   as a specific identifier for the representation in this message.  In
   other words, if one were to perform a GET on this URI at the time of
   this message's generation, then a 200 (OK) response would contain the
   same representation that is enclosed as payload in this message.

     Content-Location = absolute-URI / partial-URI

   The Content-Location value is not a replacement for the effective
   Request URI (Section 5.5 of [Part1]).  It is representation metadata.
   It has the same syntax and semantics as the header field of the same
   name defined for MIME body parts in Section 4 of [RFC2557].  However,
   its appearance in an HTTP message has some special implications for
   HTTP recipients.

   If Content-Location is included in a response message and its value
   is the same as the effective request URI, then the response payload
   SHOULD be considered a current representation of that resource.  For
   a GET or HEAD request, this is the same as the default semantics when
   no Content-Location is provided by the server.  For a state-changing



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 59]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   request like PUT or POST, it implies that the server's response
   contains the new representation of that resource, thereby
   distinguishing it from representations that might only report about
   the action (e.g., "It worked!").  This allows authoring applications
   to update their local copies without the need for a subsequent GET
   request.

   If Content-Location is included in a response message and its value
   differs from the effective request URI, then the origin server is
   informing recipients that this representation has its own, presumably
   more specific, identifier.  For a GET or HEAD request, this is an
   indication that the effective request URI identifies a resource that
   is subject to content negotiation and the selected representation for
   this response can also be found at the identified URI.  For other
   methods, such a Content-Location indicates that this representation
   contains a report on the action's status and the same report is
   available (for future access with GET) at the given URI.  For
   example, a purchase transaction made via a POST request might include
   a receipt document as the payload of the 200 (OK) response; the
   Content-Location value provides an identifier for retrieving a copy
   of that same receipt in the future.

   If Content-Location is included in a request message, then it MAY be
   interpreted by the origin server as an indication of where the user
   agent originally obtained the content of the enclosed representation
   (prior to any subsequent modification of the content by that user
   agent).  In other words, the user agent is providing the same
   representation metadata that it received with the original
   representation.  However, such interpretation MUST NOT be used to
   alter the semantics of the method requested by the client.  For
   example, if a client makes a PUT request on a negotiated resource and
   the origin server accepts that PUT (without redirection), then the
   new set of values for that resource is expected to be consistent with
   the one representation supplied in that PUT; the Content-Location
   cannot be used as a form of reverse content selection that identifies
   only one of the negotiated representations to be updated.  If the
   user agent had wanted the latter semantics, it would have applied the
   PUT directly to the Content-Location URI.

   A Content-Location field received in a request message is transitory
   information that SHOULD NOT be saved with other representation
   metadata for use in later responses.  The Content-Location's value
   might be saved for use in other contexts, such as within source links
   or other metadata.

   A cache cannot assume that a representation 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.



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 60]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   If the Content-Location value is a partial URI, the partial URI is
   interpreted relative to the effective request URI.

9.9.  Content-Type

   The "Content-Type" header field indicates the media type of the
   representation.  In the case of responses to the HEAD method, the
   media type is that which would have been sent had the request been a
   GET.

     Content-Type = media-type

   Media types are defined in Section 5.5.  An example of the field is

     Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4

   Further discussion of Content-Type is provided in Section 7.3.

9.10.  Date

   The "Date" header field represents the date and time at which the
   message was originated, having the same semantics as the Origination
   Date Field (orig-date) defined in Section 3.6.1 of [RFC5322].  The
   field value is an HTTP-date, as defined in Section 5.1; it MUST be
   sent in rfc1123-date format.

     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:

   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.

   A received message that does not have a Date header field MUST be



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 61]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   assigned one by the recipient if the message will be cached by that
   recipient.

   Clients can use the Date header field as well; in order to keep
   request messages small, they are advised not to include it when it
   doesn't convey any useful information (as is usually the case for
   requests that do not contain a payload).

   The HTTP-date sent in a Date header field 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 payload is generated.
   In practice, the date can be generated at any time during the message
   origination without affecting its semantic value.

9.11.  Expect

   The "Expect" header field is used to indicate that particular server
   behaviors are required by the client.

     Expect       = 1#expectation

     expectation  = expect-name [ BWS "=" BWS expect-value ]
                                *( OWS ";" [ OWS expect-param ] )
     expect-param = expect-name [ BWS "=" BWS expect-value ]

     expect-name  = token
     expect-value = token / quoted-string

   If all received Expect header field(s) are syntactically valid but
   contain an expectation that the recipient does not understand or
   cannot comply with, the recipient MUST respond with a 417
   (Expectation Failed) status code.  A recipient of a syntactically
   invalid Expectation header field MUST respond with a 4xx status code
   other than 417.

   The only expectation defined by this specification is:

   100-continue

      The "100-continue" expectation is defined Section 6.4.3 of
      [Part1].  It does not support any expect-params.

   Comparison is case-insensitive for names (expect-name), and case-
   sensitive for values (expect-value).




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 62]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   The Expect mechanism is hop-by-hop: the above requirements apply to
   any server, including proxies.  However, the Expect header field
   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 field.

9.12.  From

   The "From" 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
   Section 3.4 of [RFC5322]:

     From    = mailbox

     mailbox = <mailbox, defined in [RFC5322], Section 3.4>

   An example is:

     From: webmaster@example.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 field 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.

9.13.  Location

   The "Location" header field MAY be sent in responses to refer to a
   specific resource in accordance with the semantics of the status
   code.



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 63]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


     Location = URI-reference

   For 201 (Created) responses, the Location is the URI of the new
   resource which was created by the request.  For 3xx (Redirection)
   responses, the location SHOULD indicate the server's preferred URI
   for automatic redirection to the resource.

   The field value consists of a single URI-reference.  When it has the
   form of a relative reference ([RFC3986], Section 4.2), the final
   value is computed by resolving it against the effective request URI
   ([RFC3986], Section 5).  If the original URI, as navigated to by the
   user agent, did contain a fragment identifier, and the final value
   does not, then the original URI's fragment identifier is added to the
   final value.

   For example, the original URI "http://www.example.org/~tim", combined
   with a field value given as:

     Location: /pub/WWW/People.html#tim

   would result in a final value of
   "http://www.example.org/pub/WWW/People.html#tim"

   An original URI "http://www.example.org/index.html#larry", combined
   with a field value given as:

     Location: http://www.example.net/index.html

   would result in a final value of
   "http://www.example.net/index.html#larry", preserving the original
   fragment identifier.

      Note: Some recipients attempt to recover from Location fields that
      are not valid URI references.  This specification does not mandate
      or define such processing, but does allow it.

   There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location
   URI would not be appropriate.  For instance, when it appears in a 201
   (Created) response, where the Location header field specifies the URI
   for the entire created resource.

      Note: The Content-Location header field (Section 9.8) differs from
      Location in that the Content-Location identifies the most specific
      resource corresponding to the enclosed representation.  It is
      therefore possible for a response to contain header fields for
      both Location and Content-Location.





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 64]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


9.14.  Max-Forwards

   The "Max-Forwards" header field provides a mechanism with the TRACE
   (Section 2.3.7) and OPTIONS (Section 2.3.1) methods to limit the
   number of times that the request is forwarded by proxies.  This can
   be useful when the client is attempting to trace a request which
   appears to be failing or looping mid-chain.

     Max-Forwards = 1*DIGIT

   The Max-Forwards value is a decimal integer indicating the remaining
   number of times this request message can be forwarded.

   Each 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 request
   methods.

9.15.  Referer

   The "Referer" [sic] header field allows the client to specify the URI
   of the resource from which the target URI was obtained (the
   "referrer", although the header field is misspelled.).

   The Referer header field allows servers 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.
   Some servers use Referer as a means of controlling where they allow
   links from (so-called "deep linking"), but legitimate requests do not
   always contain a Referer header field.

   If the target URI was obtained from a source that does not have its
   own URI (e.g., input from the user keyboard), the Referer field MUST
   either be sent with the value "about:blank", or not be sent at all.
   Note that this requirement does not apply to sources with non-HTTP
   URIs (e.g., FTP).

     Referer = absolute-URI / partial-URI

   Example:

     Referer: http://www.example.org/hypertext/Overview.html



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 65]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   If the field value is a relative URI, it SHOULD be interpreted
   relative to the effective request URI.  The URI MUST NOT include a
   fragment.  See Section 11.2 for security considerations.

9.16.  Retry-After

   The header "Retry-After" 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 to 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 = HTTP-date / delta-seconds

   Time spans are non-negative decimal integers, representing time in
   seconds.

     delta-seconds  = 1*DIGIT

   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.

9.17.  Server

   The "Server" header field contains information about the software
   used by the origin server to handle the request.

   The field can contain multiple product tokens (Section 5.2) and
   comments (Section 3.2 of [Part1]) identifying the server and any
   significant subproducts.  The product tokens are listed in order of
   their significance for identifying the application.

     Server = product *( RWS ( 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 header field.  Instead, it
   MUST include a Via field (as described in Section 6.2 of [Part1]).



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 66]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


      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
      implementers are encouraged to make this field a configurable
      option.

9.18.  User-Agent

   The "User-Agent" header field contains information about the user
   agent originating the request.  User agents SHOULD include this field
   with requests.

   Typically, it is used for statistical purposes, the tracing of
   protocol violations, and tailoring responses to avoid particular user
   agent limitations.

   The field can contain multiple product tokens (Section 5.2) and
   comments (Section 3.2 of [Part1]) identifying the agent and its
   significant subproducts.  By convention, the product tokens are
   listed in order of their significance for identifying the
   application.

   Because this field is usually sent on every request a user agent
   makes, implementations are encouraged not to include needlessly fine-
   grained detail, and to limit (or even prohibit) the addition of
   subproducts by third parties.  Overly long and detailed User-Agent
   field values make requests larger and can also be used to identify
   ("fingerprint") the user against their wishes.

   Likewise, implementations are encouraged not to use the product
   tokens of other implementations in order to declare compatibility
   with them, as this circumvents the purpose of the field.  Finally,
   they are encouraged not to use comments to identify products; doing
   so makes the field value more difficult to parse.

     User-Agent = product *( RWS ( product / comment ) )

   Example:

     User-Agent: CERN-LineMode/2.15 libwww/2.17b3

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  Method Registry

   The registration procedure for HTTP request methods is defined by
   Section 2.2 of this document.




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 67]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   The HTTP Method Registry shall be created at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods> and be populated with
   the registrations below:

   +---------+------+------------+---------------+
   | Method  | Safe | Idempotent | Reference     |
   +---------+------+------------+---------------+
   | CONNECT | no   | no         | Section 2.3.8 |
   | DELETE  | no   | yes        | Section 2.3.6 |
   | GET     | yes  | yes        | Section 2.3.2 |
   | HEAD    | yes  | yes        | Section 2.3.3 |
   | OPTIONS | yes  | yes        | Section 2.3.1 |
   | POST    | no   | no         | Section 2.3.4 |
   | PUT     | no   | yes        | Section 2.3.5 |
   | TRACE   | yes  | yes        | Section 2.3.7 |
   +---------+------+------------+---------------+

10.2.  Status Code Registry

   The registration procedure for HTTP Status Codes -- previously
   defined in Section 7.1 of [RFC2817] -- is now defined by Section 4.2
   of this document.

   The HTTP Status Code Registry located at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes> shall be updated
   with the registrations below:

























Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 68]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   +-------+----------------------------------+----------------+
   | Value | Description                      | Reference      |
   +-------+----------------------------------+----------------+
   | 100   | Continue                         | Section 4.3.1  |
   | 101   | Switching Protocols              | Section 4.3.2  |
   | 200   | OK                               | Section 4.4.1  |
   | 201   | Created                          | Section 4.4.2  |
   | 202   | Accepted                         | Section 4.4.3  |
   | 203   | Non-Authoritative Information    | Section 4.4.4  |
   | 204   | No Content                       | Section 4.4.5  |
   | 205   | Reset Content                    | Section 4.4.6  |
   | 300   | Multiple Choices                 | Section 4.5.1  |
   | 301   | Moved Permanently                | Section 4.5.2  |
   | 302   | Found                            | Section 4.5.3  |
   | 303   | See Other                        | Section 4.5.4  |
   | 305   | Use Proxy                        | Section 4.5.5  |
   | 306   | (Unused)                         | Section 4.5.6  |
   | 307   | Temporary Redirect               | Section 4.5.7  |
   | 400   | Bad Request                      | Section 4.6.1  |
   | 402   | Payment Required                 | Section 4.6.2  |
   | 403   | Forbidden                        | Section 4.6.3  |
   | 404   | Not Found                        | Section 4.6.4  |
   | 405   | Method Not Allowed               | Section 4.6.5  |
   | 406   | Not Acceptable                   | Section 4.6.6  |
   | 408   | Request Timeout                  | Section 4.6.7  |
   | 409   | Conflict                         | Section 4.6.8  |
   | 410   | Gone                             | Section 4.6.9  |
   | 411   | Length Required                  | Section 4.6.10 |
   | 413   | Request Representation Too Large | Section 4.6.11 |
   | 414   | URI Too Long                     | Section 4.6.12 |
   | 415   | Unsupported Media Type           | Section 4.6.13 |
   | 417   | Expectation Failed               | Section 4.6.14 |
   | 426   | Upgrade Required                 | Section 4.6.15 |
   | 500   | Internal Server Error            | Section 4.7.1  |
   | 501   | Not Implemented                  | Section 4.7.2  |
   | 502   | Bad Gateway                      | Section 4.7.3  |
   | 503   | Service Unavailable              | Section 4.7.4  |
   | 504   | Gateway Timeout                  | Section 4.7.5  |
   | 505   | HTTP Version Not Supported       | Section 4.7.6  |
   +-------+----------------------------------+----------------+

10.3.  Header Field Registration

   The Message Header Field Registry located at <http://www.iana.org/
   assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html> shall be
   updated with the permanent registrations below (see [RFC3864]):





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 69]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   +-------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
   | Header Field Name | Protocol | Status   | Reference    |
   +-------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
   | Accept            | http     | standard | Section 9.1  |
   | Accept-Charset    | http     | standard | Section 9.2  |
   | Accept-Encoding   | http     | standard | Section 9.3  |
   | Accept-Language   | http     | standard | Section 9.4  |
   | Allow             | http     | standard | Section 9.5  |
   | Content-Encoding  | http     | standard | Section 9.6  |
   | Content-Language  | http     | standard | Section 9.7  |
   | Content-Location  | http     | standard | Section 9.8  |
   | Content-Type      | http     | standard | Section 9.9  |
   | Date              | http     | standard | Section 9.10 |
   | Expect            | http     | standard | Section 9.11 |
   | From              | http     | standard | Section 9.12 |
   | Location          | http     | standard | Section 9.13 |
   | MIME-Version      | http     | standard | Appendix A.1 |
   | Max-Forwards      | http     | standard | Section 9.14 |
   | Referer           | http     | standard | Section 9.15 |
   | Retry-After       | http     | standard | Section 9.16 |
   | Server            | http     | standard | Section 9.17 |
   | User-Agent        | http     | standard | Section 9.18 |
   +-------------------+----------+----------+--------------+

   The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet
   Engineering Task Force".

10.4.  Content Coding Registry

   The registration procedure for HTTP Content Codings is now defined by
   Section 5.4.1 of this document.

   The HTTP Content Codings Registry located at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters> shall be updated
   with the registration below:

   +----------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
   | Name     | Description                              | Reference   |
   +----------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
   | compress | UNIX "compress" program method           | Section     |
   |          |                                          | 4.2.1 of    |
   |          |                                          | [Part1]     |
   | deflate  | "deflate" compression mechanism          | Section     |
   |          | ([RFC1951]) used inside the "zlib" data  | 4.2.2 of    |
   |          | format ([RFC1950])                       | [Part1]     |
   | gzip     | Same as GNU zip [RFC1952]                | Section     |
   |          |                                          | 4.2.3 of    |
   |          |                                          | [Part1]     |



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 70]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   | identity | reserved (synonym for "no encoding" in   | Section 9.3 |
   |          | Accept-Encoding header field)            |             |
   +----------+------------------------------------------+-------------+

11.  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.

11.1.  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.  Implementers 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 field 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 the Referer.  Even when the personal information has
   been removed, the Referer header field 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



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 71]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   be provided for the user to enable or disable the sending of From and
   Referer information.

   The User-Agent (Section 9.18) or Server (Section 9.17) header fields
   can sometimes be used to determine that a specific client or server
   has 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.

   Furthermore, the User-Agent header field might contain enough entropy
   to be used, possibly in conjunction with other material, to uniquely
   identify the user.

   Some request methods, like TRACE (Section 2.3.7), expose information
   that was sent in request header fields within the body of their
   response.  Clients SHOULD be careful with sensitive information, like
   Cookies, Authorization credentials, and other header fields that
   might be used to collect data from the client.

11.2.  Encoding Sensitive Information in URIs

   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 SHOULD NOT use GET-based forms for the submission
   of sensitive data because that data will be placed in the request-
   target.  Many existing servers, proxies, and user agents log or
   display the request-target in places where it might be visible to
   third parties.  Such services can use POST-based form submission
   instead.

11.3.  Location Header Fields: Spoofing and Information Leakage

   If a single server supports multiple organizations that do not trust
   one another, then it MUST check the values of Location and Content-
   Location header fields 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.




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 72]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   Furthermore, appending the fragment identifier from one URI to
   another one obtained from a Location header field might leak
   confidential information to the target server -- although the
   fragment identifier is not transmitted in the final request, it might
   be visible to the user agent through other means, such as scripting.

11.4.  Security Considerations for CONNECT

   Since tunneled data is opaque to the proxy, there are additional
   risks to tunneling to other well-known or reserved ports.  A HTTP
   client CONNECTing to port 25 could relay spam via SMTP, for example.
   As such, proxies SHOULD restrict CONNECT access to a small number of
   known ports.

11.5.  Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Header Fields

   Accept header fields can reveal information about the user to all
   servers which are accessed.  The Accept-Language header field in
   particular can reveal information the user would consider to be of a
   private nature, because the understanding of particular languages is
   often 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 field 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 header fields by default, and
   to ask the user whether or not to start sending Accept-Language
   header fields to a server if it detects, by looking for any Vary
   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 field configuration options to end users.  As an extreme
   privacy measure, proxies could filter the accept header fields in
   relayed requests.  General purpose user agents which provide a high
   degree of header field configurability SHOULD warn users about the
   loss of privacy which can be involved.



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 73]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


12.  Acknowledgments

   See Section 9 of [Part1].

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [Part1]                          Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
                                    and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part
                                    1: Message Routing and Syntax"",
                                    draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-20
                                    (work in progress), July 2012.

   [Part4]                          Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
                                    and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part
                                    4: Conditional Requests",
                                    draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-20
                                    (work in progress), July 2012.

   [Part5]                          Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
                                    and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part
                                    5: Range Requests",
                                    draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-20 (work
                                    in progress), July 2012.

   [Part6]                          Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
                                    Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
                                    Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",
                                    draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-20 (work
                                    in progress), July 2012.

   [Part7]                          Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
                                    and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part
                                    7: Authentication",
                                    draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-20 (work
                                    in progress), July 2012.

   [RFC1950]                        Deutsch, L. and J-L. Gailly, "ZLIB
                                    Compressed Data Format Specification
                                    version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996.

   [RFC1951]                        Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed
                                    Data Format Specification version
                                    1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996.

   [RFC1952]                        Deutsch, P., Gailly, J-L., Adler,
                                    M., Deutsch, L., and G. Randers-



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 74]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


                                    Pehrson, "GZIP file format
                                    specification version 4.3",
                                    RFC 1952, May 1996.

   [RFC2045]                        Freed, N. and N. Borenstein,
                                    "Multipurpose Internet Mail
                                    Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format
                                    of Internet Message Bodies",
                                    RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [RFC2046]                        Freed, N. and N. Borenstein,
                                    "Multipurpose Internet Mail
                                    Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media
                                    Types", RFC 2046, November 1996.

   [RFC2119]                        Bradner, S., "Key words for use in
                                    RFCs to Indicate Requirement
                                    Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
                                    March 1997.

   [RFC3986]                        Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and
                                    L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource
                                    Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
                                    STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4647]                        Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed.,
                                    "Matching of Language Tags", BCP 47,
                                    RFC 4647, September 2006.

   [RFC5234]                        Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell,
                                    "Augmented BNF for Syntax
                                    Specifications: ABNF", STD 68,
                                    RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC5646]                        Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed.,
                                    "Tags for Identifying Languages",
                                    BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.

13.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1123]                        Braden, R., "Requirements for
                                    Internet Hosts - Application and
                                    Support", STD 3, RFC 1123,
                                    October 1989.

   [RFC1945]                        Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and
                                    H. Nielsen, "Hypertext Transfer
                                    Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945,



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 75]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


                                    May 1996.

   [RFC2049]                        Freed, N. and N. Borenstein,
                                    "Multipurpose Internet Mail
                                    Extensions (MIME) Part Five:
                                    Conformance Criteria and Examples",
                                    RFC 2049, November 1996.

   [RFC2068]                        Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J.,
                                    Nielsen, H., and T. Berners-Lee,
                                    "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
                                    HTTP/1.1", RFC 2068, January 1997.

   [RFC2076]                        Palme, J., "Common Internet Message
                                    Headers", RFC 2076, February 1997.

   [RFC2277]                        Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on
                                    Character Sets and Languages",
                                    BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.

   [RFC2295]                        Holtman, K. and A. Mutz,
                                    "Transparent Content Negotiation in
                                    HTTP", RFC 2295, March 1998.

   [RFC2388]                        Masinter, L., "Returning Values from
                                    Forms:  multipart/form-data",
                                    RFC 2388, August 1998.

   [RFC2557]                        Palme, F., Hopmann, A., Shelness,
                                    N., and E. Stefferud, "MIME
                                    Encapsulation of Aggregate
                                    Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)",
                                    RFC 2557, March 1999.

   [RFC2616]                        Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J.,
                                    Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach,
                                    P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
                                    Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
                                    RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC2817]                        Khare, R. and S. Lawrence,
                                    "Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1",
                                    RFC 2817, May 2000.

   [RFC3629]                        Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a
                                    transformation format of ISO 10646",
                                    STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 76]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   [RFC3864]                        Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J.
                                    Mogul, "Registration Procedures for
                                    Message Header Fields", BCP 90,
                                    RFC 3864, September 2004.

   [RFC4288]                        Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media
                                    Type Specifications and Registration
                                    Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288,
                                    December 2005.

   [RFC5226]                        Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand,
                                    "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
                                    Considerations Section in RFCs",
                                    BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.

   [RFC5322]                        Resnick, P., "Internet Message
                                    Format", RFC 5322, October 2008.

   [RFC5789]                        Dusseault, L. and J. Snell, "PATCH
                                    Method for HTTP", RFC 5789,
                                    March 2010.

   [RFC5987]                        Reschke, J., "Character Set and
                                    Language Encoding for Hypertext
                                    Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header
                                    Field Parameters", RFC 5987,
                                    August 2010.

   [RFC6151]                        Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated
                                    Security Considerations for the MD5
                                    Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5
                                    Algorithms", RFC 6151, March 2011.

   [RFC6266]                        Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-
                                    Disposition Header Field in the
                                    Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)",
                                    RFC 6266, June 2011.

   [draft-reschke-http-status-308]  Reschke, J., "The Hypertext Transfer
                                    Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308
                                    (Permanent Redirect)",
                                    draft-reschke-http-status-308-07
                                    (work in progress), March 2012.

Appendix A.  Differences between HTTP and MIME

   HTTP/1.1 uses many of the constructs defined for Internet Mail
   ([RFC5322]) and the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 77]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   [RFC2045]) to allow a message body 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 MIME.  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 MIME.
   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.

A.1.  MIME-Version

   HTTP is not a MIME-compliant protocol.  However, HTTP/1.1 messages
   MAY include a single MIME-Version 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 conformance with the MIME protocol (as defined in [RFC2045]).
   Proxies/gateways are responsible for ensuring full conformance (where
   possible) when exporting HTTP messages to strict MIME environments.

     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.

A.2.  Conversion to Canonical Form

   MIME requires that an Internet mail body-part be converted to
   canonical form prior to being transferred, as described in Section 4
   of [RFC2049].  Section 5.5.1 of this document describes the forms
   allowed for subtypes of the "text" media type when transmitted over
   HTTP.  [RFC2046] requires that content with a type of "text"
   represent line breaks as CRLF and forbids the use of CR or LF outside
   of line 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 5.5.1 of this document to the RFC 2049
   canonical form of CRLF.  Note, however, that this might be



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 78]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   complicated by the presence of a Content-Encoding and by the fact
   that HTTP allows the use of some character encodings which do not use
   octets 13 and 10 to represent CR and LF, respectively, as is the case
   for some multi-byte character encodings.

   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.

A.3.  Conversion of Date Formats

   HTTP/1.1 uses a restricted set of date formats (Section 5.1) 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.

A.4.  Introduction of Content-Encoding

   MIME 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 representation 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 the MIME standards).

A.5.  No Content-Transfer-Encoding

   HTTP does not use the Content-Transfer-Encoding field of MIME.
   Proxies and gateways from MIME-compliant protocols to HTTP MUST
   remove any Content-Transfer-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
   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.







Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 79]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


A.6.  MHTML and Line Length Limitations

   HTTP implementations which share code with MHTML [RFC2557]
   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 5.5.2) and does not interpret the content or any
   MIME header lines that might be contained therein.

Appendix B.  Additional Features

   [RFC1945] and [RFC2068] document protocol elements used by some
   existing HTTP implementations, but not consistently and correctly
   across most HTTP/1.1 applications.  Implementers 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
   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 header fields, such as Content-Disposition and
   Title, from SMTP and MIME are also often implemented (see [RFC6266]
   and [RFC2076]).

Appendix C.  Changes from RFC 2616

   Introduce Method Registry.  (Section 2.2)

   Clarify definition of POST.  (Section 2.3.4)

   Remove requirement to handle all Content-* header fields; ban use of
   Content-Range with PUT.  (Section 2.3.5)

   Take over definition of CONNECT method from [RFC2817].
   (Section 2.3.8)

   Take over the Status Code Registry, previously defined in Section 7.1
   of [RFC2817].  (Section 4.2)

   Broadened the definition of 203 (Non-Authoritative Information) to
   include cases of payload transformations as well.  (Section 4.4.4)

   Status codes 301, 302, and 307: removed the normative requirements on
   both response payloads and user interaction.  (Section 4.5)

   Failed to consider that there are many other request methods that are



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 80]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   safe to automatically redirect, and further that the user agent is
   able to make that determination based on the request method
   semantics.  Furthermore, allow user agents to rewrite the method from
   POST to GET for status codes 301 and 302.  (Sections 4.5.2, 4.5.3 and
   4.5.7)

   Deprecate 305 (Use Proxy) status code, because user agents did not
   implement it.  It used to indicate that the target resource needs to
   be accessed through the proxy given by the Location field.  The
   Location field gave the URI of the proxy.  The recipient was expected
   to repeat this single request via the proxy.  (Section 4.5.5)

   Define status 426 (Upgrade Required) (this was incorporated from
   [RFC2817]).  (Section 4.6.15)

   Change ABNF productions for header fields to only define the field
   value.  (Section 9)

   Reclassify "Allow" as response header field, removing the option to
   specify it in a PUT request.  Relax the server requirement on the
   contents of the Allow header field and remove requirement on clients
   to always trust the header field value.  (Section 9.5)

   The ABNF for the Expect header field has been both fixed (allowing
   parameters for value-less expectations as well) and simplified
   (allowing trailing semicolons after "100-continue" when they were
   invalid before).  (Section 9.11)

   Correct syntax of Location header field to allow URI references
   (including relative references and fragments), as referred symbol
   "absoluteURI" wasn't what was expected, and add some clarifications
   as to when use of fragments would not be appropriate.  (Section 9.13)

   Restrict Max-Forwards header field to OPTIONS and TRACE (previously,
   extension methods could have used it as well).  (Section 9.14)

   Allow Referer field value of "about:blank" as alternative to not
   specifying it.  (Section 9.15)

   In the description of the Server header field, the Via field was
   described as a SHOULD.  The requirement was and is stated correctly
   in the description of the Via header field in Section 6.2 of [Part1].
   (Section 9.17)

   Clarify contexts that charset is used in.  (Section 5.3)

   Registration of Content Codings now requires IETF Review
   (Section 5.4.1)



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 81]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   Remove the default character encoding of "ISO-8859-1" for text media
   types; the default now is whatever the media type definition says.
   (Section 5.5.1)

   Change ABNF productions for header fields to only define the field
   value.  (Section 9)

   Remove definition of Content-MD5 header field because it was
   inconsistently implemented with respect to partial responses, and
   also because of known deficiencies in the hash algorithm itself (see
   [RFC6151] for details).  (Section 9)

   Remove ISO-8859-1 special-casing in Accept-Charset.  (Section 9.2)

   Remove base URI setting semantics for Content-Location due to poor
   implementation support, which was caused by too many broken servers
   emitting bogus Content-Location header fields, and also the
   potentially undesirable effect of potentially breaking relative links
   in content-negotiated resources.  (Section 9.8)

   Remove reference to non-existant identity transfer-coding value
   tokens.  (Appendix A.5)

   Remove discussion of Content-Disposition header field, it is now
   defined by [RFC6266].  (Appendix B)

Appendix D.  Imported ABNF

   The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in
   Appendix B.1 of [RFC5234]: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return),
   CRLF (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double
   quote), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), HTAB (horizontal tab), LF
   (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit sequence of data), SP (space), and
   VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII character).

   The rules below are defined in [Part1]:

     BWS           = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
     OWS           = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
     RWS           = <RWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
     quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
     token         = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
     word          = <word, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>

     absolute-URI  = <absolute-URI, defined in [Part1], Section 2.8>
     comment       = <comment, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
     partial-URI   = <partial-URI, defined in [Part1], Section 2.8>
     qvalue        = <qvalue, defined in [Part1], Section 4.3.1>



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 82]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


     URI-reference = <URI-reference, defined in [Part1], Section 2.8>

Appendix E.  Collected ABNF

   Accept = [ ( "," / ( media-range [ accept-params ] ) ) *( OWS "," [
    OWS ( media-range [ accept-params ] ) ] ) ]
   Accept-Charset = *( "," OWS ) ( ( charset / "*" ) [ OWS ";" OWS "q="
    qvalue ] ) *( OWS "," [ OWS ( ( charset / "*" ) [ OWS ";" OWS "q="
    qvalue ] ) ] )
   Accept-Encoding = [ ( "," / ( codings [ OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue ] ) )
    *( OWS "," [ OWS ( codings [ OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue ] ) ] ) ]
   Accept-Language = *( "," OWS ) ( language-range [ OWS ";" OWS "q="
    qvalue ] ) *( OWS "," [ OWS ( language-range [ OWS ";" OWS "q="
    qvalue ] ) ] )
   Allow = [ ( "," / method ) *( OWS "," [ OWS method ] ) ]

   BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>

   Content-Encoding = *( "," OWS ) content-coding *( OWS "," [ OWS
    content-coding ] )
   Content-Language = *( "," OWS ) language-tag *( OWS "," [ OWS
    language-tag ] )
   Content-Location = absolute-URI / partial-URI
   Content-Type = media-type

   Date = HTTP-date

   Expect = *( "," OWS ) expectation *( OWS "," [ OWS expectation ] )

   From = mailbox

   GMT = %x47.4D.54 ; GMT

   HTTP-date = rfc1123-date / obs-date

   Location = URI-reference

   MIME-Version = 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
   Max-Forwards = 1*DIGIT

   OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>

   RWS = <RWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
   Referer = absolute-URI / partial-URI
   Retry-After = HTTP-date / delta-seconds

   Server = product *( RWS ( product / comment ) )




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 83]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   URI-reference = <URI-reference, defined in [Part1], Section 2.8>
   User-Agent = product *( RWS ( product / comment ) )

   absolute-URI = <absolute-URI, defined in [Part1], Section 2.8>
   accept-ext = OWS ";" OWS token [ "=" word ]
   accept-params = OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue *accept-ext
   asctime-date = day-name SP date3 SP time-of-day SP year
   attribute = token

   charset = token
   codings = content-coding / "identity" / "*"
   comment = <comment, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
   content-coding = token

   date1 = day SP month SP year
   date2 = day "-" month "-" 2DIGIT
   date3 = month SP ( 2DIGIT / ( SP DIGIT ) )
   day = 2DIGIT
   day-name = %x4D.6F.6E ; Mon
    / %x54.75.65 ; Tue
    / %x57.65.64 ; Wed
    / %x54.68.75 ; Thu
    / %x46.72.69 ; Fri
    / %x53.61.74 ; Sat
    / %x53.75.6E ; Sun
   day-name-l = %x4D.6F.6E.64.61.79 ; Monday
    / %x54.75.65.73.64.61.79 ; Tuesday
    / %x57.65.64.6E.65.73.64.61.79 ; Wednesday
    / %x54.68.75.72.73.64.61.79 ; Thursday
    / %x46.72.69.64.61.79 ; Friday
    / %x53.61.74.75.72.64.61.79 ; Saturday
    / %x53.75.6E.64.61.79 ; Sunday
   delta-seconds = 1*DIGIT

   expect-name = token
   expect-param = expect-name [ BWS "=" BWS expect-value ]
   expect-value = token / quoted-string
   expectation = expect-name [ BWS "=" BWS expect-value ] *( OWS ";" [
    OWS expect-param ] )

   hour = 2DIGIT

   language-range = <language-range, defined in [RFC4647], Section 2.1>
   language-tag = <Language-Tag, defined in [RFC5646], Section 2.1>

   mailbox = <mailbox, defined in [RFC5322], Section 3.4>
   media-range = ( "*/*" / ( type "/*" ) / ( type "/" subtype ) ) *( OWS
    ";" OWS parameter )



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 84]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   media-type = type "/" subtype *( OWS ";" OWS parameter )
   method = token
   minute = 2DIGIT
   month = %x4A.61.6E ; Jan
    / %x46.65.62 ; Feb
    / %x4D.61.72 ; Mar
    / %x41.70.72 ; Apr
    / %x4D.61.79 ; May
    / %x4A.75.6E ; Jun
    / %x4A.75.6C ; Jul
    / %x41.75.67 ; Aug
    / %x53.65.70 ; Sep
    / %x4F.63.74 ; Oct
    / %x4E.6F.76 ; Nov
    / %x44.65.63 ; Dec

   obs-date = rfc850-date / asctime-date

   parameter = attribute "=" value
   partial-URI = <partial-URI, defined in [Part1], Section 2.8>
   product = token [ "/" product-version ]
   product-version = token

   quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
   qvalue = <qvalue, defined in [Part1], Section 4.3.1>

   rfc1123-date = day-name "," SP date1 SP time-of-day SP GMT
   rfc850-date = day-name-l "," SP date2 SP time-of-day SP GMT

   second = 2DIGIT
   subtype = token

   time-of-day = hour ":" minute ":" second
   token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
   type = token

   value = word

   word = <word, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>

   year = 4DIGIT

Appendix F.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)

F.1.  Since RFC 2616

   Extracted relevant partitions from [RFC2616].




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 85]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


F.2.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-00

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/5>: "Via is a MUST"
      (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#via-must>)

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/6>: "Fragments
      allowed in Location"
      (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#location-fragments>)

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/10>: "Safe Methods
      vs Redirection" (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#saferedirect>)

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/17>: "Revise
      description of the POST method"
      (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#post>)

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35>: "Normative and
      Informative references"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/42>: "RFC2606
      Compliance"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65>: "Informative
      references"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/84>: "Redundant
      cross-references"

   Other changes:

   o  Move definitions of 304 and 412 condition codes to [Part4]

F.3.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-00

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/8>: "Media Type
      Registrations" (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg>)

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/14>: "Clarification
      regarding quoting of charset values"
      (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#charactersets>)

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/16>: "Remove
      'identity' token references"
      (<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#identity>)



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 86]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/25>: "Accept-
      Encoding BNF"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35>: "Normative and
      Informative references"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/46>: "RFC1700
      references"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/55>: "Updating to
      RFC4288"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65>: "Informative
      references"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/66>: "ISO-8859-1
      Reference"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68>: "Encoding
      References Normative"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/86>: "Normative up-
      to-date references"

F.4.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/21>: "PUT side
      effects"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/91>: "Duplicate Host
      header requirements"

   Ongoing work on ABNF conversion
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):

   o  Move "Product Tokens" section (back) into Part 1, as "token" is
      used in the definition of the Upgrade header field.

   o  Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from
      other parts of the specification.

   o  Copy definition of delta-seconds from Part6 instead of referencing
      it.






Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 87]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


F.5.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01

   Ongoing work on ABNF conversion
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):

   o  Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from
      other parts of the specification.

F.6.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-02

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/24>: "Requiring
      Allow in 405 responses"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/59>: "Status Code
      Registry"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/61>: "Redirection
      vs. Location"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/70>: "Cacheability
      of 303 response"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/76>: "305 Use Proxy"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/105>:
      "Classification for Allow header field"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/112>: "PUT - 'store
      under' vs 'store at'"

   Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Field Registration
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>):

   o  Reference RFC 3984, and update header field registrations for
      header fields defined in this document.

   Ongoing work on ABNF conversion
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):

   o  Replace string literals when the string really is case-sensitive
      (method).








Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 88]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


F.7.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67>: "Quoting
      Charsets"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/105>:
      "Classification for Allow header field"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/115>: "missing
      default for qvalue in description of Accept-Encoding"

   Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Field Registration
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>):

   o  Reference RFC 3984, and update header field registrations for
      header fields defined in this document.

F.8.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-03

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/98>: "OPTIONS
      request bodies"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/119>: "Description
      of CONNECT should refer to RFC2817"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/125>: "Location
      Content-Location reference request/response mixup"

   Ongoing work on Method Registry
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/72>):

   o  Added initial proposal for registration process, plus initial
      content (non-HTTP/1.1 methods to be added by a separate
      specification).

F.9.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67>: "Quoting
      Charsets"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/113>: "language tag
      matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647"



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 89]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/121>: "RFC 1806 has
      been replaced by RFC2183"

   Other changes:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68>: "Encoding
      References Normative" -- rephrase the annotation and reference
      BCP97.

F.10.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-04

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/103>: "Content-*"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/132>: "RFC 2822 is
      updated by RFC 5322"

   Ongoing work on ABNF conversion
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):

   o  Use "/" instead of "|" for alternatives.

   o  Introduce new ABNF rules for "bad" whitespace ("BWS"), optional
      whitespace ("OWS") and required whitespace ("RWS").

   o  Rewrite ABNFs to spell out whitespace rules, factor out header
      field value format definitions.

F.11.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/132>: "RFC 2822 is
      updated by RFC 5322"

   Ongoing work on ABNF conversion
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):

   o  Use "/" instead of "|" for alternatives.

   o  Introduce new ABNF rules for "bad" whitespace ("BWS"), optional
      whitespace ("OWS") and required whitespace ("RWS").

   o  Rewrite ABNFs to spell out whitespace rules, factor out header
      field value format definitions.





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 90]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


F.12.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-05

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/94>: "reason-phrase
      BNF"

   Final work on ABNF conversion
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):

   o  Add appendix containing collected and expanded ABNF, reorganize
      ABNF introduction.

F.13.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-05

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/118>: "Join
      "Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities"?"

   Final work on ABNF conversion
   (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):

   o  Add appendix containing collected and expanded ABNF, reorganize
      ABNF introduction.

   Other changes:

   o  Move definition of quality values into Part 1.

F.14.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-06

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/144>: "Clarify when
      Referer is sent"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/164>: "status codes
      vs methods"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/170>: "Do not
      require "updates" relation for specs that register status codes or
      method names"








Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 91]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


F.15.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-06

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/80>: "Content-
      Location isn't special"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155>: "Content
      Sniffing"

F.16.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-07

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/27>: "Idempotency"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/33>: "TRACE security
      considerations"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/110>: "Clarify rules
      for determining what entities a response carries"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/140>: "update note
      citing RFC 1945 and 2068"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/182>: "update note
      about redirect limit"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/191>: "Location
      header field ABNF should use 'URI'"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/192>: "fragments in
      Location vs status 303"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/198>: "move IANA
      registrations for optional status codes"

   Partly resolved issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/171>: "Are OPTIONS
      and TRACE safe?"

F.17.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-07

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/13>: "Updated
      reference for language tags"



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 92]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/110>: "Clarify rules
      for determining what entities a response carries"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/154>: "Content-
      Location base-setting problems"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155>: "Content
      Sniffing"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/188>: "pick IANA
      policy (RFC5226) for Transfer Coding / Content Coding"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/189>: "move
      definitions of gzip/deflate/compress to part 1"

   Partly resolved issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/148>: "update IANA
      requirements wrt Transfer-Coding values" (add the IANA
      Considerations subsection)

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/149>: "update IANA
      requirements wrt Content-Coding values" (add the IANA
      Considerations subsection)

F.18.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-08

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/10>: "Safe Methods
      vs Redirection" (we missed the introduction to the 3xx status
      codes when fixing this previously)

F.19.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-08

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/81>: "Content
      Negotiation for media types"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/181>: "Accept-
      Language: which RFC4647 filtering?"

F.20.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-09

   Closed issues:





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 93]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43>: "Fragment
      combination / precedence during redirects"

   Partly resolved issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/185>: "Location
      header field payload handling"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/196>: "Term for the
      requested resource's URI"

F.21.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-09

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/122>: "MIME-Version
      not listed in P1, general header fields"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/143>: "IANA registry
      for content/transfer encodings"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/155>: "Content
      Sniffing"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/200>: "use of term
      "word" when talking about header field structure"

   Partly resolved issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/196>: "Term for the
      requested resource's URI"

F.22.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-10

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/69>: "Clarify
      'Requested Variant'"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/109>: "Clarify
      entity / representation / variant terminology"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/139>: "Methods and
      Caching"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/190>: "OPTIONS vs
      Max-Forwards"




Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 94]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/199>: "Status codes
      and caching"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/220>: "consider
      removing the 'changes from 2068' sections"

F.23.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-10

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/69>: "Clarify
      'Requested Variant'"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/80>: "Content-
      Location isn't special"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/90>: "Delimiting
      messages with multipart/byteranges"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/109>: "Clarify
      entity / representation / variant terminology"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/136>: "confusing
      req. language for Content-Location"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/167>: "Content-
      Location on 304 responses"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/183>: "'requested
      resource' in content-encoding definition"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/220>: "consider
      removing the 'changes from 2068' sections"

   Partly resolved issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/178>: "Content-MD5
      and partial responses"

F.24.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-11

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/229>:
      "Considerations for new status codes"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/230>:
      "Considerations for new methods"



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 95]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/232>: "User-Agent
      guidelines" (relating to the 'User-Agent' header field)

F.25.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-11

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/123>: "Factor out
      Content-Disposition"

F.26.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43>: "Fragment
      combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning about
      having a fragid on the redirect might cause inconvenience in some
      cases)

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/79>: "Content-* vs.
      PUT"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/88>: "205 Bodies"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/102>: "Understanding
      Content-* on non-PUT requests"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/103>: "Content-*"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/104>: "Header field
      type defaulting"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/112>: "PUT - 'store
      under' vs 'store at'"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/137>: "duplicate
      ABNF for reason-phrase"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/180>: "Note special
      status of Content-* prefix in header field registration
      procedures"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/203>: "Max-Forwards
      vs extension methods"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/213>: "What is the
      value space of HTTP status codes?" (actually fixed in
      draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-11)



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 96]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/224>: "Header Field
      Classification"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/225>: "PUT side
      effect: invalidation or just stale?"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/226>: "proxies not
      supporting certain methods"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/239>: "Migrate
      CONNECT from RFC2817 to p2"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/240>: "Migrate
      Upgrade details from RFC2817"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/267>: "clarify PUT
      semantics'"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/275>: "duplicate
      ABNF for 'Method'"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/276>: "untangle
      ABNFs for header fields"

F.27.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-12

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/224>: "Header Field
      Classification"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/276>: "untangle
      ABNFs for header fields"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/277>: "potentially
      misleading MAY in media-type def"

F.28.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-13

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/276>: "untangle
      ABNFs for header fields"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/251>: "message body
      in CONNECT request"





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 97]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


F.29.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-13

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/20>: "Default
      charsets for text media types"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/178>: "Content-MD5
      and partial responses"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/276>: "untangle
      ABNFs for header fields"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/281>: "confusing
      undefined parameter in media range example"

F.30.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-14

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/255>: "Clarify
      status code for rate limiting"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/294>: "clarify 403
      forbidden"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/296>: "Clarify 203
      Non-Authoritative Information"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/298>: "update
      default reason phrase for 413"

F.31.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-14

   None.

F.32.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-15

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/285>: "Strength of
      requirements on Accept re: 406"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/303>: "400 response
      isn't generic"






Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 98]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


F.33.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-15

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/285>: "Strength of
      requirements on Accept re: 406"

F.34.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-16

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/160>: "Redirects and
      non-GET methods"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/186>: "Document
      HTTP's error-handling philosophy"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/231>:
      "Considerations for new header fields"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/310>: "clarify 303
      redirect on HEAD"

F.35.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-16

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/186>: "Document
      HTTP's error-handling philosophy"

F.36.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-17

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/185>: "Location
      header field payload handling"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/255>: "Clarify
      status code for rate limiting" (change backed out because a new
      status code is being defined for this purpose)

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/312>: "should there
      be a permanent variant of 307"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/325>: "When are
      Location's semantics triggered?"





Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 99]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/327>: "'expect'
      grammar missing OWS"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/329>: "header field
      considerations: quoted-string vs use of double quotes"

F.37.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-17

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/323>: "intended
      maturity level vs normative references"

F.38.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/227>: "Combining
      HEAD responses"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/238>: "Requirements
      for user intervention during redirects"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/250>: "message-body
      in CONNECT response"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/295>: "Applying
      original fragment to 'plain' redirected URI"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/302>: "Misplaced
      text on connection handling in p2"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/331>: "clarify that
      201 doesn't require Location header fields"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/332>: "relax
      requirements on hypertext in 3/4/5xx error responses"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/333>: "example for
      426 response should have a payload"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/336>: "drop
      indirection entries for status codes"








Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013              [Page 100]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


F.39.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-18

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/330>: "is ETag a
      representation header field?"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/338>: "Content-
      Location doesn't constrain the cardinality of representations"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/346>: "make IANA
      policy definitions consistent"

F.40.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19 and
       draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-19

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/312>: "should there
      be a permanent variant of 307"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/347>: "clarify that
      201 can imply *multiple* resources were created"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/351>: "merge P2 and
      P3"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/361>: "ABNF
      requirements for recipients"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/364>: "Capturing
      more information in the method registry"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/368>: "note
      introduction of new IANA registries as normative changes"

Index

   1
      1xx Informational (status code class)  25

   2
      2xx Successful (status code class)  26

   3
      3xx Redirection (status code class)  28

   4



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013              [Page 101]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


      4xx Client Error (status code class)  32

   5
      5xx Server Error (status code class)  36

   1
      100 Continue (status code)  25
      100-continue (expect value)  62
      101 Switching Protocols (status code)  25

   2
      200 OK (status code)  26
      201 Created (status code)  26
      202 Accepted (status code)  27
      203 Non-Authoritative Information (status code)  27
      204 No Content (status code)  27
      205 Reset Content (status code)  28

   3
      300 Multiple Choices (status code)  29
      301 Moved Permanently (status code)  30
      302 Found (status code)  30
      303 See Other (status code)  31
      305 Use Proxy (status code)  31
      306 (Unused) (status code)  31
      307 Temporary Redirect (status code)  32

   4
      400 Bad Request (status code)  32
      402 Payment Required (status code)  32
      403 Forbidden (status code)  32
      404 Not Found (status code)  33
      405 Method Not Allowed (status code)  33
      406 Not Acceptable (status code)  33
      408 Request Timeout (status code)  33
      409 Conflict (status code)  34
      410 Gone (status code)  34
      411 Length Required (status code)  34
      413 Request Representation Too Large (status code)  35
      414 URI Too Long (status code)  35
      415 Unsupported Media Type (status code)  35
      417 Expectation Failed (status code)  35
      426 Upgrade Required (status code)  35

   5
      500 Internal Server Error (status code)  36
      501 Not Implemented (status code)  36
      502 Bad Gateway (status code)  36



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013              [Page 102]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


      503 Service Unavailable (status code)  36
      504 Gateway Timeout (status code)  37
      505 HTTP Version Not Supported (status code)  37

   A
      Accept header field  52
      Accept-Charset header field  54
      Accept-Encoding header field  55
      Accept-Language header field  56
      Allow header field  57

   C
      Coding Format
         compress  42
         deflate  42
         gzip  42
      compress (Coding Format)  42
      CONNECT method  17
      content negotiation  7
      Content-Encoding header field  57
      Content-Language header field  58
      Content-Location header field  59
      Content-Transfer-Encoding header field  79
      Content-Type header field  61

   D
      Date header field  61
      deflate (Coding Format)  42
      DELETE method  16

   E
      Expect header field  62
      Expect Values
         100-continue  62

   F
      From header field  63

   G
      GET method  12
      Grammar
         Accept  52
         Accept-Charset  54
         Accept-Encoding  55
         accept-ext  52
         Accept-Language  56
         accept-params  52
         Allow  57



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013              [Page 103]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


         asctime-date  40
         attribute  43
         charset  41
         codings  55
         content-coding  41
         Content-Encoding  57
         Content-Language  58
         Content-Location  59
         Content-Type  61
         Date  61
         date1  39
         day  39
         day-name  39
         day-name-l  39
         delta-seconds  66
         Expect  62
         expect-name  62
         expect-param  62
         expect-value  62
         expectation  62
         From  63
         GMT  39
         hour  39
         HTTP-date  38
         language-range  56
         language-tag  44
         Location  64
         Max-Forwards  65
         media-range  52
         media-type  42
         method  8
         MIME-Version  78
         minute  39
         month  39
         obs-date  39
         parameter  43
         product  40
         product-version  40
         Referer  65
         Retry-After  66
         rfc850-date  40
         rfc1123-date  39
         second  39
         Server  66
         subtype  42
         time-of-day  39
         type  42
         User-Agent  67



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013              [Page 104]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


         value  43
         year  39
      gzip (Coding Format)  42

   H
      HEAD method  12
      Header Fields
         Accept  52
         Accept-Charset  54
         Accept-Encoding  55
         Accept-Language  56
         Allow  57
         Content-Encoding  57
         Content-Language  58
         Content-Location  59
         Content-Transfer-Encoding  79
         Content-Type  61
         Date  61
         Expect  62
         From  63
         Location  63
         Max-Forwards  65
         MIME-Version  78
         Referer  65
         Retry-After  66
         Server  66
         User-Agent  67

   I
      Idempotent Methods  9

   L
      Location header field  63

   M
      Max-Forwards header field  65
      Methods
         CONNECT  17
         DELETE  16
         GET  12
         HEAD  12
         OPTIONS  11
         POST  13
         PUT  14
         TRACE  16
      MIME-Version header field  78

   O



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013              [Page 105]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


      OPTIONS method  11

   P
      payload  45
      POST method  13
      PUT method  14

   R
      Referer header field  65
      representation  45
      Retry-After header field  66

   S
      Safe Methods  9
      selected representation  47
      Server header field  66
      Status Codes
         100 Continue  25
         101 Switching Protocols  25
         200 OK  26
         201 Created  26
         202 Accepted  27
         203 Non-Authoritative Information  27
         204 No Content  27
         205 Reset Content  28
         300 Multiple Choices  29
         301 Moved Permanently  30
         302 Found  30
         303 See Other  31
         305 Use Proxy  31
         306 (Unused)  31
         307 Temporary Redirect  32
         400 Bad Request  32
         402 Payment Required  32
         403 Forbidden  32
         404 Not Found  33
         405 Method Not Allowed  33
         406 Not Acceptable  33
         408 Request Timeout  33
         409 Conflict  34
         410 Gone  34
         411 Length Required  34
         413 Request Representation Too Large  35
         414 URI Too Long  35
         415 Unsupported Media Type  35
         417 Expectation Failed  35
         426 Upgrade Required  35
         500 Internal Server Error  36



Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013              [Page 106]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


         501 Not Implemented  36
         502 Bad Gateway  36
         503 Service Unavailable  36
         504 Gateway Timeout  37
         505 HTTP Version Not Supported  37
      Status Codes Classes
         1xx Informational  25
         2xx Successful  26
         3xx Redirection  28
         4xx Client Error  32
         5xx Server Error  36

   T
      TRACE method  16

   U
      User-Agent header field  67

Authors' Addresses

   Roy T. Fielding (editor)
   Adobe Systems Incorporated
   345 Park Ave
   San Jose, CA  95110
   USA

   EMail: fielding@gbiv.com
   URI:   http://roy.gbiv.com/


   Yves Lafon (editor)
   World Wide Web Consortium
   W3C / ERCIM
   2004, rte des Lucioles
   Sophia-Antipolis, AM  06902
   France

   EMail: ylafon@w3.org
   URI:   http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/












Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013              [Page 107]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 2                   July 2012


   Julian F. Reschke (editor)
   greenbytes GmbH
   Hafenweg 16
   Muenster, NW  48155
   Germany

   EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
   URI:   http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/











































Fielding, et al.        Expires January 17, 2013              [Page 108]