source: draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.html @ 104

Last change on this file since 104 was 104, checked in by julian.reschke@…, 12 years ago

Note changes for #16 in Changes section.

  • Property svn:eol-style set to native
  • Property svn:mime-type set to text/html;charset=utf-8
File size: 242.7 KB
Line 
1<!DOCTYPE html
2  PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
3<html lang="en">
4   <head profile="http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard">
5      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
6      <title>HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</title><style type="text/css" title="Xml2Rfc (sans serif)">
7a {
8  text-decoration: none;
9}
10a.smpl {
11  color: black;
12}
13a:hover {
14  text-decoration: underline;
15}
16a:active {
17  text-decoration: underline;
18}
19address {
20  margin-top: 1em;
21  margin-left: 2em;
22  font-style: normal;
23}
24body {
25  color: black;
26  font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
27  font-size: 10pt;
28}
29cite {
30  font-style: normal;
31}
32dd {
33  margin-right: 2em;
34}
35dl {
36  margin-left: 2em;
37}
38
39dl.empty dd {
40  margin-top: .5em;
41}
42dl p {
43  margin-left: 0em;
44}
45dt {
46  margin-top: .5em;
47}
48h1 {
49  font-size: 14pt;
50  line-height: 21pt;
51  page-break-after: avoid;
52}
53h1.np {
54  page-break-before: always;
55}
56h1 a {
57  color: #333333;
58}
59h2 {
60  font-size: 12pt;
61  line-height: 15pt;
62  page-break-after: avoid;
63}
64h2 a {
65  color: black;
66}
67h3 {
68  font-size: 10pt;
69  page-break-after: avoid;
70}
71h3 a {
72  color: black;
73}
74h4 {
75  font-size: 10pt;
76  page-break-after: avoid;
77}
78h4 a {
79  color: black;
80}
81h5 {
82  font-size: 10pt;
83  page-break-after: avoid;
84}
85h5 a {
86  color: black;
87}
88img {
89  margin-left: 3em;
90}
91li {
92  margin-left: 2em;
93  margin-right: 2em;
94}
95ol {
96  margin-left: 2em;
97  margin-right: 2em;
98}
99ol p {
100  margin-left: 0em;
101}
102p {
103  margin-left: 2em;
104  margin-right: 2em;
105}
106pre {
107  margin-left: 3em;
108  background-color: lightyellow;
109  padding: .25em;
110}
111pre.text2 {
112  border-style: dotted;
113  border-width: 1px;
114  background-color: #f0f0f0;
115  width: 69em;
116}
117pre.inline {
118  background-color: white;
119  padding: 0em;
120}
121pre.text {
122  border-style: dotted;
123  border-width: 1px;
124  background-color: #f8f8f8;
125  width: 69em;
126}
127pre.drawing {
128  border-style: solid;
129  border-width: 1px;
130  background-color: #f8f8f8;
131  padding: 2em;
132}
133table {
134  margin-left: 2em;
135}
136table.header {
137  width: 95%;
138  font-size: 10pt;
139  color: white;
140}
141td.top {
142  vertical-align: top;
143}
144td.topnowrap {
145  vertical-align: top;
146  white-space: nowrap; 
147}
148td.header {
149  background-color: gray;
150  width: 50%;
151}
152td.reference {
153  vertical-align: top;
154  white-space: nowrap;
155  padding-right: 1em;
156}
157thead {
158  display:table-header-group;
159}
160ul.toc {
161  list-style: none;
162  margin-left: 1.5em;
163  margin-right: 0em;
164  padding-left: 0em;
165}
166li.tocline0 {
167  line-height: 150%;
168  font-weight: bold;
169  font-size: 10pt;
170  margin-left: 0em;
171  margin-right: 0em;
172}
173li.tocline1 {
174  line-height: normal;
175  font-weight: normal;
176  font-size: 9pt;
177  margin-left: 0em;
178  margin-right: 0em;
179}
180li.tocline2 {
181  font-size: 0pt;
182}
183ul p {
184  margin-left: 0em;
185}
186ul.ind {
187  list-style: none;
188  margin-left: 1.5em;
189  margin-right: 0em;
190  padding-left: 0em;
191}
192li.indline0 {
193  font-weight: bold;
194  line-height: 200%;
195  margin-left: 0em;
196  margin-right: 0em;
197}
198li.indline1 {
199  font-weight: normal;
200  line-height: 150%;
201  margin-left: 0em;
202  margin-right: 0em;
203}
204.bcp14 {
205  font-style: normal;
206  text-transform: lowercase;
207  font-variant: small-caps;
208}
209.comment {
210  background-color: yellow;
211}
212.center {
213  text-align: center;
214}
215.error {
216  color: red;
217  font-style: italic;
218  font-weight: bold;
219}
220.figure {
221  font-weight: bold;
222  text-align: center;
223  font-size: 9pt;
224}
225.filename {
226  color: #333333;
227  font-weight: bold;
228  font-size: 12pt;
229  line-height: 21pt;
230  text-align: center;
231}
232.fn {
233  font-weight: bold;
234}
235.hidden {
236  display: none;
237}
238.left {
239  text-align: left;
240}
241.right {
242  text-align: right;
243}
244.title {
245  color: #990000;
246  font-size: 18pt;
247  line-height: 18pt;
248  font-weight: bold;
249  text-align: center;
250  margin-top: 36pt;
251}
252.vcardline {
253  display: block;
254}
255.warning {
256  font-size: 14pt;
257  background-color: yellow;
258}
259
260
261@media print {
262  .noprint {
263    display: none;
264  }
265 
266  a {
267    color: black;
268    text-decoration: none;
269  }
270
271  table.header {
272    width: 90%;
273  }
274
275  td.header {
276    width: 50%;
277    color: black;
278    background-color: white;
279    vertical-align: top;
280    font-size: 12pt;
281  }
282
283  ul.toc a::after {
284    content: leader('.') target-counter(attr(href), page);
285  }
286 
287  a.iref {
288    content: target-counter(attr(href), page);
289  }
290 
291  .print2col {
292    column-count: 2;
293    -moz-column-count: 2;
294    column-fill: auto;
295  }
296}
297
298@page {
299  @top-left {
300       content: "INTERNET DRAFT"; 
301  } 
302  @top-right {
303       content: "December 2007"; 
304  } 
305  @top-center {
306       content: "HTTP/1.1"; 
307  } 
308  @bottom-left {
309       content: "Fielding, et al."; 
310  } 
311  @bottom-center {
312       content: "Standards Track"; 
313  } 
314  @bottom-right {
315       content: "[Page " counter(page) "]"; 
316  } 
317}
318
319@page:first { 
320    @top-left {
321      content: normal;
322    }
323    @top-right {
324      content: normal;
325    }
326    @top-center {
327      content: normal;
328    }
329}
330</style><link rel="Contents" href="#rfc.toc">
331      <link rel="Author" href="#rfc.authors">
332      <link rel="Copyright" href="#rfc.copyright">
333      <link rel="Index" href="#rfc.index">
334      <link rel="Chapter" title="1 Introduction" href="#rfc.section.1">
335      <link rel="Chapter" title="2 Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar" href="#rfc.section.2">
336      <link rel="Chapter" title="3 Protocol Parameters" href="#rfc.section.3">
337      <link rel="Chapter" title="4 HTTP Message" href="#rfc.section.4">
338      <link rel="Chapter" title="5 Request" href="#rfc.section.5">
339      <link rel="Chapter" title="6 Response" href="#rfc.section.6">
340      <link rel="Chapter" title="7 Connections" href="#rfc.section.7">
341      <link rel="Chapter" title="8 Header Field Definitions" href="#rfc.section.8">
342      <link rel="Chapter" title="9 IANA Considerations" href="#rfc.section.9">
343      <link rel="Chapter" title="10 Security Considerations" href="#rfc.section.10">
344      <link rel="Chapter" title="11 Acknowledgments" href="#rfc.section.11">
345      <link rel="Chapter" href="#rfc.section.12" title="12 References">
346      <link rel="Appendix" title="A Internet Media Type message/http and application/http" href="#rfc.section.A">
347      <link rel="Appendix" title="B Tolerant Applications" href="#rfc.section.B">
348      <link rel="Appendix" title="C Conversion of Date Formats" href="#rfc.section.C">
349      <link rel="Appendix" title="D Compatibility with Previous Versions" href="#rfc.section.D">
350      <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.353, 2007/12/11 23:20:44, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
351      <link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
352      <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Fielding, R.">
353      <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Gettys, J.">
354      <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Mogul, J.">
355      <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Frystyk, H.">
356      <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Masinter, L.">
357      <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Leach, P.">
358      <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Berners-Lee, T.">
359      <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Lafon, Y.">
360      <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
361      <meta name="DC.Identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest">
362      <meta name="DC.Date.Issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2007-12">
363      <meta name="DC.Relation.Replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2068">
364      <meta name="DC.Relation.Replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
365      <meta name="DC.Description.Abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 1 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as &#34;HTTP/1.1&#34; and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 1 provides an overview of HTTP and its associated terminology, defines the &#34;http&#34; and &#34;https&#34; Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes, defines the generic message syntax and parsing requirements for HTTP message frames, and describes general security concerns for implementations.">
366   </head>
367   <body>
368      <table summary="header information" class="header" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1">
369         <tr>
370            <td class="header left">Network Working Group</td>
371            <td class="header right">R. Fielding, Editor</td>
372         </tr>
373         <tr>
374            <td class="header left">Internet Draft</td>
375            <td class="header right">Day Software</td>
376         </tr>
377         <tr>
378            <td class="header left">
379               &lt;draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest&gt;
380               
381            </td>
382            <td class="header right">J. Gettys</td>
383         </tr>
384         <tr>
385            <td class="header left">Obsoletes: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068">2068</a>,
386               <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
387            </td>
388            <td class="header right">One Laptop per Child</td>
389         </tr>
390         <tr>
391            <td class="header left">Intended status: Standards Track</td>
392            <td class="header right">J. Mogul</td>
393         </tr>
394         <tr>
395            <td class="header left">Expires: June 2008</td>
396            <td class="header right">HP</td>
397         </tr>
398         <tr>
399            <td class="header left"></td>
400            <td class="header right">H. Frystyk</td>
401         </tr>
402         <tr>
403            <td class="header left"></td>
404            <td class="header right">Microsoft</td>
405         </tr>
406         <tr>
407            <td class="header left"></td>
408            <td class="header right">L. Masinter</td>
409         </tr>
410         <tr>
411            <td class="header left"></td>
412            <td class="header right">Adobe Systems</td>
413         </tr>
414         <tr>
415            <td class="header left"></td>
416            <td class="header right">P. Leach</td>
417         </tr>
418         <tr>
419            <td class="header left"></td>
420            <td class="header right">Microsoft</td>
421         </tr>
422         <tr>
423            <td class="header left"></td>
424            <td class="header right">T. Berners-Lee</td>
425         </tr>
426         <tr>
427            <td class="header left"></td>
428            <td class="header right">W3C/MIT</td>
429         </tr>
430         <tr>
431            <td class="header left"></td>
432            <td class="header right">Y. Lafon, Editor</td>
433         </tr>
434         <tr>
435            <td class="header left"></td>
436            <td class="header right">W3C</td>
437         </tr>
438         <tr>
439            <td class="header left"></td>
440            <td class="header right">J. F. Reschke, Editor</td>
441         </tr>
442         <tr>
443            <td class="header left"></td>
444            <td class="header right">greenbytes</td>
445         </tr>
446         <tr>
447            <td class="header left"></td>
448            <td class="header right">December 2007</td>
449         </tr>
450      </table>
451      <p class="title">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing<br><span class="filename">draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest</span></p>
452      <h1><a id="rfc.status" href="#rfc.status">Status of this Memo</a></h1>
453      <p>By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she
454         is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section
455         6 of BCP 79.
456      </p>
457      <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note
458         that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
459      </p>
460      <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
461         documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work
462         in progress”.
463      </p>
464      <p>The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at &lt;<a href="http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt">http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt</a>&gt;.
465      </p>
466      <p>The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at &lt;<a href="http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a>&gt;.
467      </p>
468      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in June 2008.</p>
469      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
470      <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2007). All Rights Reserved.</p>
471      <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1> 
472      <p>The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
473         systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 1 of the
474         seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part
475         1 provides an overview of HTTP and its associated terminology, defines the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier
476         (URI) schemes, defines the generic message syntax and parsing requirements for HTTP message frames, and describes general
477         security concerns for implementations.
478      </p> 
479      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
480      <p>This version of the HTTP specification contains only minimal editorial changes from <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a> (abstract, introductory paragraph, and authors' addresses). All other changes are due to partitioning the original into seven
481         mostly independent parts. The intent is for readers of future drafts to able to use draft 00 as the basis for comparison when
482         the WG makes later changes to the specification text. This draft will shortly be followed by draft 01 (containing the first
483         round of changes that have already been agreed to on the mailing list). There is no point in reviewing this draft other than
484         to verify that the partitioning has been done correctly. Roy T. Fielding, Yves Lafon, and Julian Reschke will be the editors
485         after draft 00 is submitted.
486      </p> 
487      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues
488         list is at &lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11</a>&gt; and related documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at &lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/</a>&gt;.
489      </p> 
490      <hr class="noprint">
491      <h1 class="np" id="rfc.toc"><a href="#rfc.toc">Table of Contents</a></h1>
492      <ul class="toc">
493         <li class="tocline0">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul class="toc">
494               <li class="tocline1">1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.purpose">Purpose</a></li>
495               <li class="tocline1">1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></li>
496               <li class="tocline1">1.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.terminology">Terminology</a></li>
497               <li class="tocline1">1.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.overall.operation">Overall Operation</a></li>
498            </ul>
499         </li>
500         <li class="tocline0">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a><ul class="toc">
501               <li class="tocline1">2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#notation.abnf">Augmented BNF</a></li>
502               <li class="tocline1">2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#basic.rules">Basic Rules</a></li>
503            </ul>
504         </li>
505         <li class="tocline0">3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#protocol.parameters">Protocol Parameters</a><ul class="toc">
506               <li class="tocline1">3.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#http.version">HTTP Version</a></li>
507               <li class="tocline1">3.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#uri">Uniform Resource Identifiers</a><ul class="toc">
508                     <li class="tocline1">3.2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#general.syntax">General Syntax</a></li>
509                     <li class="tocline1">3.2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#http.url">http URL</a></li>
510                     <li class="tocline1">3.2.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#uri.comparison">URI Comparison</a></li>
511                  </ul>
512               </li>
513               <li class="tocline1">3.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#date.time.formats">Date/Time Formats</a><ul class="toc">
514                     <li class="tocline1">3.3.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#full.date">Full Date</a></li>
515                  </ul>
516               </li>
517               <li class="tocline1">3.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#transfer.codings">Transfer Codings</a><ul class="toc">
518                     <li class="tocline1">3.4.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#chunked.transfer.encoding">Chunked Transfer Coding</a></li>
519                  </ul>
520               </li>
521            </ul>
522         </li>
523         <li class="tocline0">4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#http.message">HTTP Message</a><ul class="toc">
524               <li class="tocline1">4.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#message.types">Message Types</a></li>
525               <li class="tocline1">4.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#message.headers">Message Headers</a></li>
526               <li class="tocline1">4.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#message.body">Message Body</a></li>
527               <li class="tocline1">4.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#message.length">Message Length</a></li>
528               <li class="tocline1">4.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#general.header.fields">General Header Fields</a></li>
529            </ul>
530         </li>
531         <li class="tocline0">5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#request">Request</a><ul class="toc">
532               <li class="tocline1">5.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#request-line">Request-Line</a><ul class="toc">
533                     <li class="tocline1">5.1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#method">Method</a></li>
534                     <li class="tocline1">5.1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#request-uri">Request-URI</a></li>
535                  </ul>
536               </li>
537               <li class="tocline1">5.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#the.resource.identified.by.a.request">The Resource Identified by a Request</a></li>
538            </ul>
539         </li>
540         <li class="tocline0">6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#response">Response</a><ul class="toc">
541               <li class="tocline1">6.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status-line">Status-Line</a><ul class="toc">
542                     <li class="tocline1">6.1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.code.and.reason.phrase">Status Code and Reason Phrase</a></li>
543                  </ul>
544               </li>
545            </ul>
546         </li>
547         <li class="tocline0">7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#connections">Connections</a><ul class="toc">
548               <li class="tocline1">7.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#persistent.connections">Persistent Connections</a><ul class="toc">
549                     <li class="tocline1">7.1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#persistent.purpose">Purpose</a></li>
550                     <li class="tocline1">7.1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#persistent.overall">Overall Operation</a><ul class="toc">
551                           <li class="tocline1">7.1.2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#persistent.negotiation">Negotiation</a></li>
552                           <li class="tocline1">7.1.2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#pipelining">Pipelining</a></li>
553                        </ul>
554                     </li>
555                     <li class="tocline1">7.1.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#persistent.proxy">Proxy Servers</a></li>
556                     <li class="tocline1">7.1.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#persistent.practical">Practical Considerations</a></li>
557                  </ul>
558               </li>
559               <li class="tocline1">7.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#message.transmission.requirements">Message Transmission Requirements</a><ul class="toc">
560                     <li class="tocline1">7.2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#persistent.flow">Persistent Connections and Flow Control</a></li>
561                     <li class="tocline1">7.2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#persistent.monitor">Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages</a></li>
562                     <li class="tocline1">7.2.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#use.of.the.100.status">Use of the 100 (Continue) Status</a></li>
563                     <li class="tocline1">7.2.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#connection.premature">Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes Connection</a></li>
564                  </ul>
565               </li>
566            </ul>
567         </li>
568         <li class="tocline0">8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a><ul class="toc">
569               <li class="tocline1">8.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.connection">Connection</a></li>
570               <li class="tocline1">8.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-length">Content-Length</a></li>
571               <li class="tocline1">8.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.date">Date</a><ul class="toc">
572                     <li class="tocline1">8.3.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#clockless.origin.server.operation">Clockless Origin Server Operation</a></li>
573                  </ul>
574               </li>
575               <li class="tocline1">8.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.host">Host</a></li>
576               <li class="tocline1">8.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.te">TE</a></li>
577               <li class="tocline1">8.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.trailer">Trailer</a></li>
578               <li class="tocline1">8.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.transfer-encoding">Transfer-Encoding</a></li>
579               <li class="tocline1">8.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.upgrade">Upgrade</a></li>
580               <li class="tocline1">8.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.via">Via</a></li>
581            </ul>
582         </li>
583         <li class="tocline0">9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></li>
584         <li class="tocline0">10.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a><ul class="toc">
585               <li class="tocline1">10.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#personal.information">Personal Information</a></li>
586               <li class="tocline1">10.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#abuse.of.server.log.information">Abuse of Server Log Information</a></li>
587               <li class="tocline1">10.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#attack.pathname">Attacks Based On File and Path Names</a></li>
588               <li class="tocline1">10.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#dns.spoofing">DNS Spoofing</a></li>
589               <li class="tocline1">10.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#attack.proxies">Proxies and Caching</a></li>
590               <li class="tocline1">10.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#attack.DoS">Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies</a></li>
591            </ul>
592         </li>
593         <li class="tocline0">11.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></li>
594         <li class="tocline0">12.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references">References</a></li>
595         <li class="tocline0"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li>
596         <li class="tocline0">A.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#internet.media.type.http">Internet Media Type message/http and application/http</a></li>
597         <li class="tocline0">B.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#tolerant.applications">Tolerant Applications</a></li>
598         <li class="tocline0">C.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#conversion.of.date.formats">Conversion of Date Formats</a></li>
599         <li class="tocline0">D.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a><ul class="toc">
600               <li class="tocline1">D.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.1.0">Changes from HTTP/1.0</a><ul class="toc">
601                     <li class="tocline1">D.1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.to.simplify.multi-homed.web.servers.and.conserve.ip.addresses">Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and Conserve IP Addresses</a></li>
602                  </ul>
603               </li>
604               <li class="tocline1">D.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility.with.http.1.0.persistent.connections">Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections</a></li>
605               <li class="tocline1">D.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></li>
606               <li class="tocline1">D.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></li>
607            </ul>
608         </li>
609         <li class="tocline0"><a href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements</a></li>
610         <li class="tocline0"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></li>
611      </ul>
612      <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a id="introduction" href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1>
613      <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document will define aspects of HTTP related to overall network operation, message framing, interaction with transport
614         protocols, and URI schemes. Right now it only includes the extracted relevant sections of <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
615      </p>
616      <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="intro.purpose" href="#intro.purpose">Purpose</a></h2>
617      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.1">The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
618         systems. HTTP has been in use by the World-Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. The first version of HTTP, referred
619         to as HTTP/0.9, was a simple protocol for raw data transfer across the Internet. HTTP/1.0, as defined by <a href="#RFC1945" id="rfc.xref.RFC1945.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0">[RFC1945]</cite></a>, improved the protocol by allowing messages to be in the format of MIME-like messages, containing metainformation about the
620         data transferred and modifiers on the request/response semantics. However, HTTP/1.0 does not sufficiently take into consideration
621         the effects of hierarchical proxies, caching, the need for persistent connections, or virtual hosts. In addition, the proliferation
622         of incompletely-implemented applications calling themselves "HTTP/1.0" has necessitated a protocol version change in order
623         for two communicating applications to determine each other's true capabilities.
624      </p>
625      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2">This specification defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1". This protocol includes more stringent requirements than
626         HTTP/1.0 in order to ensure reliable implementation of its features.
627      </p>
628      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.3">Practical information systems require more functionality than simple retrieval, including search, front-end update, and annotation.
629         HTTP allows an open-ended set of methods and headers that indicate the purpose of a request <a href="#RFC2324" id="rfc.xref.RFC2324.1"><cite title="Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)">[RFC2324]</cite></a>. It builds on the discipline of reference provided by the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) <a href="#RFC1630" id="rfc.xref.RFC1630.1"><cite title="Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web">[RFC1630]</cite></a>, as a location (URL) <a href="#RFC1738" id="rfc.xref.RFC1738.1"><cite title="Uniform Resource Locators (URL)">[RFC1738]</cite></a> or name (URN) <a href="#RFC1737" id="rfc.xref.RFC1737.1"><cite title="Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names">[RFC1737]</cite></a>, for indicating the resource to which a method is to be applied. Messages are passed in a format similar to that used by
630         Internet mail <a href="#RFC822" id="rfc.xref.RFC822.1"><cite title="Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages">[RFC822]</cite></a> as defined by the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) <a href="#RFC2045" id="rfc.xref.RFC2045.1"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies">[RFC2045]</cite></a>.
631      </p>
632      <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.4">HTTP is also used as a generic protocol for communication between user agents and proxies/gateways to other Internet systems,
633         including those supported by the SMTP <a href="#RFC821" id="rfc.xref.RFC821.1"><cite title="Simple Mail Transfer Protocol">[RFC821]</cite></a>, NNTP <a href="#RFC3977" id="rfc.xref.RFC3977.1"><cite title="Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)">[RFC3977]</cite></a>, FTP <a href="#RFC959" id="rfc.xref.RFC959.1"><cite title="File Transfer Protocol">[RFC959]</cite></a>, Gopher <a href="#RFC1436" id="rfc.xref.RFC1436.1"><cite title="The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)">[RFC1436]</cite></a>, and WAIS <a href="#WAIS" id="rfc.xref.WAIS.1"><cite title="WAIS Interface Protocol Prototype Functional Specification (v1.5)">[WAIS]</cite></a> protocols. In this way, HTTP allows basic hypermedia access to resources available from diverse applications.
634      </p>
635      <h2 id="rfc.section.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.1.2">1.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="intro.requirements" href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></h2>
636      <p id="rfc.section.1.2.p.1">The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
637         in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119" id="rfc.xref.RFC2119.1"><cite title="Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels">[RFC2119]</cite></a>.
638      </p>
639      <p id="rfc.section.1.2.p.2">An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level and all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> level requirements but not all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
640      </p>
641      <h2 id="rfc.section.1.3"><a href="#rfc.section.1.3">1.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="intro.terminology" href="#intro.terminology">Terminology</a></h2>
642      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.1">This specification uses a number of terms to refer to the roles played by participants in, and objects of, the HTTP communication.</p>
643      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.2"> <span id="rfc.iref.c.1"></span>  <dfn>connection</dfn> 
644      </p>
645      <dl class="empty">
646         <dd>A transport layer virtual circuit established between two programs for the purpose of communication.</dd>
647      </dl>
648      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.3"> <span id="rfc.iref.m.1"></span>  <dfn>message</dfn> 
649      </p>
650      <dl class="empty">
651         <dd>The basic unit of HTTP communication, consisting of a structured sequence of octets matching the syntax defined in <a href="#http.message" title="HTTP Message">Section&nbsp;4</a> and transmitted via the connection.
652         </dd>
653      </dl>
654      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.4"> <span id="rfc.iref.r.1"></span>  <dfn>request</dfn> 
655      </p>
656      <dl class="empty">
657         <dd>An HTTP request message, as defined in <a href="#request" title="Request">Section&nbsp;5</a>.
658         </dd>
659      </dl>
660      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.5"> <span id="rfc.iref.r.2"></span>  <dfn>response</dfn> 
661      </p>
662      <dl class="empty">
663         <dd>An HTTP response message, as defined in <a href="#response" title="Response">Section&nbsp;6</a>.
664         </dd>
665      </dl>
666      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.6"> <span id="rfc.iref.r.3"></span>  <dfn>resource</dfn> 
667      </p>
668      <dl class="empty">
669         <dd>A network data object or service that can be identified by a URI, as defined in <a href="#uri" title="Uniform Resource Identifiers">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>. Resources may be available in multiple representations (e.g. multiple languages, data formats, size, and resolutions) or
670            vary in other ways.
671         </dd>
672      </dl>
673      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.7"> <span id="rfc.iref.e.1"></span>  <dfn>entity</dfn> 
674      </p>
675      <dl class="empty">
676         <dd>The information transferred as the payload of a request or response. An entity consists of metainformation in the form of
677            entity-header fields and content in the form of an entity-body, as described in <a href="p3-payload.html#entity" title="Entity">Section 3</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>.
678         </dd>
679      </dl>
680      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.8"> <span id="rfc.iref.r.4"></span>  <dfn>representation</dfn> 
681      </p>
682      <dl class="empty">
683         <dd>An entity included with a response that is subject to content negotiation, as described in <a href="p3-payload.html#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section 4</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>. There may exist multiple representations associated with a particular response status.
684         </dd>
685      </dl>
686      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.9"> <span id="rfc.iref.c.2"></span>  <dfn>content negotiation</dfn> 
687      </p>
688      <dl class="empty">
689         <dd>The mechanism for selecting the appropriate representation when servicing a request, as described in <a href="p3-payload.html#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section 4</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>. The representation of entities in any response can be negotiated (including error responses).
690         </dd>
691      </dl>
692      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.10"> <span id="rfc.iref.v.1"></span>  <dfn>variant</dfn> 
693      </p>
694      <dl class="empty">
695         <dd>A resource may have one, or more than one, representation(s) associated with it at any given instant. Each of these representations
696            is termed a `variant'. Use of the term `variant' does not necessarily imply that the resource is subject to content negotiation.
697         </dd>
698      </dl>
699      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.11"> <span id="rfc.iref.c.3"></span>  <dfn>client</dfn> 
700      </p>
701      <dl class="empty">
702         <dd>A program that establishes connections for the purpose of sending requests.</dd>
703      </dl>
704      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.12"> <span id="rfc.iref.u.1"></span>  <dfn>user agent</dfn> 
705      </p>
706      <dl class="empty">
707         <dd>The client which initiates a request. These are often browsers, editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end user
708            tools.
709         </dd>
710      </dl>
711      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.13"> <span id="rfc.iref.s.1"></span>  <dfn>server</dfn> 
712      </p>
713      <dl class="empty">
714         <dd>An application program that accepts connections in order to service requests by sending back responses. Any given program
715            may be capable of being both a client and a server; our use of these terms refers only to the role being performed by the
716            program for a particular connection, rather than to the program's capabilities in general. Likewise, any server may act as
717            an origin server, proxy, gateway, or tunnel, switching behavior based on the nature of each request.
718         </dd>
719      </dl>
720      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.14"> <span id="rfc.iref.o.1"></span>  <dfn>origin server</dfn> 
721      </p>
722      <dl class="empty">
723         <dd>The server on which a given resource resides or is to be created.</dd>
724      </dl>
725      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.15"> <span id="rfc.iref.p.1"></span>  <dfn>proxy</dfn> 
726      </p>
727      <dl class="empty">
728         <dd>An intermediary program which acts as both a server and a client for the purpose of making requests on behalf of other clients.
729            Requests are serviced internally or by passing them on, with possible translation, to other servers. A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> implement both the client and server requirements of this specification. A "transparent proxy" is a proxy that does not modify
730            the request or response beyond what is required for proxy authentication and identification. A "non-transparent proxy" is
731            a proxy that modifies the request or response in order to provide some added service to the user agent, such as group annotation
732            services, media type transformation, protocol reduction, or anonymity filtering. Except where either transparent or non-transparent
733            behavior is explicitly stated, the HTTP proxy requirements apply to both types of proxies.
734         </dd>
735      </dl>
736      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.16"> <span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span>  <dfn>gateway</dfn> 
737      </p>
738      <dl class="empty">
739         <dd>A server which acts as an intermediary for some other server. Unlike a proxy, a gateway receives requests as if it were the
740            origin server for the requested resource; the requesting client may not be aware that it is communicating with a gateway.
741         </dd>
742      </dl>
743      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.17"> <span id="rfc.iref.t.1"></span>  <dfn>tunnel</dfn> 
744      </p>
745      <dl class="empty">
746         <dd>An intermediary program which is acting as a blind relay between two connections. Once active, a tunnel is not considered
747            a party to the HTTP communication, though the tunnel may have been initiated by an HTTP request. The tunnel ceases to exist
748            when both ends of the relayed connections are closed.
749         </dd>
750      </dl>
751      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.18"> <span id="rfc.iref.c.4"></span>  <dfn>cache</dfn> 
752      </p>
753      <dl class="empty">
754         <dd>A program's local store of response messages and the subsystem that controls its message storage, retrieval, and deletion.
755            A cache stores cacheable responses in order to reduce the response time and network bandwidth consumption on future, equivalent
756            requests. Any client or server may include a cache, though a cache cannot be used by a server that is acting as a tunnel.
757         </dd>
758      </dl>
759      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.19"> <span id="rfc.iref.c.5"></span>  <dfn>cacheable</dfn> 
760      </p>
761      <dl class="empty">
762         <dd>A response is cacheable if a cache is allowed to store a copy of the response message for use in answering subsequent requests.
763            The rules for determining the cacheability of HTTP responses are defined in <a href="p6-cache.html#caching" title="Caching in HTTP">Section 2</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>. Even if a resource is cacheable, there may be additional constraints on whether a cache can use the cached copy for a particular
764            request.
765         </dd>
766      </dl>
767      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.20"> <span id="rfc.iref.u.2"></span>  <span id="rfc.iref.d.1"></span>  <dfn>upstream</dfn>/<dfn>downstream</dfn> 
768      </p>
769      <dl class="empty">
770         <dd>Upstream and downstream describe the flow of a message: all messages flow from upstream to downstream.</dd>
771      </dl>
772      <p id="rfc.section.1.3.p.21"> <span id="rfc.iref.i.1"></span>  <span id="rfc.iref.o.2"></span>  <dfn>inbound</dfn>/<dfn>outbound</dfn> 
773      </p>
774      <dl class="empty">
775         <dd>Inbound and outbound refer to the request and response paths for messages: "inbound" means "traveling toward the origin server",
776            and "outbound" means "traveling toward the user agent"
777         </dd>
778      </dl>
779      <h2 id="rfc.section.1.4"><a href="#rfc.section.1.4">1.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="intro.overall.operation" href="#intro.overall.operation">Overall Operation</a></h2>
780      <p id="rfc.section.1.4.p.1">The HTTP protocol is a request/response protocol. A client sends a request to the server in the form of a request method,
781         URI, and protocol version, followed by a MIME-like message containing request modifiers, client information, and possible
782         body content over a connection with a server. The server responds with a status line, including the message's protocol version
783         and a success or error code, followed by a MIME-like message containing server information, entity metainformation, and possible
784         entity-body content. The relationship between HTTP and MIME is described in <a href="p3-payload.html#differences.between.http.entities.and.rfc.2045.entities" title="Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities">Appendix A</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>.
785      </p>
786      <p id="rfc.section.1.4.p.2">Most HTTP communication is initiated by a user agent and consists of a request to be applied to a resource on some origin
787         server. In the simplest case, this may be accomplished via a single connection (v) between the user agent (UA) and the origin
788         server (O).
789      </p>
790      <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="drawing">       request chain ------------------------&gt;
791    UA -------------------v------------------- O
792       &lt;----------------------- response chain
793</pre><p id="rfc.section.1.4.p.4">A more complicated situation occurs when one or more intermediaries are present in the request/response chain. There are three
794         common forms of intermediary: proxy, gateway, and tunnel. A proxy is a forwarding agent, receiving requests for a URI in its
795         absolute form, rewriting all or part of the message, and forwarding the reformatted request toward the server identified by
796         the URI. A gateway is a receiving agent, acting as a layer above some other server(s) and, if necessary, translating the requests
797         to the underlying server's protocol. A tunnel acts as a relay point between two connections without changing the messages;
798         tunnels are used when the communication needs to pass through an intermediary (such as a firewall) even when the intermediary
799         cannot understand the contents of the messages.
800      </p>
801      <div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="drawing">       request chain --------------------------------------&gt;
802    UA -----v----- A -----v----- B -----v----- C -----v----- O
803       &lt;------------------------------------- response chain
804</pre><p id="rfc.section.1.4.p.6">The figure above shows three intermediaries (A, B, and C) between the user agent and origin server. A request or response
805         message that travels the whole chain will pass through four separate connections. This distinction is important because some
806         HTTP communication options may apply only to the connection with the nearest, non-tunnel neighbor, only to the end-points
807         of the chain, or to all connections along the chain. Although the diagram is linear, each participant may be engaged in multiple,
808         simultaneous communications. For example, B may be receiving requests from many clients other than A, and/or forwarding requests
809         to servers other than C, at the same time that it is handling A's request.
810      </p>
811      <p id="rfc.section.1.4.p.7">Any party to the communication which is not acting as a tunnel may employ an internal cache for handling requests. The effect
812         of a cache is that the request/response chain is shortened if one of the participants along the chain has a cached response
813         applicable to that request. The following illustrates the resulting chain if B has a cached copy of an earlier response from
814         O (via C) for a request which has not been cached by UA or A.
815      </p>
816      <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="drawing">          request chain ----------&gt;
817       UA -----v----- A -----v----- B - - - - - - C - - - - - - O
818          &lt;--------- response chain
819</pre><p id="rfc.section.1.4.p.9">Not all responses are usefully cacheable, and some requests may contain modifiers which place special requirements on cache
820         behavior. HTTP requirements for cache behavior and cacheable responses are defined in <a href="p6-cache.html#caching" title="Caching in HTTP">Section 2</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>.
821      </p>
822      <p id="rfc.section.1.4.p.10">In fact, there are a wide variety of architectures and configurations of caches and proxies currently being experimented with
823         or deployed across the World Wide Web. These systems include national hierarchies of proxy caches to save transoceanic bandwidth,
824         systems that broadcast or multicast cache entries, organizations that distribute subsets of cached data via CD-ROM, and so
825         on. HTTP systems are used in corporate intranets over high-bandwidth links, and for access via PDAs with low-power radio links
826         and intermittent connectivity. The goal of HTTP/1.1 is to support the wide diversity of configurations already deployed while
827         introducing protocol constructs that meet the needs of those who build web applications that require high reliability and,
828         failing that, at least reliable indications of failure.
829      </p>
830      <p id="rfc.section.1.4.p.11">HTTP communication usually takes place over TCP/IP connections. The default port is TCP 80 (&lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers">http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers</a>&gt;), but other ports can be used. This does not preclude HTTP from being implemented on top of any other protocol on the Internet,
831         or on other networks. HTTP only presumes a reliable transport; any protocol that provides such guarantees can be used; the
832         mapping of the HTTP/1.1 request and response structures onto the transport data units of the protocol in question is outside
833         the scope of this specification.
834      </p>
835      <p id="rfc.section.1.4.p.12">In HTTP/1.0, most implementations used a new connection for each request/response exchange. In HTTP/1.1, a connection may
836         be used for one or more request/response exchanges, although connections may be closed for a variety of reasons (see <a href="#persistent.connections" title="Persistent Connections">Section&nbsp;7.1</a>).
837      </p>
838      <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a id="notation" href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></h1>
839      <h2 id="rfc.section.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.1">2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="notation.abnf" href="#notation.abnf">Augmented BNF</a></h2>
840      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.1">All of the mechanisms specified in this document are described in both prose and an augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) similar
841         to that used by <a href="#RFC822" id="rfc.xref.RFC822.2"><cite title="Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages">[RFC822]</cite></a>. Implementors will need to be familiar with the notation in order to understand this specification. The augmented BNF includes
842         the following constructs:
843      </p>
844      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.2">name = definition </p>
845      <dl class="empty">
846         <dd>The name of a rule is simply the name itself (without any enclosing "&lt;" and "&gt;") and is separated from its definition by the
847            equal "=" character. White space is only significant in that indentation of continuation lines is used to indicate a rule
848            definition that spans more than one line. Certain basic rules are in uppercase, such as SP, LWS, HT, CRLF, DIGIT, ALPHA, etc.
849            Angle brackets are used within definitions whenever their presence will facilitate discerning the use of rule names.
850         </dd>
851      </dl>
852      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.3">"literal" </p>
853      <dl class="empty">
854         <dd>Quotation marks surround literal text. Unless stated otherwise, the text is case-insensitive.</dd>
855      </dl>
856      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.4">rule1 | rule2 </p>
857      <dl class="empty">
858         <dd>Elements separated by a bar ("|") are alternatives, e.g., "yes | no" will accept yes or no.</dd>
859      </dl>
860      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.5">(rule1 rule2) </p>
861      <dl class="empty">
862         <dd>Elements enclosed in parentheses are treated as a single element. Thus, "(elem (foo | bar) elem)" allows the token sequences
863            "elem foo elem" and "elem bar elem".
864         </dd>
865      </dl>
866      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.6">*rule </p>
867      <dl class="empty">
868         <dd>The character "*" preceding an element indicates repetition. The full form is "&lt;n&gt;*&lt;m&gt;element" indicating at least &lt;n&gt; and
869            at most &lt;m&gt; occurrences of element. Default values are 0 and infinity so that "*(element)" allows any number, including zero;
870            "1*element" requires at least one; and "1*2element" allows one or two.
871         </dd>
872      </dl>
873      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.7">[rule] </p>
874      <dl class="empty">
875         <dd>Square brackets enclose optional elements; "[foo bar]" is equivalent to "*1(foo bar)".</dd>
876      </dl>
877      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.8">N rule </p>
878      <dl class="empty">
879         <dd>Specific repetition: "&lt;n&gt;(element)" is equivalent to "&lt;n&gt;*&lt;n&gt;(element)"; that is, exactly &lt;n&gt; occurrences of (element). Thus
880            2DIGIT is a 2-digit number, and 3ALPHA is a string of three alphabetic characters.
881         </dd>
882      </dl>
883      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.9">#rule </p>
884      <dl class="empty">
885         <dd>A construct "#" is defined, similar to "*", for defining lists of elements. The full form is "&lt;n&gt;#&lt;m&gt;element" indicating at
886            least &lt;n&gt; and at most &lt;m&gt; elements, each separated by one or more commas (",") and <em class="bcp14">OPTIONAL</em> linear white space (LWS). This makes the usual form of lists very easy; a rule such as
887         </dd>
888         <dd>( *LWS element *( *LWS "," *LWS element ))</dd>
889         <dd>can be shown as</dd>
890         <dd>1#element</dd>
891         <dd>Wherever this construct is used, null elements are allowed, but do not contribute to the count of elements present. That is,
892            "(element), , (element) " is permitted, but counts as only two elements. Therefore, where at least one element is required,
893            at least one non-null element <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be present. Default values are 0 and infinity so that "#element" allows any number, including zero; "1#element" requires at
894            least one; and "1#2element" allows one or two.
895         </dd>
896      </dl>
897      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.10">; comment </p>
898      <dl class="empty">
899         <dd>A semi-colon, set off some distance to the right of rule text, starts a comment that continues to the end of line. This is
900            a simple way of including useful notes in parallel with the specifications.
901         </dd>
902      </dl>
903      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.11">implied *LWS </p>
904      <dl class="empty">
905         <dd>The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included
906            between any two adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and between adjacent words and separators, without changing the interpretation
907            of a field. At least one delimiter (LWS and/or separators) <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> exist between any two tokens (for the definition of "token" below), since they would otherwise be interpreted as a single
908            token.
909         </dd>
910      </dl>
911      <h2 id="rfc.section.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="basic.rules" href="#basic.rules">Basic Rules</a></h2>
912      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.1">The following rules are used throughout this specification to describe basic parsing constructs. The US-ASCII coded character
913         set is defined by ANSI X3.4-1986 <a href="#USASCII" id="rfc.xref.USASCII.1"><cite title="Coded Character Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange">[USASCII]</cite></a>.
914      </p>
915      <div id="rfc.figure.u.4"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.10"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.11"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.12"></span>    OCTET          = &lt;any 8-bit sequence of data&gt;
916    CHAR           = &lt;any US-ASCII character (octets 0 - 127)&gt;
917    UPALPHA        = &lt;any US-ASCII uppercase letter "A".."Z"&gt;
918    LOALPHA        = &lt;any US-ASCII lowercase letter "a".."z"&gt;
919    ALPHA          = UPALPHA | LOALPHA
920    DIGIT          = &lt;any US-ASCII digit "0".."9"&gt;
921    CTL            = &lt;any US-ASCII control character
922                     (octets 0 - 31) and DEL (127)&gt;
923    CR             = &lt;US-ASCII CR, carriage return (13)&gt;
924    LF             = &lt;US-ASCII LF, linefeed (10)&gt;
925    SP             = &lt;US-ASCII SP, space (32)&gt;
926    HT             = &lt;US-ASCII HT, horizontal-tab (9)&gt;
927    &lt;"&gt;            = &lt;US-ASCII double-quote mark (34)&gt;
928</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.3">HTTP/1.1 defines the sequence CR LF as the end-of-line marker for all protocol elements except the entity-body (see <a href="#tolerant.applications" title="Tolerant Applications">Appendix&nbsp;B</a> for tolerant applications). The end-of-line marker within an entity-body is defined by its associated media type, as described
929         in <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>.
930      </p>
931      <div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.13"></span>    CRLF           = CR LF
932</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.5">HTTP/1.1 header field values can be folded onto multiple lines if the continuation line begins with a space or horizontal
933         tab. All linear white space, including folding, has the same semantics as SP. A recipient <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> replace any linear white space with a single SP before interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream.
934      </p>
935      <div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.14"></span>    LWS            = [CRLF] 1*( SP | HT )
936</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.7">The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and values that are not intended to be interpreted by the message
937         parser. Words of *TEXT <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> contain characters from character sets other than ISO-8859-1 <a href="#ISO-8859" id="rfc.xref.ISO-8859.1"><cite title="Information technology - 8-bit single byte coded graphic - character sets">[ISO-8859]</cite></a> only when encoded according to the rules of <a href="#RFC2047" id="rfc.xref.RFC2047.1"><cite title="MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text">[RFC2047]</cite></a>.
938      </p>
939      <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.15"></span>    TEXT           = &lt;any OCTET except CTLs,
940                     but including LWS&gt;
941</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.9">A CRLF is allowed in the definition of TEXT only as part of a header field continuation. It is expected that the folding LWS
942         will be replaced with a single SP before interpretation of the TEXT value.
943      </p>
944      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.10">Hexadecimal numeric characters are used in several protocol elements.</p>
945      <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.16"></span>    HEX            = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F"
946                   | "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | DIGIT
947</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.12">Many HTTP/1.1 header field values consist of words separated by LWS or special characters. These special characters <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be in a quoted string to be used within a parameter value (as defined in <a href="#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>).
948      </p>
949      <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.17"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.18"></span>    token          = 1*&lt;any CHAR except CTLs or separators&gt;
950    separators     = "(" | ")" | "&lt;" | "&gt;" | "@"
951                   | "," | ";" | ":" | "\" | &lt;"&gt;
952                   | "/" | "[" | "]" | "?" | "="
953                   | "{" | "}" | SP | HT
954</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.14">Comments can be included in some HTTP header fields by surrounding the comment text with parentheses. Comments are only allowed
955         in fields containing "comment" as part of their field value definition. In all other fields, parentheses are considered part
956         of the field value.
957      </p>
958      <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.19"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.20"></span>    comment        = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")"
959    ctext          = &lt;any TEXT excluding "(" and ")"&gt;
960</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.16">A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using double-quote marks.</p>
961      <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.21"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.22"></span>    quoted-string  = ( &lt;"&gt; *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) &lt;"&gt; )
962    qdtext         = &lt;any TEXT except &lt;"&gt;&gt;
963</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.18">The backslash character ("\") <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used as a single-character quoting mechanism only within quoted-string and comment constructs.
964      </p>
965      <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.23"></span>    quoted-pair    = "\" CHAR
966</pre><h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a id="protocol.parameters" href="#protocol.parameters">Protocol Parameters</a></h1>
967      <h2 id="rfc.section.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="http.version" href="#http.version">HTTP Version</a></h2>
968      <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">HTTP uses a "&lt;major&gt;.&lt;minor&gt;" numbering scheme to indicate versions of the protocol. The protocol versioning policy is intended
969         to allow the sender to indicate the format of a message and its capacity for understanding further HTTP communication, rather
970         than the features obtained via that communication. No change is made to the version number for the addition of message components
971         which do not affect communication behavior or which only add to extensible field values. The &lt;minor&gt; number is incremented
972         when the changes made to the protocol add features which do not change the general message parsing algorithm, but which may
973         add to the message semantics and imply additional capabilities of the sender. The &lt;major&gt; number is incremented when the format
974         of a message within the protocol is changed. See <a href="#RFC2145" id="rfc.xref.RFC2145.1"><cite title="Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers">[RFC2145]</cite></a> for a fuller explanation.
975      </p>
976      <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">The version of an HTTP message is indicated by an HTTP-Version field in the first line of the message. HTTP-Version is case-sensitive.</p>
977      <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.24"></span>       HTTP-Version   = "HTTP" "/" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
978</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.4">Note that the major and minor numbers <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be treated as separate integers and that each <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be incremented higher than a single digit. Thus, HTTP/2.4 is a lower version than HTTP/2.13, which in turn is lower than HTTP/12.3.
979         Leading zeros <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored by recipients and <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be sent.
980      </p>
981      <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.5">An application that sends a request or response message that includes HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be at least conditionally compliant with this specification. Applications that are at least conditionally compliant with this
982         specification <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use an HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" in their messages, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> do so for any message that is not compatible with HTTP/1.0. For more details on when to send specific HTTP-Version values,
983         see <a href="#RFC2145" id="rfc.xref.RFC2145.2"><cite title="Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers">[RFC2145]</cite></a>.
984      </p>
985      <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.6">The HTTP version of an application is the highest HTTP version for which the application is at least conditionally compliant.</p>
986      <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.7">Proxy and gateway applications need to be careful when forwarding messages in protocol versions different from that of the
987         application. Since the protocol version indicates the protocol capability of the sender, a proxy/gateway <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a message with a version indicator which is greater than its actual version. If a higher version request is received,
988         the proxy/gateway <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> either downgrade the request version, or respond with an error, or switch to tunnel behavior.
989      </p>
990      <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.8">Due to interoperability problems with HTTP/1.0 proxies discovered since the publication of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>, caching proxies <em class="bcp14">MUST</em>, gateways <em class="bcp14">MAY</em>, and tunnels <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> upgrade the request to the highest version they support. The proxy/gateway's response to that request <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be in the same major version as the request.
991      </p>
992      <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.9"> </p>
993      <dl class="empty">
994         <dd> <b>Note:</b> Converting between versions of HTTP may involve modification of header fields required or forbidden by the versions involved.
995         </dd>
996      </dl>
997      <h2 id="rfc.section.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="uri" href="#uri">Uniform Resource Identifiers</a></h2>
998      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1">URIs have been known by many names: WWW addresses, Universal Document Identifiers, Universal Resource Identifiers <a href="#RFC1630" id="rfc.xref.RFC1630.2"><cite title="Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web">[RFC1630]</cite></a>, and finally the combination of Uniform Resource Locators (URL) <a href="#RFC1738" id="rfc.xref.RFC1738.2"><cite title="Uniform Resource Locators (URL)">[RFC1738]</cite></a> and Names (URN) <a href="#RFC1737" id="rfc.xref.RFC1737.2"><cite title="Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names">[RFC1737]</cite></a>. As far as HTTP is concerned, Uniform Resource Identifiers are simply formatted strings which identify--via name, location,
999         or any other characteristic--a resource.
1000      </p>
1001      <h3 id="rfc.section.3.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2.1">3.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="general.syntax" href="#general.syntax">General Syntax</a></h3>
1002      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.1.p.1">URIs in HTTP can be represented in absolute form or relative to some known base URI <a href="#RFC1808" id="rfc.xref.RFC1808.1"><cite title="Relative Uniform Resource Locators">[RFC1808]</cite></a>, depending upon the context of their use. The two forms are differentiated by the fact that absolute URIs always begin with
1003         a scheme name followed by a colon. For definitive information on URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform Resource Identifiers
1004         (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics," <a href="#RFC2396" id="rfc.xref.RFC2396.1"><cite title="Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax">[RFC2396]</cite></a> (which replaces <a href="#RFC1738" id="rfc.xref.RFC1738.3"><cite title="Uniform Resource Locators (URL)">[RFC1738]</cite></a> and <a href="#RFC1808" id="rfc.xref.RFC1808.2"><cite title="Relative Uniform Resource Locators">[RFC1808]</cite></a>). This specification adopts the definitions of "URI-reference", "absoluteURI", "relativeURI", "port", "host","abs_path",
1005         "rel_path", and "authority" from that specification.
1006      </p>
1007      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.1.p.2">The HTTP protocol does not place any a priori limit on the length of a URI. Servers <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be able to handle the URI of any resource they serve, and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be able to handle URIs of unbounded length if they provide GET-based forms that could generate such URIs. A server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return 414 (Request-URI Too Long) status if a URI is longer than the server can handle (see <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.414" title="414 Request-URI Too Long">Section 9.4.15</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>).
1008      </p>
1009      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.1.p.3"> </p>
1010      <dl class="empty">
1011         <dd> <b>Note:</b> Servers ought to be cautious about depending on URI lengths above 255 bytes, because some older client or proxy implementations
1012            might not properly support these lengths.
1013         </dd>
1014      </dl>
1015      <h3 id="rfc.section.3.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2.2">3.2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="http.url" href="#http.url">http URL</a></h3>
1016      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.2.p.1">The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the HTTP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax
1017         and semantics for http URLs.
1018      </p>
1019      <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.25"></span>http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
1020</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.2.2.p.3">If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The semantics are that the identified resource is located at the server
1021         listening for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the Request-URI for the resource is abs_path (<a href="#request-uri" title="Request-URI">Section&nbsp;5.1.2</a>). The use of IP addresses in URLs <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be avoided whenever possible (see <a href="#RFC1900" id="rfc.xref.RFC1900.1"><cite title="Renumbering Needs Work">[RFC1900]</cite></a>). If the abs_path is not present in the URL, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be given as "/" when used as a Request-URI for a resource (<a href="#request-uri" title="Request-URI">Section&nbsp;5.1.2</a>). If a proxy receives a host name which is not a fully qualified domain name, it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> add its domain to the host name it received. If a proxy receives a fully qualified domain name, the proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> change the host name.
1022      </p>
1023      <h3 id="rfc.section.3.2.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2.3">3.2.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="uri.comparison" href="#uri.comparison">URI Comparison</a></h3>
1024      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.3.p.1">When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire URIs, with these exceptions:
1025      </p>
1026      <ul>
1027         <li>A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the default port for that URI-reference;</li>
1028         <li>Comparisons of host names <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be case-insensitive;
1029         </li>
1030         <li>Comparisons of scheme names <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be case-insensitive;
1031         </li>
1032         <li>An empty abs_path is equivalent to an abs_path of "/".</li>
1033      </ul>
1034      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.3.p.2">Characters other than those in the "reserved" set (see <a href="#RFC2396" id="rfc.xref.RFC2396.2"><cite title="Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax">[RFC2396]</cite></a>) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX" encoding.
1035      </p>
1036      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.3.p.3">For example, the following three URIs are equivalent:</p>
1037      <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="text">   http://example.com:80/~smith/home.html
1038   http://EXAMPLE.com/%7Esmith/home.html
1039   http://EXAMPLE.com:/%7esmith/home.html
1040</pre><h2 id="rfc.section.3.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3">3.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="date.time.formats" href="#date.time.formats">Date/Time Formats</a></h2>
1041      <h3 id="rfc.section.3.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3.1">3.3.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="full.date" href="#full.date">Full Date</a></h3>
1042      <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.1">HTTP applications have historically allowed three different formats for the representation of date/time stamps:</p>
1043      <div id="rfc.figure.u.16"></div><pre class="text">   Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT  ; RFC 822, updated by RFC 1123
1044   Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; obsolete RFC 850 format
1045   Sun Nov  6 08:49:37 1994       ; ANSI C's asctime() format
1046</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.3">The first format is preferred as an Internet standard and represents a fixed-length subset of that defined by <a href="#RFC1123" id="rfc.xref.RFC1123.1"><cite title="Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support">[RFC1123]</cite></a> (an update to <a href="#RFC822" id="rfc.xref.RFC822.3"><cite title="Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages">[RFC822]</cite></a>). The other formats are described here only for compatibility with obsolete implementations. HTTP/1.1 clients and servers
1047         that parse the date value <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> accept all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> only generate the RFC 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values in header fields. See <a href="#tolerant.applications" title="Tolerant Applications">Appendix&nbsp;B</a> for further information.
1048      </p>
1049      <dl class="empty">
1050         <dd> <b>Note:</b> Recipients of date values are encouraged to be robust in accepting date values that may have been sent by non-HTTP applications,
1051            as is sometimes the case when retrieving or posting messages via proxies/gateways to SMTP or NNTP.
1052         </dd>
1053      </dl>
1054      <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.5">All HTTP date/time stamps <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be represented in Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), without exception. For the purposes of HTTP, GMT is exactly equal to UTC (Coordinated
1055         Universal Time). This is indicated in the first two formats by the inclusion of "GMT" as the three-letter abbreviation for
1056         time zone, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be assumed when reading the asctime format. HTTP-date is case sensitive and <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include additional LWS beyond that specifically included as SP in the grammar.
1057      </p>
1058      <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.26"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.27"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.28"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.29"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.30"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.31"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.32"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.33"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.34"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.35"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.36"></span>    HTTP-date    = rfc1123-date | rfc850-date | asctime-date
1059    rfc1123-date = wkday "," SP date1 SP time SP "GMT"
1060    rfc850-date  = weekday "," SP date2 SP time SP "GMT"
1061    asctime-date = wkday SP date3 SP time SP 4DIGIT
1062    date1        = 2DIGIT SP month SP 4DIGIT
1063                   ; day month year (e.g., 02 Jun 1982)
1064    date2        = 2DIGIT "-" month "-" 2DIGIT
1065                   ; day-month-year (e.g., 02-Jun-82)
1066    date3        = month SP ( 2DIGIT | ( SP 1DIGIT ))
1067                   ; month day (e.g., Jun  2)
1068    time         = 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT
1069                   ; 00:00:00 - 23:59:59
1070    wkday        = "Mon" | "Tue" | "Wed"
1071                 | "Thu" | "Fri" | "Sat" | "Sun"
1072    weekday      = "Monday" | "Tuesday" | "Wednesday"
1073                 | "Thursday" | "Friday" | "Saturday" | "Sunday"
1074    month        = "Jan" | "Feb" | "Mar" | "Apr"
1075                 | "May" | "Jun" | "Jul" | "Aug"
1076                 | "Sep" | "Oct" | "Nov" | "Dec"
1077</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.7"> <b>Note:</b> HTTP requirements for the date/time stamp format apply only to their usage within the protocol stream. Clients and servers
1078         are not required to use these formats for user presentation, request logging, etc.
1079      </p>
1080      <h2 id="rfc.section.3.4"><a href="#rfc.section.3.4">3.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="transfer.codings" href="#transfer.codings">Transfer Codings</a></h2>
1081      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.1">Transfer-coding values are used to indicate an encoding transformation that has been, can be, or may need to be applied to
1082         an entity-body in order to ensure "safe transport" through the network. This differs from a content coding in that the transfer-coding
1083         is a property of the message, not of the original entity.
1084      </p>
1085      <div id="rfc.figure.u.18"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.37"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.38"></span>    transfer-coding         = "chunked" | transfer-extension
1086    transfer-extension      = token *( ";" parameter )
1087</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.3">Parameters are in the form of attribute/value pairs.</p>
1088      <div id="rfc.figure.u.19"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.39"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.40"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.41"></span>    parameter               = attribute "=" value
1089    attribute               = token
1090    value                   = token | quoted-string
1091</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.5">All transfer-coding values are case-insensitive. HTTP/1.1 uses transfer-coding values in the TE header field (<a href="#header.te" id="rfc.xref.header.te.1" title="TE">Section&nbsp;8.5</a>) and in the Transfer-Encoding header field (<a href="#header.transfer-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.transfer-encoding.1" title="Transfer-Encoding">Section&nbsp;8.7</a>).
1092      </p>
1093      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.6">Whenever a transfer-coding is applied to a message-body, the set of transfer-codings <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include "chunked", unless the message is terminated by closing the connection. When the "chunked" transfer-coding is used,
1094         it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be the last transfer-coding applied to the message-body. The "chunked" transfer-coding <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be applied more than once to a message-body. These rules allow the recipient to determine the transfer-length of the message
1095         (<a href="#message.length" title="Message Length">Section&nbsp;4.4</a>).
1096      </p>
1097      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.7">Transfer-codings are analogous to the Content-Transfer-Encoding values of MIME <a href="#RFC2045" id="rfc.xref.RFC2045.2"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies">[RFC2045]</cite></a>, which were designed to enable safe transport of binary data over a 7-bit transport service. However, safe transport has
1098         a different focus for an 8bit-clean transfer protocol. In HTTP, the only unsafe characteristic of message-bodies is the difficulty
1099         in determining the exact body length (<a href="#message.length" title="Message Length">Section&nbsp;4.4</a>), or the desire to encrypt data over a shared transport.
1100      </p>
1101      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.8">The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for transfer-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry
1102         contains the following tokens: "chunked" (<a href="#chunked.transfer.encoding" title="Chunked Transfer Coding">Section&nbsp;3.4.1</a>), "gzip" (<a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>), "compress" (<a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.7"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>), and "deflate" (<a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>).
1103      </p>
1104      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.9">New transfer-coding value tokens <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be registered in the same way as new content-coding value tokens (<a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>).
1105      </p>
1106      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.10">A server which receives an entity-body with a transfer-coding it does not understand <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return 501 (Unimplemented), and close the connection. A server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send transfer-codings to an HTTP/1.0 client.
1107      </p>
1108      <h3 id="rfc.section.3.4.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.4.1">3.4.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="chunked.transfer.encoding" href="#chunked.transfer.encoding">Chunked Transfer Coding</a></h3>
1109      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.1.p.1">The chunked encoding modifies the body of a message in order to transfer it as a series of chunks, each with its own size
1110         indicator, followed by an <em class="bcp14">OPTIONAL</em> trailer containing entity-header fields. This allows dynamically produced content to be transferred along with the information
1111         necessary for the recipient to verify that it has received the full message.
1112      </p>
1113      <div id="rfc.figure.u.20"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.42"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.43"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.44"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.45"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.46"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.47"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.48"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.49"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.50"></span>    Chunked-Body   = *chunk
1114                     last-chunk
1115                     trailer
1116                     CRLF
1117
1118    chunk          = chunk-size [ chunk-extension ] CRLF
1119                     chunk-data CRLF
1120    chunk-size     = 1*HEX
1121    last-chunk     = 1*("0") [ chunk-extension ] CRLF
1122
1123    chunk-extension= *( ";" chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] )
1124    chunk-ext-name = token
1125    chunk-ext-val  = token | quoted-string
1126    chunk-data     = chunk-size(OCTET)
1127    trailer        = *(entity-header CRLF)
1128</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.4.1.p.3">The chunk-size field is a string of hex digits indicating the size of the chunk-data in octets. The chunked encoding is ended
1129         by any chunk whose size is zero, followed by the trailer, which is terminated by an empty line.
1130      </p>
1131      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.1.p.4">The trailer allows the sender to include additional HTTP header fields at the end of the message. The Trailer header field
1132         can be used to indicate which header fields are included in a trailer (see <a href="#header.trailer" id="rfc.xref.header.trailer.1" title="Trailer">Section&nbsp;8.6</a>).
1133      </p>
1134      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.1.p.5">A server using chunked transfer-coding in a response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use the trailer for any header fields unless at least one of the following is true:
1135      </p>
1136      <ol>
1137         <li>the request included a TE header field that indicates "trailers" is acceptable in the transfer-coding of the response, as
1138            described in <a href="#header.te" id="rfc.xref.header.te.2" title="TE">Section&nbsp;8.5</a>; or,
1139         </li>
1140         <li>the server is the origin server for the response, the trailer fields consist entirely of optional metadata, and the recipient
1141            could use the message (in a manner acceptable to the origin server) without receiving this metadata. In other words, the origin
1142            server is willing to accept the possibility that the trailer fields might be silently discarded along the path to the client.
1143         </li>
1144      </ol>
1145      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.1.p.6">This requirement prevents an interoperability failure when the message is being received by an HTTP/1.1 (or later) proxy and
1146         forwarded to an HTTP/1.0 recipient. It avoids a situation where compliance with the protocol would have necessitated a possibly
1147         infinite buffer on the proxy.
1148      </p>
1149      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.1.p.7">A process for decoding the "chunked" transfer-coding can be represented in pseudo-code as:</p>
1150      <div id="rfc.figure.u.21"></div><pre class="text">    length := 0
1151    read chunk-size, chunk-extension (if any) and CRLF
1152    while (chunk-size &gt; 0) {
1153       read chunk-data and CRLF
1154       append chunk-data to entity-body
1155       length := length + chunk-size
1156       read chunk-size and CRLF
1157    }
1158    read entity-header
1159    while (entity-header not empty) {
1160       append entity-header to existing header fields
1161       read entity-header
1162    }
1163    Content-Length := length
1164    Remove "chunked" from Transfer-Encoding
1165</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.4.1.p.9">All HTTP/1.1 applications <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be able to receive and decode the "chunked" transfer-coding, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> ignore chunk-extension extensions they do not understand.
1166      </p>
1167      <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;<a id="http.message" href="#http.message">HTTP Message</a></h1>
1168      <h2 id="rfc.section.4.1"><a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="message.types" href="#message.types">Message Types</a></h2>
1169      <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.1">HTTP messages consist of requests from client to server and responses from server to client.</p>
1170      <div id="rfc.figure.u.22"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.51"></span>    HTTP-message   = Request | Response     ; HTTP/1.1 messages
1171</pre><p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.3">Request (<a href="#request" title="Request">Section&nbsp;5</a>) and Response (<a href="#response" title="Response">Section&nbsp;6</a>) messages use the generic message format of <a href="#RFC822" id="rfc.xref.RFC822.4"><cite title="Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages">[RFC822]</cite></a> for transferring entities (the payload of the message). Both types of message consist of a start-line, zero or more header
1172         fields (also known as "headers"), an empty line (i.e., a line with nothing preceding the CRLF) indicating the end of the header
1173         fields, and possibly a message-body.
1174      </p>
1175      <div id="rfc.figure.u.23"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.52"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.53"></span>     generic-message = start-line
1176                       *(message-header CRLF)
1177                       CRLF
1178                       [ message-body ]
1179     start-line      = Request-Line | Status-Line
1180</pre><p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.5">In the interest of robustness, servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> ignore any empty line(s) received where a Request-Line is expected. In other words, if the server is reading the protocol
1181         stream at the beginning of a message and receives a CRLF first, it should ignore the CRLF.
1182      </p>
1183      <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.6">Certain buggy HTTP/1.0 client implementations generate extra CRLF's after a POST request. To restate what is explicitly forbidden
1184         by the BNF, an HTTP/1.1 client <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> preface or follow a request with an extra CRLF.
1185      </p>
1186      <h2 id="rfc.section.4.2"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="message.headers" href="#message.headers">Message Headers</a></h2>
1187      <p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.1">HTTP header fields, which include general-header (<a href="#general.header.fields" title="General Header Fields">Section&nbsp;4.5</a>), request-header (<a href="p2-semantics.html#request.header.fields" title="Request Header Fields">Section 4</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>), response-header (<a href="p2-semantics.html#response.header.fields" title="Response Header Fields">Section 6</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>), and entity-header (<a href="p3-payload.html#entity.header.fields" title="Entity Header Fields">Section 3.1</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.10"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>) fields, follow the same generic format as that given in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a> of <a href="#RFC822" id="rfc.xref.RFC822.5"><cite title="Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages">[RFC822]</cite></a>. Each header field consists of a name followed by a colon (":") and the field value. Field names are case-insensitive. The
1188         field value <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be preceded by any amount of LWS, though a single SP is preferred. Header fields can be extended over multiple lines by preceding
1189         each extra line with at least one SP or HT. Applications ought to follow "common form", where one is known or indicated, when
1190         generating HTTP constructs, since there might exist some implementations that fail to accept anything beyond the common forms.
1191      </p>
1192      <div id="rfc.figure.u.24"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.54"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.55"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.56"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.57"></span>    message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ]
1193    field-name     = token
1194    field-value    = *( field-content | LWS )
1195    field-content  = &lt;the OCTETs making up the field-value
1196                     and consisting of either *TEXT or combinations
1197                     of token, separators, and quoted-string&gt;
1198</pre><p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.3">The field-content does not include any leading or trailing LWS: linear white space occurring before the first non-whitespace
1199         character of the field-value or after the last non-whitespace character of the field-value. Such leading or trailing LWS <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be removed without changing the semantics of the field value. Any LWS that occurs between field-content <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be replaced with a single SP before interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream.
1200      </p>
1201      <p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.4">The order in which header fields with differing field names are received is not significant. However, it is "good practice"
1202         to send general-header fields first, followed by request-header or response-header fields, and ending with the entity-header
1203         fields.
1204      </p>
1205      <p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.5">Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e.,
1206         #(values)]. It <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be possible to combine the multiple header fields into one "field-name: field-value" pair, without changing the semantics
1207         of the message, by appending each subsequent field-value to the first, each separated by a comma. The order in which header
1208         fields with the same field-name are received is therefore significant to the interpretation of the combined field value, and
1209         thus a proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> change the order of these field values when a message is forwarded.
1210      </p>
1211      <h2 id="rfc.section.4.3"><a href="#rfc.section.4.3">4.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="message.body" href="#message.body">Message Body</a></h2>
1212      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.1">The message-body (if any) of an HTTP message is used to carry the entity-body associated with the request or response. The
1213         message-body differs from the entity-body only when a transfer-coding has been applied, as indicated by the Transfer-Encoding
1214         header field (<a href="#header.transfer-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.transfer-encoding.2" title="Transfer-Encoding">Section&nbsp;8.7</a>).
1215      </p>
1216      <div id="rfc.figure.u.25"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.58"></span>    message-body = entity-body
1217                 | &lt;entity-body encoded as per Transfer-Encoding&gt;
1218</pre><p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.3">Transfer-Encoding <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be used to indicate any transfer-codings applied by an application to ensure safe and proper transfer of the message. Transfer-Encoding
1219         is a property of the message, not of the entity, and thus <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be added or removed by any application along the request/response chain. (However, <a href="#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section&nbsp;3.4</a> places restrictions on when certain transfer-codings may be used.)
1220      </p>
1221      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.4">The rules for when a message-body is allowed in a message differ for requests and responses.</p>
1222      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.5">The presence of a message-body in a request is signaled by the inclusion of a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header field
1223         in the request's message-headers. A message-body <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be included in a request if the specification of the request method (<a href="p2-semantics.html#method" title="Method">Section 3</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>) does not allow sending an entity-body in requests. A server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> read and forward a message-body on any request; if the request method does not include defined semantics for an entity-body,
1224         then the message-body <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be ignored when handling the request.
1225      </p>
1226      <p id="rfc.section.4.3.p.6">For response messages, whether or not a message-body is included with a message is dependent on both the request method and
1227         the response status code (<a href="#status.code.and.reason.phrase" title="Status Code and Reason Phrase">Section&nbsp;6.1.1</a>). All responses to the HEAD request method <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include a message-body, even though the presence of entity-header fields might lead one to believe they do. All 1xx (informational),
1228         204 (no content), and 304 (not modified) responses <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include a message-body. All other responses do include a message-body, although it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be of zero length.
1229      </p>
1230      <h2 id="rfc.section.4.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4.4">4.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="message.length" href="#message.length">Message Length</a></h2>
1231      <p id="rfc.section.4.4.p.1">The transfer-length of a message is the length of the message-body as it appears in the message; that is, after any transfer-codings
1232         have been applied. When a message-body is included with a message, the transfer-length of that body is determined by one of
1233         the following (in order of precedence):
1234      </p>
1235      <p id="rfc.section.4.4.p.2"> </p>
1236      <ol>
1237         <li>
1238            <p>Any response message which "<em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em>" include a message-body (such as the 1xx, 204, and 304 responses and any response to a HEAD request) is always terminated
1239               by the first empty line after the header fields, regardless of the entity-header fields present in the message.
1240            </p>
1241         </li>
1242         <li>
1243            <p>If a Transfer-Encoding header field (<a href="#header.transfer-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.transfer-encoding.3" title="Transfer-Encoding">Section&nbsp;8.7</a>) is present, then the transfer-length is defined by use of the "chunked" transfer-coding (<a href="#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>), unless the message is terminated by closing the connection.
1244            </p>
1245         </li>
1246         <li>
1247            <p>If a Content-Length header field (<a href="#header.content-length" id="rfc.xref.header.content-length.1" title="Content-Length">Section&nbsp;8.2</a>) is present, its decimal value in OCTETs represents both the entity-length and the transfer-length. The Content-Length header
1248               field <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be sent if these two lengths are different (i.e., if a Transfer-Encoding header field is present). If a message is received
1249               with both a Transfer-Encoding header field and a Content-Length header field, the latter <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
1250            </p>
1251         </li>
1252         <li>
1253            <p>If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the transfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-delimiting
1254               media type defines the transfer-length. This media type <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be used unless the sender knows that the recipient can parse it; the presence in a request of a Range header with multiple
1255               byte-range specifiers from a 1.1 client implies that the client can parse multipart/byteranges responses.
1256            </p>
1257            <dl class="empty">
1258               <dd>A range header might be forwarded by a 1.0 proxy that does not understand multipart/byteranges; in this case the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> delimit the message using methods defined in items 1, 3 or 5 of this section.
1259               </dd>
1260            </dl>
1261         </li>
1262         <li>
1263            <p>By the server closing the connection. (Closing the connection cannot be used to indicate the end of a request body, since
1264               that would leave no possibility for the server to send back a response.)
1265            </p>
1266         </li>
1267      </ol>
1268      <p id="rfc.section.4.4.p.3">For compatibility with HTTP/1.0 applications, HTTP/1.1 requests containing a message-body <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a valid Content-Length header field unless the server is known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant. If a request contains a message-body
1269         and a Content-Length is not given, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with 400 (bad request) if it cannot determine the length of the message, or with 411 (length required) if it wishes
1270         to insist on receiving a valid Content-Length.
1271      </p>
1272      <p id="rfc.section.4.4.p.4">All HTTP/1.1 applications that receive entities <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> accept the "chunked" transfer-coding (<a href="#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>), thus allowing this mechanism to be used for messages when the message length cannot be determined in advance.
1273      </p>
1274      <p id="rfc.section.4.4.p.5">Messages <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include both a Content-Length header field and a transfer-coding. If the message does include a transfer-coding, the Content-Length <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
1275      </p>
1276      <p id="rfc.section.4.4.p.6">When a Content-Length is given in a message where a message-body is allowed, its field value <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> exactly match the number of OCTETs in the message-body. HTTP/1.1 user agents <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> notify the user when an invalid length is received and detected.
1277      </p>
1278      <h2 id="rfc.section.4.5"><a href="#rfc.section.4.5">4.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="general.header.fields" href="#general.header.fields">General Header Fields</a></h2>
1279      <p id="rfc.section.4.5.p.1">There are a few header fields which have general applicability for both request and response messages, but which do not apply
1280         to the entity being transferred. These header fields apply only to the message being transmitted.
1281      </p>
1282      <div id="rfc.figure.u.26"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.59"></span>    general-header = Cache-Control            ; <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>, <a href="p6-cache.html#header.cache-control" title="Cache-Control">Section 3.2</a>
1283                   | Connection               ; <a href="#header.connection" id="rfc.xref.header.connection.1" title="Connection">Section&nbsp;8.1</a>
1284                   | Date                     ; <a href="#header.date" id="rfc.xref.header.date.1" title="Date">Section&nbsp;8.3</a>
1285                   | Pragma                   ; <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>, <a href="p6-cache.html#header.pragma" title="Pragma">Section 3.4</a>
1286                   | Trailer                  ; <a href="#header.trailer" id="rfc.xref.header.trailer.2" title="Trailer">Section&nbsp;8.6</a>
1287                   | Transfer-Encoding        ; <a href="#header.transfer-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.transfer-encoding.4" title="Transfer-Encoding">Section&nbsp;8.7</a>
1288                   | Upgrade                  ; <a href="#header.upgrade" id="rfc.xref.header.upgrade.1" title="Upgrade">Section&nbsp;8.8</a>
1289                   | Via                      ; <a href="#header.via" id="rfc.xref.header.via.1" title="Via">Section&nbsp;8.9</a>
1290                   | Warning                  ; <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>, <a href="p6-cache.html#header.warning" title="Warning">Section 3.6</a>
1291</pre><p id="rfc.section.4.5.p.3">General-header field names can be extended reliably only in combination with a change in the protocol version. However, new
1292         or experimental header fields may be given the semantics of general header fields if all parties in the communication recognize
1293         them to be general-header fields. Unrecognized header fields are treated as entity-header fields.
1294      </p>
1295      <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a id="request" href="#request">Request</a></h1>
1296      <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">A request message from a client to a server includes, within the first line of that message, the method to be applied to the
1297         resource, the identifier of the resource, and the protocol version in use.
1298      </p>
1299      <div id="rfc.figure.u.27"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.60"></span>     Request       = Request-Line              ; <a href="#request-line" title="Request-Line">Section&nbsp;5.1</a>
1300                     *(( general-header        ; <a href="#general.header.fields" title="General Header Fields">Section&nbsp;4.5</a>
1301                      | request-header         ; <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>, <a href="p2-semantics.html#request.header.fields" title="Request Header Fields">Section 4</a>
1302                      | entity-header ) CRLF)  ; <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.11"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>, <a href="p3-payload.html#entity.header.fields" title="Entity Header Fields">Section 3.1</a>
1303                     CRLF
1304                     [ message-body ]          ; <a href="#message.body" title="Message Body">Section&nbsp;4.3</a>
1305</pre><h2 id="rfc.section.5.1"><a href="#rfc.section.5.1">5.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="request-line" href="#request-line">Request-Line</a></h2>
1306      <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.1">The Request-Line begins with a method token, followed by the Request-URI and the protocol version, and ending with CRLF. The
1307         elements are separated by SP characters. No CR or LF is allowed except in the final CRLF sequence.
1308      </p>
1309      <div id="rfc.figure.u.28"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.61"></span>     Request-Line   = Method SP Request-URI SP HTTP-Version CRLF
1310</pre><h3 id="rfc.section.5.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.5.1.1">5.1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="method" href="#method">Method</a></h3>
1311      <p id="rfc.section.5.1.1.p.1">The Method token indicates the method to be performed on the resource identified by the Request-URI. The method is case-sensitive.</p>
1312      <div id="rfc.figure.u.29"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.62"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.63"></span>    Method         = token
1313</pre><h3 id="rfc.section.5.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.5.1.2">5.1.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="request-uri" href="#request-uri">Request-URI</a></h3>
1314      <p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.1">The Request-URI is a Uniform Resource Identifier (<a href="#uri" title="Uniform Resource Identifiers">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>) and identifies the resource upon which to apply the request.
1315      </p>
1316      <div id="rfc.figure.u.30"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.64"></span>    Request-URI    = "*"
1317                   | absoluteURI
1318                   | ( abs_path [ "?" query ] )
1319                   | authority
1320</pre><p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.3">The four options for Request-URI are dependent on the nature of the request. The asterisk "*" means that the request does
1321         not apply to a particular resource, but to the server itself, and is only allowed when the method used does not necessarily
1322         apply to a resource. One example would be
1323      </p>
1324      <div id="rfc.figure.u.31"></div><pre class="text">    OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
1325</pre><p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.5">The absoluteURI form is <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> when the request is being made to a proxy. The proxy is requested to forward the request or service it from a valid cache,
1326         and return the response. Note that the proxy <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> forward the request on to another proxy or directly to the server specified by the absoluteURI. In order to avoid request
1327         loops, a proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be able to recognize all of its server names, including any aliases, local variations, and the numeric IP address. An example
1328         Request-Line would be:
1329      </p>
1330      <div id="rfc.figure.u.32"></div><pre class="text">    GET http://www.example.org/pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1
1331</pre><p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.7">To allow for transition to absoluteURIs in all requests in future versions of HTTP, all HTTP/1.1 servers <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> accept the absoluteURI form in requests, even though HTTP/1.1 clients will only generate them in requests to proxies.
1332      </p>
1333      <p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.8">The authority form is only used by the CONNECT method (<a href="p2-semantics.html#CONNECT" title="CONNECT">Section 8.9</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>).
1334      </p>
1335      <p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.9">The most common form of Request-URI is that used to identify a resource on an origin server or gateway. In this case the absolute
1336         path of the URI <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be transmitted (see <a href="#general.syntax" title="General Syntax">Section&nbsp;3.2.1</a>, abs_path) as the Request-URI, and the network location of the URI (authority) <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be transmitted in a Host header field. For example, a client wishing to retrieve the resource above directly from the origin
1337         server would create a TCP connection to port 80 of the host "www.example.org" and send the lines:
1338      </p>
1339      <div id="rfc.figure.u.33"></div><pre class="text">    GET /pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1
1340    Host: www.example.org
1341</pre><p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.11">followed by the remainder of the Request. Note that the absolute path cannot be empty; if none is present in the original
1342         URI, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be given as "/" (the server root).
1343      </p>
1344      <p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.12">The Request-URI is transmitted in the format specified in <a href="#general.syntax" title="General Syntax">Section&nbsp;3.2.1</a>. If the Request-URI is encoded using the "% HEX HEX" encoding <a href="#RFC2396" id="rfc.xref.RFC2396.3"><cite title="Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax">[RFC2396]</cite></a>, the origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> decode the Request-URI in order to properly interpret the request. Servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond to invalid Request-URIs with an appropriate status code.
1345      </p>
1346      <p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.13">A transparent proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> rewrite the "abs_path" part of the received Request-URI when forwarding it to the next inbound server, except as noted above
1347         to replace a null abs_path with "/".
1348      </p>
1349      <p id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.14"> </p>
1350      <dl class="empty">
1351         <dd> <b>Note:</b> The "no rewrite" rule prevents the proxy from changing the meaning of the request when the origin server is improperly using
1352            a non-reserved URI character for a reserved purpose. Implementors should be aware that some pre-HTTP/1.1 proxies have been
1353            known to rewrite the Request-URI.
1354         </dd>
1355      </dl>
1356      <h2 id="rfc.section.5.2"><a href="#rfc.section.5.2">5.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="the.resource.identified.by.a.request" href="#the.resource.identified.by.a.request">The Resource Identified by a Request</a></h2>
1357      <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.1">The exact resource identified by an Internet request is determined by examining both the Request-URI and the Host header field.</p>
1358      <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.2">An origin server that does not allow resources to differ by the requested host <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> ignore the Host header field value when determining the resource identified by an HTTP/1.1 request. (But see <a href="#changes.to.simplify.multi-homed.web.servers.and.conserve.ip.addresses" title="Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and Conserve IP Addresses">Appendix&nbsp;D.1.1</a> for other requirements on Host support in HTTP/1.1.)
1359      </p>
1360      <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.3">An origin server that does differentiate resources based on the host requested (sometimes referred to as virtual hosts or
1361         vanity host names) <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the following rules for determining the requested resource on an HTTP/1.1 request:
1362      </p>
1363      <ol>
1364         <li>If Request-URI is an absoluteURI, the host is part of the Request-URI. Any Host header field value in the request <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
1365         </li>
1366         <li>If the Request-URI is not an absoluteURI, and the request includes a Host header field, the host is determined by the Host
1367            header field value.
1368         </li>
1369         <li>If the host as determined by rule 1 or 2 is not a valid host on the server, the response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be a 400 (Bad Request) error message.
1370         </li>
1371      </ol>
1372      <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.4">Recipients of an HTTP/1.0 request that lacks a Host header field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> attempt to use heuristics (e.g., examination of the URI path for something unique to a particular host) in order to determine
1373         what exact resource is being requested.
1374      </p>
1375      <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;<a id="response" href="#response">Response</a></h1>
1376      <p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">After receiving and interpreting a request message, a server responds with an HTTP response message.</p>
1377      <div id="rfc.figure.u.34"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.65"></span>    Response      = Status-Line               ; <a href="#status-line" title="Status-Line">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>
1378                    *(( general-header        ; <a href="#general.header.fields" title="General Header Fields">Section&nbsp;4.5</a>
1379                     | response-header        ; <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.7"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>, <a href="p2-semantics.html#response.header.fields" title="Response Header Fields">Section 6</a>
1380                     | entity-header ) CRLF)  ; <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.12"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>, <a href="p3-payload.html#entity.header.fields" title="Entity Header Fields">Section 3.1</a>
1381                    CRLF
1382                    [ message-body ]          ; <a href="#message.body" title="Message Body">Section&nbsp;4.3</a>
1383</pre><h2 id="rfc.section.6.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="status-line" href="#status-line">Status-Line</a></h2>
1384      <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1">The first line of a Response message is the Status-Line, consisting of the protocol version followed by a numeric status code
1385         and its associated textual phrase, with each element separated by SP characters. No CR or LF is allowed except in the final
1386         CRLF sequence.
1387      </p>
1388      <div id="rfc.figure.u.35"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.66"></span>    Status-Line = HTTP-Version SP Status-Code SP Reason-Phrase CRLF
1389</pre><h3 id="rfc.section.6.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1.1">6.1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.code.and.reason.phrase" href="#status.code.and.reason.phrase">Status Code and Reason Phrase</a></h3>
1390      <p id="rfc.section.6.1.1.p.1">The Status-Code element is a 3-digit integer result code of the attempt to understand and satisfy the request. These codes
1391         are fully defined in <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.codes" title="Status Code Definitions">Section 9</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>. The Reason-Phrase is intended to give a short textual description of the Status-Code. The Status-Code is intended for use
1392         by automata and the Reason-Phrase is intended for the human user. The client is not required to examine or display the Reason-Phrase.
1393      </p>
1394      <p id="rfc.section.6.1.1.p.2">The first digit of the Status-Code defines the class of response. The last two digits do not have any categorization role.
1395         There are 5 values for the first digit:
1396      </p>
1397      <ul>
1398         <li>1xx: Informational - Request received, continuing process</li>
1399         <li>2xx: Success - The action was successfully received, understood, and accepted</li>
1400         <li>3xx: Redirection - Further action must be taken in order to complete the request</li>
1401         <li>4xx: Client Error - The request contains bad syntax or cannot be fulfilled</li>
1402         <li>5xx: Server Error - The server failed to fulfill an apparently valid request</li>
1403      </ul>
1404      <div id="rfc.figure.u.36"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.67"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.68"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.69"></span>   Status-Code    = 3DIGIT
1405   Reason-Phrase  = *&lt;TEXT, excluding CR, LF&gt;
1406</pre><h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a id="connections" href="#connections">Connections</a></h1>
1407      <h2 id="rfc.section.7.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="persistent.connections" href="#persistent.connections">Persistent Connections</a></h2>
1408      <h3 id="rfc.section.7.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1.1">7.1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="persistent.purpose" href="#persistent.purpose">Purpose</a></h3>
1409      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.1.p.1">Prior to persistent connections, a separate TCP connection was established to fetch each URL, increasing the load on HTTP
1410         servers and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and other associated data often require a client
1411         to make multiple requests of the same server in a short amount of time. Analysis of these performance problems and results
1412         from a prototype implementation are available <a href="#Pad1995" id="rfc.xref.Pad1995.1"><cite title="Improving HTTP Latency">[Pad1995]</cite></a>  <a href="#Spe" id="rfc.xref.Spe.1"><cite title="Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems">[Spe]</cite></a>. Implementation experience and measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 (<cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.2">RFC 2068</cite>) implementations show good results <a href="#Nie1997" id="rfc.xref.Nie1997.1"><cite title="Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG">[Nie1997]</cite></a>. Alternatives have also been explored, for example, T/TCP <a href="#Tou1998" id="rfc.xref.Tou1998.1"><cite title="Analysis of HTTP Performance">[Tou1998]</cite></a>.
1413      </p>
1414      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.1.p.2">Persistent HTTP connections have a number of advantages: </p>
1415      <ul>
1416         <li>By opening and closing fewer TCP connections, CPU time is saved in routers and hosts (clients, servers, proxies, gateways,
1417            tunnels, or caches), and memory used for TCP protocol control blocks can be saved in hosts.
1418         </li>
1419         <li>HTTP requests and responses can be pipelined on a connection. Pipelining allows a client to make multiple requests without
1420            waiting for each response, allowing a single TCP connection to be used much more efficiently, with much lower elapsed time.
1421         </li>
1422         <li>Network congestion is reduced by reducing the number of packets caused by TCP opens, and by allowing TCP sufficient time to
1423            determine the congestion state of the network.
1424         </li>
1425         <li>Latency on subsequent requests is reduced since there is no time spent in TCP's connection opening handshake.</li>
1426         <li>HTTP can evolve more gracefully, since errors can be reported without the penalty of closing the TCP connection. Clients using
1427            future versions of HTTP might optimistically try a new feature, but if communicating with an older server, retry with old
1428            semantics after an error is reported.
1429         </li>
1430      </ul>
1431      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.1.p.3">HTTP implementations <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> implement persistent connections.
1432      </p>
1433      <h3 id="rfc.section.7.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1.2">7.1.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="persistent.overall" href="#persistent.overall">Overall Operation</a></h3>
1434      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.p.1">A significant difference between HTTP/1.1 and earlier versions of HTTP is that persistent connections are the default behavior
1435         of any HTTP connection. That is, unless otherwise indicated, the client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> assume that the server will maintain a persistent connection, even after error responses from the server.
1436      </p>
1437      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.p.2">Persistent connections provide a mechanism by which a client and a server can signal the close of a TCP connection. This signaling
1438         takes place using the Connection header field (<a href="#header.connection" id="rfc.xref.header.connection.2" title="Connection">Section&nbsp;8.1</a>). Once a close has been signaled, the client <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send any more requests on that connection.
1439      </p>
1440      <h4 id="rfc.section.7.1.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1.2.1">7.1.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="persistent.negotiation" href="#persistent.negotiation">Negotiation</a></h4>
1441      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.1.p.1">An HTTP/1.1 server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> assume that a HTTP/1.1 client intends to maintain a persistent connection unless a Connection header including the connection-token
1442         "close" was sent in the request. If the server chooses to close the connection immediately after sending the response, it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send a Connection header including the connection-token close.
1443      </p>
1444      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.1.p.2">An HTTP/1.1 client <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> expect a connection to remain open, but would decide to keep it open based on whether the response from a server contains
1445         a Connection header with the connection-token close. In case the client does not want to maintain a connection for more than
1446         that request, it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send a Connection header including the connection-token close.
1447      </p>
1448      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.1.p.3">If either the client or the server sends the close token in the Connection header, that request becomes the last one for the
1449         connection.
1450      </p>
1451      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.1.p.4">Clients and servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> assume that a persistent connection is maintained for HTTP versions less than 1.1 unless it is explicitly signaled. See <a href="#compatibility.with.http.1.0.persistent.connections" title="Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections">Appendix&nbsp;D.2</a> for more information on backward compatibility with HTTP/1.0 clients.
1452      </p>
1453      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.1.p.5">In order to remain persistent, all messages on the connection <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> have a self-defined message length (i.e., one not defined by closure of the connection), as described in <a href="#message.length" title="Message Length">Section&nbsp;4.4</a>.
1454      </p>
1455      <h4 id="rfc.section.7.1.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1.2.2">7.1.2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="pipelining" href="#pipelining">Pipelining</a></h4>
1456      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.2.p.1">A client that supports persistent connections <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> "pipeline" its requests (i.e., send multiple requests without waiting for each response). A server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send its responses to those requests in the same order that the requests were received.
1457      </p>
1458      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.2.p.2">Clients which assume persistent connections and pipeline immediately after connection establishment <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be prepared to retry their connection if the first pipelined attempt fails. If a client does such a retry, it <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> pipeline before it knows the connection is persistent. Clients <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> also be prepared to resend their requests if the server closes the connection before sending all of the corresponding responses.
1459      </p>
1460      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.2.2.p.3">Clients <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> pipeline requests using non-idempotent methods or non-idempotent sequences of methods (see <a href="p2-semantics.html#idempotent.methods" title="Idempotent Methods">Section 8.1.2</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>). Otherwise, a premature termination of the transport connection could lead to indeterminate results. A client wishing to
1461         send a non-idempotent request <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> wait to send that request until it has received the response status for the previous request.
1462      </p>
1463      <h3 id="rfc.section.7.1.3"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1.3">7.1.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="persistent.proxy" href="#persistent.proxy">Proxy Servers</a></h3>
1464      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.3.p.1">It is especially important that proxies correctly implement the properties of the Connection header field as specified in <a href="#header.connection" id="rfc.xref.header.connection.3" title="Connection">Section&nbsp;8.1</a>.
1465      </p>
1466      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.3.p.2">The proxy server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> signal persistent connections separately with its clients and the origin servers (or other proxy servers) that it connects
1467         to. Each persistent connection applies to only one transport link.
1468      </p>
1469      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.3.p.3">A proxy server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> establish a HTTP/1.1 persistent connection with an HTTP/1.0 client (but see <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a> for information and discussion of the problems with the Keep-Alive header implemented by many HTTP/1.0 clients).
1470      </p>
1471      <h3 id="rfc.section.7.1.4"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1.4">7.1.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="persistent.practical" href="#persistent.practical">Practical Considerations</a></h3>
1472      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.4.p.1">Servers will usually have some time-out value beyond which they will no longer maintain an inactive connection. Proxy servers
1473         might make this a higher value since it is likely that the client will be making more connections through the same server.
1474         The use of persistent connections places no requirements on the length (or existence) of this time-out for either the client
1475         or the server.
1476      </p>
1477      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.4.p.2">When a client or server wishes to time-out it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> issue a graceful close on the transport connection. Clients and servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> both constantly watch for the other side of the transport close, and respond to it as appropriate. If a client or server does
1478         not detect the other side's close promptly it could cause unnecessary resource drain on the network.
1479      </p>
1480      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.4.p.3">A client, server, or proxy <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> close the transport connection at any time. For example, a client might have started to send a new request at the same time
1481         that the server has decided to close the "idle" connection. From the server's point of view, the connection is being closed
1482         while it was idle, but from the client's point of view, a request is in progress.
1483      </p>
1484      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.4.p.4">This means that clients, servers, and proxies <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be able to recover from asynchronous close events. Client software <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> reopen the transport connection and retransmit the aborted sequence of requests without user interaction so long as the request
1485         sequence is idempotent (see <a href="p2-semantics.html#idempotent.methods" title="Idempotent Methods">Section 8.1.2</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.10"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>). Non-idempotent methods or sequences <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be automatically retried, although user agents <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> offer a human operator the choice of retrying the request(s). Confirmation by user-agent software with semantic understanding
1486         of the application <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> substitute for user confirmation. The automatic retry <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be repeated if the second sequence of requests fails.
1487      </p>
1488      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.4.p.5">Servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> always respond to at least one request per connection, if at all possible. Servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> close a connection in the middle of transmitting a response, unless a network or client failure is suspected.
1489      </p>
1490      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.4.p.6">Clients that use persistent connections <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> limit the number of simultaneous connections that they maintain to a given server. A single-user client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> maintain more than 2 connections with any server or proxy. A proxy <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use up to 2*N connections to another server or proxy, where N is the number of simultaneously active users. These guidelines
1491         are intended to improve HTTP response times and avoid congestion.
1492      </p>
1493      <h2 id="rfc.section.7.2"><a href="#rfc.section.7.2">7.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="message.transmission.requirements" href="#message.transmission.requirements">Message Transmission Requirements</a></h2>
1494      <h3 id="rfc.section.7.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.2.1">7.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="persistent.flow" href="#persistent.flow">Persistent Connections and Flow Control</a></h3>
1495      <p id="rfc.section.7.2.1.p.1">HTTP/1.1 servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> maintain persistent connections and use TCP's flow control mechanisms to resolve temporary overloads, rather than terminating
1496         connections with the expectation that clients will retry. The latter technique can exacerbate network congestion.
1497      </p>
1498      <h3 id="rfc.section.7.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.7.2.2">7.2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="persistent.monitor" href="#persistent.monitor">Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages</a></h3>
1499      <p id="rfc.section.7.2.2.p.1">An HTTP/1.1 (or later) client sending a message-body <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> monitor the network connection for an error status while it is transmitting the request. If the client sees an error status,
1500         it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> immediately cease transmitting the body. If the body is being sent using a "chunked" encoding (<a href="#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>), a zero length chunk and empty trailer <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used to prematurely mark the end of the message. If the body was preceded by a Content-Length header, the client <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> close the connection.
1501      </p>
1502      <h3 id="rfc.section.7.2.3"><a href="#rfc.section.7.2.3">7.2.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="use.of.the.100.status" href="#use.of.the.100.status">Use of the 100 (Continue) Status</a></h3>
1503      <p id="rfc.section.7.2.3.p.1">The purpose of the 100 (Continue) status (see <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.100" title="100 Continue">Section 9.1.1</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.11"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>) is to allow a client that is sending a request message with a request body to determine if the origin server is willing
1504         to accept the request (based on the request headers) before the client sends the request body. In some cases, it might either
1505         be inappropriate or highly inefficient for the client to send the body if the server will reject the message without looking
1506         at the body.
1507      </p>
1508      <p id="rfc.section.7.2.3.p.2">Requirements for HTTP/1.1 clients: </p>
1509      <ul>
1510         <li>If a client will wait for a 100 (Continue) response before sending the request body, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send an Expect request-header field (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.expect" title="Expect">Section 10.2</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.12"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>) with the "100-continue" expectation.
1511         </li>
1512         <li>A client <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send an Expect request-header field (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.expect" title="Expect">Section 10.2</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.13"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>) with the "100-continue" expectation if it does not intend to send a request body.
1513         </li>
1514      </ul>
1515      <p id="rfc.section.7.2.3.p.3">Because of the presence of older implementations, the protocol allows ambiguous situations in which a client may send "Expect:
1516         100-continue" without receiving either a 417 (Expectation Failed) status or a 100 (Continue) status. Therefore, when a client
1517         sends this header field to an origin server (possibly via a proxy) from which it has never seen a 100 (Continue) status, the
1518         client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> wait for an indefinite period before sending the request body.
1519      </p>
1520      <p id="rfc.section.7.2.3.p.4">Requirements for HTTP/1.1 origin servers: </p>
1521      <ul>
1522         <li>Upon receiving a request which includes an Expect request-header field with the "100-continue" expectation, an origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> either respond with 100 (Continue) status and continue to read from the input stream, or respond with a final status code.
1523            The origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> wait for the request body before sending the 100 (Continue) response. If it responds with a final status code, it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> close the transport connection or it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> continue to read and discard the rest of the request. It <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method if it returns a final status code.
1524         </li>
1525         <li>An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> send a 100 (Continue) response if the request message does not include an Expect request-header field with the "100-continue"
1526            expectation, and <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a 100 (Continue) response if such a request comes from an HTTP/1.0 (or earlier) client. There is an exception to this
1527            rule: for compatibility with <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>, a server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> send a 100 (Continue) status in response to an HTTP/1.1 PUT or POST request that does not include an Expect request-header
1528            field with the "100-continue" expectation. This exception, the purpose of which is to minimize any client processing delays
1529            associated with an undeclared wait for 100 (Continue) status, applies only to HTTP/1.1 requests, and not to requests with
1530            any other HTTP-version value.
1531         </li>
1532         <li>An origin server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> omit a 100 (Continue) response if it has already received some or all of the request body for the corresponding request.
1533         </li>
1534         <li>An origin server that sends a 100 (Continue) response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> ultimately send a final status code, once the request body is received and processed, unless it terminates the transport connection
1535            prematurely.
1536         </li>
1537         <li>If an origin server receives a request that does not include an Expect request-header field with the "100-continue" expectation,
1538            the request includes a request body, and the server responds with a final status code before reading the entire request body
1539            from the transport connection, then the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> close the transport connection until it has read the entire request, or until the client closes the connection. Otherwise,
1540            the client might not reliably receive the response message. However, this requirement is not be construed as preventing a
1541            server from defending itself against denial-of-service attacks, or from badly broken client implementations.
1542         </li>
1543      </ul>
1544      <p id="rfc.section.7.2.3.p.5">Requirements for HTTP/1.1 proxies: </p>
1545      <ul>
1546         <li>If a proxy receives a request that includes an Expect request-header field with the "100-continue" expectation, and the proxy
1547            either knows that the next-hop server complies with HTTP/1.1 or higher, or does not know the HTTP version of the next-hop
1548            server, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> forward the request, including the Expect header field.
1549         </li>
1550         <li>If the proxy knows that the version of the next-hop server is HTTP/1.0 or lower, it <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> forward the request, and it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status.
1551         </li>
1552         <li>Proxies <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> maintain a cache recording the HTTP version numbers received from recently-referenced next-hop servers.
1553         </li>
1554         <li>A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> forward a 100 (Continue) response if the request message was received from an HTTP/1.0 (or earlier) client and did not include
1555            an Expect request-header field with the "100-continue" expectation. This requirement overrides the general rule for forwarding
1556            of 1xx responses (see <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.1xx" title="Informational 1xx">Section 9.1</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.14"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>).
1557         </li>
1558      </ul>
1559      <h3 id="rfc.section.7.2.4"><a href="#rfc.section.7.2.4">7.2.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="connection.premature" href="#connection.premature">Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes Connection</a></h3>
1560      <p id="rfc.section.7.2.4.p.1">If an HTTP/1.1 client sends a request which includes a request body, but which does not include an Expect request-header field
1561         with the "100-continue" expectation, and if the client is not directly connected to an HTTP/1.1 origin server, and if the
1562         client sees the connection close before receiving any status from the server, the client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> retry the request. If the client does retry this request, it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use the following "binary exponential backoff" algorithm to be assured of obtaining a reliable response:
1563      </p>
1564      <ol>
1565         <li>Initiate a new connection to the server</li>
1566         <li>Transmit the request-headers</li>
1567         <li>Initialize a variable R to the estimated round-trip time to the server (e.g., based on the time it took to establish the connection),
1568            or to a constant value of 5 seconds if the round-trip time is not available.
1569         </li>
1570         <li>Compute T = R * (2**N), where N is the number of previous retries of this request.</li>
1571         <li>Wait either for an error response from the server, or for T seconds (whichever comes first)</li>
1572         <li>If no error response is received, after T seconds transmit the body of the request.</li>
1573         <li>If client sees that the connection is closed prematurely, repeat from step 1 until the request is accepted, an error response
1574            is received, or the user becomes impatient and terminates the retry process.
1575         </li>
1576      </ol>
1577      <p id="rfc.section.7.2.4.p.2">If at any point an error status is received, the client </p>
1578      <ul>
1579         <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> continue and
1580         </li>
1581         <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> close the connection if it has not completed sending the request message.
1582         </li>
1583      </ul>
1584      <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.fields" href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1>
1585      <p id="rfc.section.8.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard HTTP/1.1 header fields. For entity-header fields, both sender
1586         and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who receives the entity.
1587      </p>
1588      <div id="rfc.iref.c.6"></div>
1589      <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div>
1590      <h2 id="rfc.section.8.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.connection" href="#header.connection">Connection</a></h2>
1591      <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.1">The Connection general-header field allows the sender to specify options that are desired for that particular connection and <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be communicated by proxies over further connections.
1592      </p>
1593      <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.2">The Connection header has the following grammar:</p>
1594      <div id="rfc.figure.u.37"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.70"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.71"></span>    Connection = "Connection" ":" 1#(connection-token)
1595    connection-token  = token
1596</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.4">HTTP/1.1 proxies <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> parse the Connection header field before a message is forwarded and, for each connection-token in this field, remove any header
1597         field(s) from the message with the same name as the connection-token. Connection options are signaled by the presence of a
1598         connection-token in the Connection header field, not by any corresponding additional header field(s), since the additional
1599         header field may not be sent if there are no parameters associated with that connection option.
1600      </p>
1601      <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.5">Message headers listed in the Connection header <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include end-to-end headers, such as Cache-Control.
1602      </p>
1603      <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.6">HTTP/1.1 defines the "close" connection option for the sender to signal that the connection will be closed after completion
1604         of the response. For example,
1605      </p>
1606      <div id="rfc.figure.u.38"></div><pre class="text">    Connection: close
1607</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.8">in either the request or the response header fields indicates that the connection <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be considered `persistent' (<a href="#persistent.connections" title="Persistent Connections">Section&nbsp;7.1</a>) after the current request/response is complete.
1608      </p>
1609      <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.9">An HTTP/1.1 client that does not support persistent connections <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include the "close" connection option in every request message.
1610      </p>
1611      <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.10">An HTTP/1.1 server that does not support persistent connections <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include the "close" connection option in every response message that does not have a 1xx (informational) status code.
1612      </p>
1613      <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.11">A system receiving an HTTP/1.0 (or lower-version) message that includes a Connection header <em class="bcp14">MUST</em>, for each connection-token in this field, remove and ignore any header field(s) from the message with the same name as the
1614         connection-token. This protects against mistaken forwarding of such header fields by pre-HTTP/1.1 proxies. See <a href="#compatibility.with.http.1.0.persistent.connections" title="Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections">Appendix&nbsp;D.2</a>.
1615      </p>
1616      <div id="rfc.iref.c.7"></div>
1617      <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div>
1618      <h2 id="rfc.section.8.2"><a href="#rfc.section.8.2">8.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.content-length" href="#header.content-length">Content-Length</a></h2>
1619      <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.1">The Content-Length entity-header field indicates the size of the entity-body, in decimal number of OCTETs, sent to the recipient
1620         or, in the case of the HEAD method, the size of the entity-body that would have been sent had the request been a GET.
1621      </p>
1622      <div id="rfc.figure.u.39"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.72"></span>    Content-Length    = "Content-Length" ":" 1*DIGIT
1623</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.3">An example is</p>
1624      <div id="rfc.figure.u.40"></div><pre class="text">    Content-Length: 3495
1625</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.5">Applications <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use this field to indicate the transfer-length of the message-body, unless this is prohibited by the rules in <a href="#message.length" title="Message Length">Section&nbsp;4.4</a>.
1626      </p>
1627      <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.6">Any Content-Length greater than or equal to zero is a valid value. <a href="#message.length" title="Message Length">Section&nbsp;4.4</a> describes how to determine the length of a message-body if a Content-Length is not given.
1628      </p>
1629      <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.7">Note that the meaning of this field is significantly different from the corresponding definition in MIME, where it is an optional
1630         field used within the "message/external-body" content-type. In HTTP, it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be sent whenever the message's length can be determined prior to being transferred, unless this is prohibited by the rules
1631         in <a href="#message.length" title="Message Length">Section&nbsp;4.4</a>.
1632      </p>
1633      <div id="rfc.iref.d.2"></div>
1634      <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div>
1635      <h2 id="rfc.section.8.3"><a href="#rfc.section.8.3">8.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.date" href="#header.date">Date</a></h2>
1636      <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.1">The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which the message was originated, having the same semantics
1637         as orig-date in <a href="#RFC822" id="rfc.xref.RFC822.6"><cite title="Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages">[RFC822]</cite></a>. The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in <a href="#full.date" title="Full Date">Section&nbsp;3.3.1</a>; it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be sent in rfc1123-date format.
1638      </p>
1639      <div id="rfc.figure.u.41"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.73"></span>    Date  = "Date" ":" HTTP-date
1640</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.3">An example is</p>
1641      <div id="rfc.figure.u.42"></div><pre class="text">    Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:12:31 GMT
1642</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.5">Origin servers <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a Date header field in all responses, except in these cases:
1643      </p>
1644      <ol>
1645         <li>If the response status code is 100 (Continue) or 101 (Switching Protocols), the response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include a Date header field, at the server's option.
1646         </li>
1647         <li>If the response status code conveys a server error, e.g. 500 (Internal Server Error) or 503 (Service Unavailable), and it
1648            is inconvenient or impossible to generate a valid Date.
1649         </li>
1650         <li>If the server does not have a clock that can provide a reasonable approximation of the current time, its responses <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include a Date header field. In this case, the rules in <a href="#clockless.origin.server.operation" title="Clockless Origin Server Operation">Section&nbsp;8.3.1</a>  <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be followed.
1651         </li>
1652      </ol>
1653      <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.6">A received message that does not have a Date header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be assigned one by the recipient if the message will be cached by that recipient or gatewayed via a protocol which requires
1654         a Date. An HTTP implementation without a clock <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> cache responses without revalidating them on every use. An HTTP cache, especially a shared cache, <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use a mechanism, such as NTP <a href="#RFC1305" id="rfc.xref.RFC1305.1"><cite title="Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation">[RFC1305]</cite></a>, to synchronize its clock with a reliable external standard.
1655      </p>
1656      <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.7">Clients <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> only send a Date header field in messages that include an entity-body, as in the case of the PUT and POST requests, and even
1657         then it is optional. A client without a clock <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a Date header field in a request.
1658      </p>
1659      <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.8">The HTTP-date sent in a Date header <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> represent a date and time subsequent to the generation of the message. It <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> represent the best available approximation of the date and time of message generation, unless the implementation has no means
1660         of generating a reasonably accurate date and time. In theory, the date ought to represent the moment just before the entity
1661         is generated. In practice, the date can be generated at any time during the message origination without affecting its semantic
1662         value.
1663      </p>
1664      <h3 id="rfc.section.8.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.3.1">8.3.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="clockless.origin.server.operation" href="#clockless.origin.server.operation">Clockless Origin Server Operation</a></h3>
1665      <p id="rfc.section.8.3.1.p.1">Some origin server implementations might not have a clock available. An origin server without a clock <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> assign Expires or Last-Modified values to a response, unless these values were associated with the resource by a system or
1666         user with a reliable clock. It <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> assign an Expires value that is known, at or before server configuration time, to be in the past (this allows "pre-expiration"
1667         of responses without storing separate Expires values for each resource).
1668      </p>
1669      <div id="rfc.iref.h.4"></div>
1670      <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div>
1671      <h2 id="rfc.section.8.4"><a href="#rfc.section.8.4">8.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.host" href="#header.host">Host</a></h2>
1672      <p id="rfc.section.8.4.p.1">The Host request-header field specifies the Internet host and port number of the resource being requested, as obtained from
1673         the original URI given by the user or referring resource (generally an HTTP URL, as described in <a href="#http.url" title="http URL">Section&nbsp;3.2.2</a>). The Host field value <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> represent the naming authority of the origin server or gateway given by the original URL. This allows the origin server or
1674         gateway to differentiate between internally-ambiguous URLs, such as the root "/" URL of a server for multiple host names on
1675         a single IP address.
1676      </p>
1677      <div id="rfc.figure.u.43"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.74"></span>    Host = "Host" ":" host [ ":" port ] ; <a href="#http.url" title="http URL">Section&nbsp;3.2.2</a>
1678</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.4.p.3">A "host" without any trailing port information implies the default port for the service requested (e.g., "80" for an HTTP
1679         URL). For example, a request on the origin server for &lt;http://www.example.org/pub/WWW/&gt; would properly include:
1680      </p>
1681      <div id="rfc.figure.u.44"></div><pre class="text">    GET /pub/WWW/ HTTP/1.1
1682    Host: www.example.org
1683</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.4.p.5">A client <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request messages . If the requested URI does not include an Internet host name
1684         for the service being requested, then the Host header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be given with an empty value. An HTTP/1.1 proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> ensure that any request message it forwards does contain an appropriate Host header field that identifies the service being
1685         requested by the proxy. All Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a 400 (Bad Request) status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host header field.
1686      </p>
1687      <p id="rfc.section.8.4.p.6">See Sections <a href="#the.resource.identified.by.a.request" title="The Resource Identified by a Request">5.2</a> and <a href="#changes.to.simplify.multi-homed.web.servers.and.conserve.ip.addresses" title="Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and Conserve IP Addresses">D.1.1</a> for other requirements relating to Host.
1688      </p>
1689      <div id="rfc.iref.t.2"></div>
1690      <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div>
1691      <h2 id="rfc.section.8.5"><a href="#rfc.section.8.5">8.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.te" href="#header.te">TE</a></h2>
1692      <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.1">The TE request-header field indicates what extension transfer-codings it is willing to accept in the response and whether
1693         or not it is willing to accept trailer fields in a chunked transfer-coding. Its value may consist of the keyword "trailers"
1694         and/or a comma-separated list of extension transfer-coding names with optional accept parameters (as described in <a href="#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>).
1695      </p>
1696      <div id="rfc.figure.u.45"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.75"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.76"></span>    TE        = "TE" ":" #( t-codings )
1697    t-codings = "trailers" | ( transfer-extension [ accept-params ] )
1698</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.3">The presence of the keyword "trailers" indicates that the client is willing to accept trailer fields in a chunked transfer-coding,
1699         as defined in <a href="#chunked.transfer.encoding" title="Chunked Transfer Coding">Section&nbsp;3.4.1</a>. This keyword is reserved for use with transfer-coding values even though it does not itself represent a transfer-coding.
1700      </p>
1701      <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.4">Examples of its use are:</p>
1702      <div id="rfc.figure.u.46"></div><pre class="text">    TE: deflate
1703    TE:
1704    TE: trailers, deflate;q=0.5
1705</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.6">The TE header field only applies to the immediate connection. Therefore, the keyword <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be supplied within a Connection header field (<a href="#header.connection" id="rfc.xref.header.connection.4" title="Connection">Section&nbsp;8.1</a>) whenever TE is present in an HTTP/1.1 message.
1706      </p>
1707      <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.7">A server tests whether a transfer-coding is acceptable, according to a TE field, using these rules: </p>
1708      <ol>
1709         <li>
1710            <p>The "chunked" transfer-coding is always acceptable. If the keyword "trailers" is listed, the client indicates that it is willing
1711               to accept trailer fields in the chunked response on behalf of itself and any downstream clients. The implication is that,
1712               if given, the client is stating that either all downstream clients are willing to accept trailer fields in the forwarded response,
1713               or that it will attempt to buffer the response on behalf of downstream recipients.
1714            </p>
1715            <p> <b>Note:</b> HTTP/1.1 does not define any means to limit the size of a chunked response such that a client can be assured of buffering
1716               the entire response.
1717            </p>
1718         </li>
1719         <li>
1720            <p>If the transfer-coding being tested is one of the transfer-codings listed in the TE field, then it is acceptable unless it
1721               is accompanied by a qvalue of 0. (As defined in <a href="p3-payload.html#quality.values" title="Quality Values">Section 2.4</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.13"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>, a qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable.")
1722            </p>
1723         </li>
1724         <li>
1725            <p>If multiple transfer-codings are acceptable, then the acceptable transfer-coding with the highest non-zero qvalue is preferred.
1726               The "chunked" transfer-coding always has a qvalue of 1.
1727            </p>
1728         </li>
1729      </ol>
1730      <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.8">If the TE field-value is empty or if no TE field is present, the only transfer-coding is "chunked". A message with no transfer-coding
1731         is always acceptable.
1732      </p>
1733      <div id="rfc.iref.t.3"></div>
1734      <div id="rfc.iref.h.7"></div>
1735      <h2 id="rfc.section.8.6"><a href="#rfc.section.8.6">8.6</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.trailer" href="#header.trailer">Trailer</a></h2>
1736      <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.1">The Trailer general field value indicates that the given set of header fields is present in the trailer of a message encoded
1737         with chunked transfer-coding.
1738      </p>
1739      <div id="rfc.figure.u.47"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.77"></span>    Trailer  = "Trailer" ":" 1#field-name
1740</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.3">An HTTP/1.1 message <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include a Trailer header field in a message using chunked transfer-coding with a non-empty trailer. Doing so allows the recipient
1741         to know which header fields to expect in the trailer.
1742      </p>
1743      <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.4">If no Trailer header field is present, the trailer <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> include any header fields. See <a href="#chunked.transfer.encoding" title="Chunked Transfer Coding">Section&nbsp;3.4.1</a> for restrictions on the use of trailer fields in a "chunked" transfer-coding.
1744      </p>
1745      <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.5">Message header fields listed in the Trailer header field <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include the following header fields:
1746      </p>
1747      <ul>
1748         <li>Transfer-Encoding</li>
1749         <li>Content-Length</li>
1750         <li>Trailer</li>
1751      </ul>
1752      <div id="rfc.iref.t.4"></div>
1753      <div id="rfc.iref.h.8"></div>
1754      <h2 id="rfc.section.8.7"><a href="#rfc.section.8.7">8.7</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.transfer-encoding" href="#header.transfer-encoding">Transfer-Encoding</a></h2>
1755      <p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.1">The Transfer-Encoding general-header field indicates what (if any) type of transformation has been applied to the message
1756         body in order to safely transfer it between the sender and the recipient. This differs from the content-coding in that the
1757         transfer-coding is a property of the message, not of the entity.
1758      </p>
1759      <div id="rfc.figure.u.48"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.78"></span>  Transfer-Encoding       = "Transfer-Encoding" ":" 1#transfer-coding
1760</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.3">Transfer-codings are defined in <a href="#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>. An example is:
1761      </p>
1762      <div id="rfc.figure.u.49"></div><pre class="text">  Transfer-Encoding: chunked
1763</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.5">If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the transfer-codings <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be listed in the order in which they were applied. Additional information about the encoding parameters <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be provided by other entity-header fields not defined by this specification.
1764      </p>
1765      <p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.6">Many older HTTP/1.0 applications do not understand the Transfer-Encoding header.</p>
1766      <div id="rfc.iref.u.3"></div>
1767      <div id="rfc.iref.h.9"></div>
1768      <h2 id="rfc.section.8.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8.8">8.8</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.upgrade" href="#header.upgrade">Upgrade</a></h2>
1769      <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.1">The Upgrade general-header allows the client to specify what additional communication protocols it supports and would like
1770         to use if the server finds it appropriate to switch protocols. The server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the Upgrade header field within a 101 (Switching Protocols) response to indicate which protocol(s) are being switched.
1771      </p>
1772      <div id="rfc.figure.u.50"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.79"></span>    Upgrade        = "Upgrade" ":" 1#product
1773</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.3">For example,</p>
1774      <div id="rfc.figure.u.51"></div><pre class="text">    Upgrade: HTTP/2.0, SHTTP/1.3, IRC/6.9, RTA/x11
1775</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.5">The Upgrade header field is intended to provide a simple mechanism for transition from HTTP/1.1 to some other, incompatible
1776         protocol. It does so by allowing the client to advertise its desire to use another protocol, such as a later version of HTTP
1777         with a higher major version number, even though the current request has been made using HTTP/1.1. This eases the difficult
1778         transition between incompatible protocols by allowing the client to initiate a request in the more commonly supported protocol
1779         while indicating to the server that it would like to use a "better" protocol if available (where "better" is determined by
1780         the server, possibly according to the nature of the method and/or resource being requested).
1781      </p>
1782      <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.6">The Upgrade header field only applies to switching application-layer protocols upon the existing transport-layer connection.
1783         Upgrade cannot be used to insist on a protocol change; its acceptance and use by the server is optional. The capabilities
1784         and nature of the application-layer communication after the protocol change is entirely dependent upon the new protocol chosen,
1785         although the first action after changing the protocol <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be a response to the initial HTTP request containing the Upgrade header field.
1786      </p>
1787      <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.7">The Upgrade header field only applies to the immediate connection. Therefore, the upgrade keyword <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be supplied within a Connection header field (<a href="#header.connection" id="rfc.xref.header.connection.5" title="Connection">Section&nbsp;8.1</a>) whenever Upgrade is present in an HTTP/1.1 message.
1788      </p>
1789      <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.8">The Upgrade header field cannot be used to indicate a switch to a protocol on a different connection. For that purpose, it
1790         is more appropriate to use a 301, 302, 303, or 305 redirection response.
1791      </p>
1792      <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.9">This specification only defines the protocol name "HTTP" for use by the family of Hypertext Transfer Protocols, as defined
1793         by the HTTP version rules of <a href="#http.version" title="HTTP Version">Section&nbsp;3.1</a> and future updates to this specification. Any token can be used as a protocol name; however, it will only be useful if both
1794         the client and server associate the name with the same protocol.
1795      </p>
1796      <div id="rfc.iref.v.2"></div>
1797      <div id="rfc.iref.h.10"></div>
1798      <h2 id="rfc.section.8.9"><a href="#rfc.section.8.9">8.9</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.via" href="#header.via">Via</a></h2>
1799      <p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.1">The Via general-header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be used by gateways and proxies to indicate the intermediate protocols and recipients between the user agent and the server
1800         on requests, and between the origin server and the client on responses. It is analogous to the "Received" field of <a href="#RFC822" id="rfc.xref.RFC822.7"><cite title="Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages">[RFC822]</cite></a> and is intended to be used for tracking message forwards, avoiding request loops, and identifying the protocol capabilities
1801         of all senders along the request/response chain.
1802      </p>
1803      <div id="rfc.figure.u.52"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.80"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.81"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.82"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.83"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.84"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.85"></span>   Via =  "Via" ":" 1#( received-protocol received-by [ comment ] )
1804   received-protocol = [ protocol-name "/" ] protocol-version
1805   protocol-name     = token
1806   protocol-version  = token
1807   received-by       = ( host [ ":" port ] ) | pseudonym
1808   pseudonym         = token
1809</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.3">The received-protocol indicates the protocol version of the message received by the server or client along each segment of
1810         the request/response chain. The received-protocol version is appended to the Via field value when the message is forwarded
1811         so that information about the protocol capabilities of upstream applications remains visible to all recipients.
1812      </p>
1813      <p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.4">The protocol-name is optional if and only if it would be "HTTP". The received-by field is normally the host and optional port
1814         number of a recipient server or client that subsequently forwarded the message. However, if the real host is considered to
1815         be sensitive information, it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be replaced by a pseudonym. If the port is not given, it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be assumed to be the default port of the received-protocol.
1816      </p>
1817      <p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.5">Multiple Via field values represents each proxy or gateway that has forwarded the message. Each recipient <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> append its information such that the end result is ordered according to the sequence of forwarding applications.
1818      </p>
1819      <p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.6">Comments <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used in the Via header field to identify the software of the recipient proxy or gateway, analogous to the User-Agent and
1820         Server header fields. However, all comments in the Via field are optional and <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be removed by any recipient prior to forwarding the message.
1821      </p>
1822      <p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.7">For example, a request message could be sent from an HTTP/1.0 user agent to an internal proxy code-named "fred", which uses
1823         HTTP/1.1 to forward the request to a public proxy at p.example.net, which completes the request by forwarding it to the origin
1824         server at www.example.com. The request received by www.example.com would then have the following Via header field:
1825      </p>
1826      <div id="rfc.figure.u.53"></div><pre class="text">    Via: 1.0 fred, 1.1 p.example.net (Apache/1.1)
1827</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.9">Proxies and gateways used as a portal through a network firewall <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em>, by default, forward the names and ports of hosts within the firewall region. This information <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> only be propagated if explicitly enabled. If not enabled, the received-by host of any host behind the firewall <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be replaced by an appropriate pseudonym for that host.
1828      </p>
1829      <p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.10">For organizations that have strong privacy requirements for hiding internal structures, a proxy <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> combine an ordered subsequence of Via header field entries with identical received-protocol values into a single such entry.
1830         For example,
1831      </p>
1832      <div id="rfc.figure.u.54"></div><pre class="text">    Via: 1.0 ricky, 1.1 ethel, 1.1 fred, 1.0 lucy
1833</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.12">could be collapsed to</p>
1834      <div id="rfc.figure.u.55"></div><pre class="text">    Via: 1.0 ricky, 1.1 mertz, 1.0 lucy
1835</pre><p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.14">Applications <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> combine multiple entries unless they are all under the same organizational control and the hosts have already been replaced
1836         by pseudonyms. Applications <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> combine entries which have different received-protocol values.
1837      </p>
1838      <h1 id="rfc.section.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;<a id="IANA.considerations" href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1>
1839      <p id="rfc.section.9.p.1">TBD.</p>
1840      <h1 id="rfc.section.10"><a href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a>&nbsp;<a id="security.considerations" href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1>
1841      <p id="rfc.section.10.p.1">This section is meant to inform application developers, information providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1
1842         as described by this document. The discussion does not include definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does
1843         make some suggestions for reducing security risks.
1844      </p>
1845      <h2 id="rfc.section.10.1"><a href="#rfc.section.10.1">10.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="personal.information" href="#personal.information">Personal Information</a></h2>
1846      <p id="rfc.section.10.1.p.1">HTTP clients are often privy to large amounts of personal information (e.g. the user's name, location, mail address, passwords,
1847         encryption keys, etc.), and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be very careful to prevent unintentional leakage of this information via the HTTP protocol to other sources. We very strongly
1848         recommend that a convenient interface be provided for the user to control dissemination of such information, and that designers
1849         and implementors be particularly careful in this area. History shows that errors in this area often create serious security
1850         and/or privacy problems and generate highly adverse publicity for the implementor's company.
1851      </p>
1852      <h2 id="rfc.section.10.2"><a href="#rfc.section.10.2">10.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="abuse.of.server.log.information" href="#abuse.of.server.log.information">Abuse of Server Log Information</a></h2>
1853      <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.1">A server is in the position to save personal data about a user's requests which might identify their reading patterns or subjects
1854         of interest. This information is clearly confidential in nature and its handling can be constrained by law in certain countries.
1855         People using the HTTP protocol to provide data are responsible for ensuring that such material is not distributed without
1856         the permission of any individuals that are identifiable by the published results.
1857      </p>
1858      <h2 id="rfc.section.10.3"><a href="#rfc.section.10.3">10.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="attack.pathname" href="#attack.pathname">Attacks Based On File and Path Names</a></h2>
1859      <p id="rfc.section.10.3.p.1">Implementations of HTTP origin servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be careful to restrict the documents returned by HTTP requests to be only those that were intended by the server administrators.
1860         If an HTTP server translates HTTP URIs directly into file system calls, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> take special care not to serve files that were not intended to be delivered to HTTP clients. For example, UNIX, Microsoft
1861         Windows, and other operating systems use ".." as a path component to indicate a directory level above the current one. On
1862         such a system, an HTTP server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> disallow any such construct in the Request-URI if it would otherwise allow access to a resource outside those intended to
1863         be accessible via the HTTP server. Similarly, files intended for reference only internally to the server (such as access control
1864         files, configuration files, and script code) <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be protected from inappropriate retrieval, since they might contain sensitive information. Experience has shown that minor
1865         bugs in such HTTP server implementations have turned into security risks.
1866      </p>
1867      <h2 id="rfc.section.10.4"><a href="#rfc.section.10.4">10.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="dns.spoofing" href="#dns.spoofing">DNS Spoofing</a></h2>
1868      <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.1">Clients using HTTP rely heavily on the Domain Name Service, and are thus generally prone to security attacks based on the
1869         deliberate mis-association of IP addresses and DNS names. Clients need to be cautious in assuming the continuing validity
1870         of an IP number/DNS name association.
1871      </p>
1872      <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.2">In particular, HTTP clients <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> rely on their name resolver for confirmation of an IP number/DNS name association, rather than caching the result of previous
1873         host name lookups. Many platforms already can cache host name lookups locally when appropriate, and they <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be configured to do so. It is proper for these lookups to be cached, however, only when the TTL (Time To Live) information
1874         reported by the name server makes it likely that the cached information will remain useful.
1875      </p>
1876      <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.3">If HTTP clients cache the results of host name lookups in order to achieve a performance improvement, they <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> observe the TTL information reported by DNS.
1877      </p>
1878      <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.4">If HTTP clients do not observe this rule, they could be spoofed when a previously-accessed server's IP address changes. As
1879         network renumbering is expected to become increasingly common <a href="#RFC1900" id="rfc.xref.RFC1900.2"><cite title="Renumbering Needs Work">[RFC1900]</cite></a>, the possibility of this form of attack will grow. Observing this requirement thus reduces this potential security vulnerability.
1880      </p>
1881      <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.5">This requirement also improves the load-balancing behavior of clients for replicated servers using the same DNS name and reduces
1882         the likelihood of a user's experiencing failure in accessing sites which use that strategy.
1883      </p>
1884      <h2 id="rfc.section.10.5"><a href="#rfc.section.10.5">10.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="attack.proxies" href="#attack.proxies">Proxies and Caching</a></h2>
1885      <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.1">By their very nature, HTTP proxies are men-in-the-middle, and represent an opportunity for man-in-the-middle attacks. Compromise
1886         of the systems on which the proxies run can result in serious security and privacy problems. Proxies have access to security-related
1887         information, personal information about individual users and organizations, and proprietary information belonging to users
1888         and content providers. A compromised proxy, or a proxy implemented or configured without regard to security and privacy considerations,
1889         might be used in the commission of a wide range of potential attacks.
1890      </p>
1891      <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.2">Proxy operators should protect the systems on which proxies run as they would protect any system that contains or transports
1892         sensitive information. In particular, log information gathered at proxies often contains highly sensitive personal information,
1893         and/or information about organizations. Log information should be carefully guarded, and appropriate guidelines for use developed
1894         and followed. (<a href="#abuse.of.server.log.information" title="Abuse of Server Log Information">Section&nbsp;10.2</a>).
1895      </p>
1896      <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.3">Proxy implementors should consider the privacy and security implications of their design and coding decisions, and of the
1897         configuration options they provide to proxy operators (especially the default configuration).
1898      </p>
1899      <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.4">Users of a proxy need to be aware that they are no trustworthier than the people who run the proxy; HTTP itself cannot solve
1900         this problem.
1901      </p>
1902      <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.5">The judicious use of cryptography, when appropriate, may suffice to protect against a broad range of security and privacy
1903         attacks. Such cryptography is beyond the scope of the HTTP/1.1 specification.
1904      </p>
1905      <h2 id="rfc.section.10.6"><a href="#rfc.section.10.6">10.6</a>&nbsp;<a id="attack.DoS" href="#attack.DoS">Denial of Service Attacks on Proxies</a></h2>
1906      <p id="rfc.section.10.6.p.1">They exist. They are hard to defend against. Research continues. Beware.</p>
1907      <h1 id="rfc.section.11"><a href="#rfc.section.11">11.</a>&nbsp;<a id="ack" href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></h1>
1908      <p id="rfc.section.11.p.1">This specification makes heavy use of the augmented BNF and generic constructs defined by David H. Crocker for <a href="#RFC822" id="rfc.xref.RFC822.8"><cite title="Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages">[RFC822]</cite></a>. Similarly, it reuses many of the definitions provided by Nathaniel Borenstein and Ned Freed for MIME <a href="#RFC2045" id="rfc.xref.RFC2045.3"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies">[RFC2045]</cite></a>. We hope that their inclusion in this specification will help reduce past confusion over the relationship between HTTP and
1909         Internet mail message formats.
1910      </p>
1911      <p id="rfc.section.11.p.2">The HTTP protocol has evolved considerably over the years. It has benefited from a large and active developer community--the
1912         many people who have participated on the www-talk mailing list--and it is that community which has been most responsible for
1913         the success of HTTP and of the World-Wide Web in general. Marc Andreessen, Robert Cailliau, Daniel W. Connolly, Bob Denny,
1914         John Franks, Jean-Francois Groff, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Hakon W. Lie, Ari Luotonen, Rob McCool, Lou Montulli, Dave Raggett,
1915         Tony Sanders, and Marc VanHeyningen deserve special recognition for their efforts in defining early aspects of the protocol.
1916      </p>
1917      <p id="rfc.section.11.p.3">This document has benefited greatly from the comments of all those participating in the HTTP-WG. In addition to those already
1918         mentioned, the following individuals have contributed to this specification:
1919      </p>
1920      <p id="rfc.section.11.p.4">Gary Adams, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Keith Ball, Brian Behlendorf, Paul Burchard, Maurizio Codogno, Mike Cowlishaw, Roman
1921         Czyborra, Michael A. Dolan, Daniel DuBois, David J. Fiander, Alan Freier, Marc Hedlund, Greg Herlihy, Koen Holtman, Alex Hopmann,
1922         Bob Jernigan, Shel Kaphan, Rohit Khare, John Klensin, Martijn Koster, Alexei Kosut, David M. Kristol, Daniel LaLiberte, Ben
1923         Laurie, Paul J. Leach, Albert Lunde, John C. Mallery, Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin, Mitra, David Morris, Gavin Nicol, Ross
1924         Patterson, Bill Perry, Jeffrey Perry, Scott Powers, Owen Rees, Luigi Rizzo, David Robinson, Marc Salomon, Rich Salz, Allan
1925         M. Schiffman, Jim Seidman, Chuck Shotton, Eric W. Sink, Simon E. Spero, Richard N. Taylor, Robert S. Thau, Bill (BearHeart)
1926         Weinman, Francois Yergeau, Mary Ellen Zurko, Josh Cohen.
1927      </p>
1928      <p id="rfc.section.11.p.5">Thanks to the "cave men" of Palo Alto. You know who you are.</p>
1929      <p id="rfc.section.11.p.6">Jim Gettys (the current editor of this document) wishes particularly to thank Roy Fielding, the previous editor of this document,
1930         along with John Klensin, Jeff Mogul, Paul Leach, Dave Kristol, Koen Holtman, John Franks, Josh Cohen, Alex Hopmann, Scott
1931         Lawrence, and Larry Masinter for their help. And thanks go particularly to Jeff Mogul and Scott Lawrence for performing the
1932         "MUST/MAY/SHOULD" audit.
1933      </p>
1934      <p id="rfc.section.11.p.7">The Apache Group, Anselm Baird-Smith, author of Jigsaw, and Henrik Frystyk implemented RFC 2068 early, and we wish to thank
1935         them for the discovery of many of the problems that this document attempts to rectify.
1936      </p>
1937      <h1 id="rfc.references"><a href="#rfc.section.12" id="rfc.section.12">12.</a> References
1938      </h1>
1939      <table summary="References">                                                               
1940         <tr>
1941            <td class="reference"><b id="ISO-8859">[ISO-8859]</b></td>
1942            <td class="top">International Organization for Standardization, “Information technology - 8-bit single byte coded graphic - character sets”, 1987-1990.<br>Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987. Part 2: Latin alphabet No. 2, ISO-8859-2, 1987. Part 3: Latin alphabet No.
1943               3, ISO-8859-3, 1988. Part 4: Latin alphabet No. 4, ISO-8859-4, 1988. Part 5: Latin/Cyrillic alphabet, ISO-8859-5, 1988. Part
1944               6: Latin/Arabic alphabet, ISO-8859-6, 1987. Part 7: Latin/Greek alphabet, ISO-8859-7, 1987. Part 8: Latin/Hebrew alphabet,
1945               ISO-8859-8, 1988. Part 9: Latin alphabet No. 5, ISO-8859-9, 1990.
1946            </td>
1947         </tr>
1948         <tr>
1949            <td class="reference"><b id="Nie1997">[Nie1997]</b></td>
1950            <td class="top">Nielsen, H.F.., Gettys, J., Prud'hommeaux, E., Lie, H., and C. Lilley, “Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG”, Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '97, Cannes France, Sep&nbsp;1997.</td>
1951         </tr>
1952         <tr>
1953            <td class="reference"><b id="Pad1995">[Pad1995]</b></td>
1954            <td class="top">Padmanabhan, V.N. and J.C. Mogul, “Improving HTTP Latency”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems&nbsp;v. 28, pp. 25-35, Dec&nbsp;1995.<br>Slightly revised version of paper in Proc. 2nd International WWW Conference '94: Mosaic and the Web, Oct. 1994, which is available
1955               at &lt;<a href="http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/DDay/mogul/HTTPLatency.html">http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/DDay/mogul/HTTPLatency.html</a>&gt;.
1956            </td>
1957         </tr>
1958         <tr>
1959            <td class="reference"><b id="Part2">[Part2]</b></td>
1960            <td class="top"><a title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a title="greenbytes GmbH">J. F. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-latest">HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-latest (work in progress), December&nbsp;2007.
1961            </td>
1962         </tr>
1963         <tr>
1964            <td class="reference"><b id="Part3">[Part3]</b></td>
1965            <td class="top"><a title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a title="greenbytes GmbH">J. F. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-latest">HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-latest (work in progress), December&nbsp;2007.
1966            </td>
1967         </tr>
1968         <tr>
1969            <td class="reference"><b id="Part6">[Part6]</b></td>
1970            <td class="top"><a title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a title="greenbytes GmbH">J. F. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-latest">HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-latest (work in progress), December&nbsp;2007.
1971            </td>
1972         </tr>
1973         <tr>
1974            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1123">[RFC1123]</b></td>
1975            <td class="top"><a title="University of Southern California (USC), Information Sciences Institute">Braden, R.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123">Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support</a>”, STD&nbsp;3, RFC&nbsp;1123, October&nbsp;1989.
1976            </td>
1977         </tr>
1978         <tr>
1979            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1305">[RFC1305]</b></td>
1980            <td class="top"><a title="University of Delaware, Electrical Engineering Department">Mills, D.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1305">Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1305, March&nbsp;1992.
1981            </td>
1982         </tr>
1983         <tr>
1984            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1436">[RFC1436]</b></td>
1985            <td class="top"><a title="University of Minnesota, Computer and Information Services">Anklesaria, F.</a>, <a title="University of Minnesota, Computer and Information Services">McCahill, M.</a>, <a title="University of Minnesota, Computer and Information Services">Lindner, P.</a>, <a title="University of Minnesota, Computer and Information Services">Johnson, D.</a>, <a title="University of Minnesota, Computer and Information Services">Torrey, D.</a>, and <a title="University of Minnesota, Computer and Information Services">B. Alberti</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1436">The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1436, March&nbsp;1993.
1986            </td>
1987         </tr>
1988         <tr>
1989            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1630">[RFC1630]</b></td>
1990            <td class="top"><a title="CERN, World-Wide Web project">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1630">Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of Objects on the Network
1991                  as used in the World-Wide Web</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1630, June&nbsp;1994.
1992            </td>
1993         </tr>
1994         <tr>
1995            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1737">[RFC1737]</b></td>
1996            <td class="top"><a title="Xerox Palo Alto Research Center">Masinter, L.</a> and <a title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">K. Sollins</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1737">Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1737, December&nbsp;1994.
1997            </td>
1998         </tr>
1999         <tr>
2000            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1738">[RFC1738]</b></td>
2001            <td class="top"><a title="CERN, World-Wide Web project">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a title="Xerox PARC">Masinter, L.</a>, and <a title="University of Minnesota, Computer and Information Services">M. McCahill</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738">Uniform Resource Locators (URL)</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1738, December&nbsp;1994.
2002            </td>
2003         </tr>
2004         <tr>
2005            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1808">[RFC1808]</b></td>
2006            <td class="top"><a title="University of California Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1808">Relative Uniform Resource Locators</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1808, June&nbsp;1995.
2007            </td>
2008         </tr>
2009         <tr>
2010            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1900">[RFC1900]</b></td>
2011            <td class="top"><a title="CERN, Computing and Networks Division">Carpenter, B.</a> and <a title="cisco Systems">Y. Rekhter</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1900">Renumbering Needs Work</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1900, February&nbsp;1996.
2012            </td>
2013         </tr>
2014         <tr>
2015            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1945">[RFC1945]</b></td>
2016            <td class="top"><a title="MIT, Laboratory for Computer Science">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.T.</a>, and <a title="W3 Consortium, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">H.F. Nielsen</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1945, May&nbsp;1996.
2017            </td>
2018         </tr>
2019         <tr>
2020            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2045">[RFC2045]</b></td>
2021            <td class="top"><a title="Innosoft International, Inc.">Freed, N.</a> and <a title="First Virtual Holdings">N.S. Borenstein</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045">Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2045, November&nbsp;1996.
2022            </td>
2023         </tr>
2024         <tr>
2025            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2047">[RFC2047]</b></td>
2026            <td class="top"><a title="University of Tennessee">Moore, K.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2047">MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2047, November&nbsp;1996.
2027            </td>
2028         </tr>
2029         <tr>
2030            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2068">[RFC2068]</b></td>
2031            <td class="top"><a title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, <a title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Gettys, J.</a>, <a title="Digital Equipment Corporation, Western Research Laboratory">Mogul, J.</a>, <a title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Nielsen, H.</a>, and <a title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2068, January&nbsp;1997.
2032            </td>
2033         </tr>
2034         <tr>
2035            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</b></td>
2036            <td class="top"><a title="Harvard University">Bradner, S.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>”, BCP&nbsp;14, RFC&nbsp;2119, March&nbsp;1997.
2037            </td>
2038         </tr>
2039         <tr>
2040            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2145">[RFC2145]</b></td>
2041            <td class="top"><a title="Western Research Laboratory">Mogul, J.C.</a>, <a title="Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.T.</a>, <a title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Gettys, J.</a>, and <a title="W3 Consortium">H.F. Nielsen</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2145">Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2145, May&nbsp;1997.
2042            </td>
2043         </tr>
2044         <tr>
2045            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2324">[RFC2324]</b></td>
2046            <td class="top"><a title="Xerox Palo Alto Research Center">Masinter, L.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324">Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2324, April&nbsp;1998.
2047            </td>
2048         </tr>
2049         <tr>
2050            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2396">[RFC2396]</b></td>
2051            <td class="top"><a title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a title="Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.T.</a>, and <a title="Xerox PARC">L. Masinter</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2396">Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2396, August&nbsp;1998.
2052            </td>
2053         </tr>
2054         <tr>
2055            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2616">[RFC2616]</b></td>
2056            <td class="top"><a title="University of California, Irvine">Fielding, R.</a>, <a title="W3C">Gettys, J.</a>, <a title="Compaq Computer Corporation">Mogul, J.</a>, <a title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a title="Xerox Corporation">Masinter, L.</a>, <a title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, and <a title="W3C">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2616, June&nbsp;1999.
2057            </td>
2058         </tr>
2059         <tr>
2060            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC3977">[RFC3977]</b></td>
2061            <td class="top"><a title="THUS plc">Feather, C.</a>, “Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)”, October&nbsp;2006.
2062            </td>
2063         </tr>
2064         <tr>
2065            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC4288">[RFC4288]</b></td>
2066            <td class="top"><a title="Sun Microsystems">Freed, N.</a> and <a>J. Klensin</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288">Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures</a>”, BCP&nbsp;13, RFC&nbsp;4288, December&nbsp;2005.
2067            </td>
2068         </tr>
2069         <tr>
2070            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC821">[RFC821]</b></td>
2071            <td class="top">Postel, J.B., “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821">Simple Mail Transfer Protocol</a>”, STD&nbsp;10, RFC&nbsp;821, August&nbsp;1982.
2072            </td>
2073         </tr>
2074         <tr>
2075            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC822">[RFC822]</b></td>
2076            <td class="top"><a title="University of Delaware, Dept. of Electrical Engineering">Crocker, D.H.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822">Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages</a>”, STD&nbsp;11, RFC&nbsp;822, August&nbsp;1982.
2077            </td>
2078         </tr>
2079         <tr>
2080            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC959">[RFC959]</b></td>
2081            <td class="top">Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959">File Transfer Protocol</a>”, STD&nbsp;9, RFC&nbsp;959, October&nbsp;1985.
2082            </td>
2083         </tr>
2084         <tr>
2085            <td class="reference"><b id="Spe">[Spe]</b></td>
2086            <td class="top">Spero, S., “<a href="http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdma-release/http-prob.html">Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems</a>”, &lt;<a href="http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdma-release/http-prob.html">http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdma-release/http-prob.html</a>&gt;.
2087            </td>
2088         </tr>
2089         <tr>
2090            <td class="reference"><b id="Tou1998">[Tou1998]</b></td>
2091            <td class="top"><a title="USC/Information Sciences Institute">Touch, J.</a>, <a title="USC/Information Sciences Institute">Heidemann, J.</a>, and <a title="USC/Information Sciences Institute">K. Obraczka</a>, “<a href="http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/http-perf96/">Analysis of HTTP Performance</a>”, ISI Research Report&nbsp;ISI/RR-98-463 (original report dated Aug.1996), Aug&nbsp;1998, &lt;<a href="http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/http-perf96/">http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/http-perf96/</a>&gt;.
2092            </td>
2093         </tr>
2094         <tr>
2095            <td class="reference"><b id="USASCII">[USASCII]</b></td>
2096            <td class="top">American National Standards Institute, “Coded Character Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange”, ANSI&nbsp;X3.4, 1986.</td>
2097         </tr>
2098         <tr>
2099            <td class="reference"><b id="WAIS">[WAIS]</b></td>
2100            <td class="top">Davis, F., Kahle, B., Morris, H., Salem, J., Shen, T., Wang, R., Sui, J., and M. Grinbaum, “WAIS Interface Protocol Prototype Functional Specification (v1.5)”, Thinking Machines Corporation, April&nbsp;1990.</td>
2101         </tr>
2102      </table>
2103      <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
2104      <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Roy T. Fielding</span>
2105            (editor)
2106            <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Fielding</span><span class="given-name">Roy T.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Day Software</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Newport Beach</span>, <span class="region">CA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">92660</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline tel">Phone: <a href="tel:+1-949-706-5300"><span class="value">+1-949-706-5300</span></a></span><span class="vcardline tel"><span class="type">Fax</span>: <a href="fax:+1-949-706-5305"><span class="value">+1-949-706-5305</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a><span class="email">fielding@gbiv.com</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://roy.gbiv.com/" class="url">http://roy.gbiv.com/</a></span></address>
2107      <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Jim Gettys</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Gettys</span><span class="given-name">Jim</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">One Laptop per Child</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">21 Oak Knoll Road</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Carlisle</span>, <span class="region">MA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">01741</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a><span class="email">jg@laptop.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.laptop.org/" class="url">http://www.laptop.org/</a></span></address>
2108      <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Jeffrey C. Mogul</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Mogul</span><span class="given-name">Jeffrey C.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Hewlett-Packard Company</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group</span><span class="street-address vcardline">1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Palo Alto</span>, <span class="region">CA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">94304</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a><span class="email">JeffMogul@acm.org</span></a></span></address>
2109      <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Henrik Frystyk Nielsen</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Frystyk</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Microsoft Corporation</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">1 Microsoft Way</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Redmond</span>, <span class="region">WA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">98052</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a><span class="email">henrikn@microsoft.com</span></a></span></address>
2110      <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Larry Masinter</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Masinter</span><span class="given-name">Larry</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Adobe Systems, Incorporated</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">345 Park Ave</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">San Jose</span>, <span class="region">CA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">95110</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a><span class="email">LMM@acm.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://larry.masinter.net/" class="url">http://larry.masinter.net/</a></span></address>
2111      <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Paul J. Leach</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Leach</span><span class="given-name">Paul J.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Microsoft Corporation</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">1 Microsoft Way</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Redmond</span>, <span class="region">WA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">98052</span></span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a><span class="email">paulle@microsoft.com</span></a></span></address>
2112      <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Tim Berners-Lee</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Berners-Lee</span><span class="given-name">Tim</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">World Wide Web Consortium</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory</span><span class="street-address vcardline">The Stata Center, Building 32</span><span class="street-address vcardline">32 Vassar Street</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Cambridge</span>, <span class="region">MA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">02139</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a><span class="email">timbl@w3.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/" class="url">http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/</a></span></address>
2113      <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Yves Lafon</span>
2114            (editor)
2115            <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Lafon</span><span class="given-name">Yves</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">World Wide Web Consortium</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">W3C / ERCIM</span><span class="street-address vcardline">2004, rte des Lucioles</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Sophia-Antipolis</span>, <span class="region">AM</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">06902</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">France</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a><span class="email">ylafon@w3.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/" class="url">http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/</a></span></address>
2116      <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Julian F. Reschke</span>
2117            (editor)
2118            <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Reschke</span><span class="given-name">Julian F.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">greenbytes GmbH</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">Hafenweg 16</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Muenster</span>, <span class="region">NW</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">48155</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">Germany</span></span><span class="vcardline tel">Phone: <a href="tel:+492512807760"><span class="value">+49 251 2807760</span></a></span><span class="vcardline tel"><span class="type">Fax</span>: <a href="fax:+492512807761"><span class="value">+49 251 2807761</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a><span class="email">julian.reschke@greenbytes.de</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/" class="url">http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/</a></span></address>
2119      <div id="rfc.iref.m.2"></div>
2120      <div id="rfc.iref.m.3"></div>
2121      <div id="rfc.iref.m.4"></div>
2122      <div id="rfc.iref.a.1"></div>
2123      <h1 id="rfc.section.A"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a id="internet.media.type.http" href="#internet.media.type.http">Internet Media Type message/http and application/http</a></h1>
2124      <p id="rfc.section.A.p.1">In addition to defining the HTTP/1.1 protocol, this document serves as the specification for the Internet media type "message/http"
2125         and "application/http". The message/http type can be used to enclose a single HTTP request or response message, provided that
2126         it obeys the MIME restrictions for all "message" types regarding line length and encodings. The application/http type can
2127         be used to enclose a pipeline of one or more HTTP request or response messages (not intermixed). The following is to be registered
2128         with IANA <a href="#RFC4288" id="rfc.xref.RFC4288.1"><cite title="Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures">[RFC4288]</cite></a>.
2129      </p>
2130      <p id="rfc.section.A.p.2"> </p>
2131      <dl>
2132         <dt>Media Type name:</dt>
2133         <dd>message</dd>
2134         <dt>Media subtype name:</dt>
2135         <dd>http</dd>
2136         <dt>Required parameters:</dt>
2137         <dd>none</dd>
2138         <dt>Optional parameters:</dt>
2139         <dd>version, msgtype
2140            <dl>
2141               <dt>version:</dt>
2142               <dd>The HTTP-Version number of the enclosed message (e.g., "1.1"). If not present, the version can be determined from the first
2143                  line of the body.
2144               </dd>
2145               <dt>msgtype:</dt>
2146               <dd>The message type -- "request" or "response". If not present, the type can be determined from the first line of the body.</dd>
2147            </dl> 
2148         </dd>
2149         <dt>Encoding considerations:</dt>
2150         <dd>only "7bit", "8bit", or "binary" are permitted</dd>
2151         <dt>Security considerations:</dt>
2152         <dd>none</dd>
2153      </dl>
2154      <p id="rfc.section.A.p.3"> </p>
2155      <dl>
2156         <dt>Media Type name:</dt>
2157         <dd>application</dd>
2158         <dt>Media subtype name:</dt>
2159         <dd>http</dd>
2160         <dt>Required parameters:</dt>
2161         <dd>none</dd>
2162         <dt>Optional parameters:</dt>
2163         <dd>version, msgtype
2164            <dl>
2165               <dt>version:</dt>
2166               <dd>The HTTP-Version number of the enclosed messages (e.g., "1.1"). If not present, the version can be determined from the first
2167                  line of the body.
2168               </dd>
2169               <dt>msgtype:</dt>
2170               <dd>The message type -- "request" or "response". If not present, the type can be determined from the first line of the body.</dd>
2171            </dl> 
2172         </dd>
2173         <dt>Encoding considerations:</dt>
2174         <dd>HTTP messages enclosed by this type are in "binary" format; use of an appropriate Content-Transfer-Encoding is required when
2175            transmitted via E-mail.
2176         </dd>
2177         <dt>Security considerations:</dt>
2178         <dd>none</dd>
2179      </dl>
2180      <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;<a id="tolerant.applications" href="#tolerant.applications">Tolerant Applications</a></h1>
2181      <p id="rfc.section.B.p.1">Although this document specifies the requirements for the generation of HTTP/1.1 messages, not all applications will be correct
2182         in their implementation. We therefore recommend that operational applications be tolerant of deviations whenever those deviations
2183         can be interpreted unambiguously.
2184      </p>
2185      <p id="rfc.section.B.p.2">Clients <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be tolerant in parsing the Status-Line and servers tolerant when parsing the Request-Line. In particular, they <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> accept any amount of SP or HT characters between fields, even though only a single SP is required.
2186      </p>
2187      <p id="rfc.section.B.p.3">The line terminator for message-header fields is the sequence CRLF. However, we recommend that applications, when parsing
2188         such headers, recognize a single LF as a line terminator and ignore the leading CR.
2189      </p>
2190      <p id="rfc.section.B.p.4">The character set of an entity-body <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be labeled as the lowest common denominator of the character codes used within that body, with the exception that not labeling
2191         the entity is preferred over labeling the entity with the labels US-ASCII or ISO-8859-1. See <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.14"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>.
2192      </p>
2193      <p id="rfc.section.B.p.5">Additional rules for requirements on parsing and encoding of dates and other potential problems with date encodings include:</p>
2194      <p id="rfc.section.B.p.6"> </p>
2195      <ul>
2196         <li>HTTP/1.1 clients and caches <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> assume that an RFC-850 date which appears to be more than 50 years in the future is in fact in the past (this helps solve
2197            the "year 2000" problem).
2198         </li>
2199         <li>An HTTP/1.1 implementation <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> internally represent a parsed Expires date as earlier than the proper value, but <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> internally represent a parsed Expires date as later than the proper value.
2200         </li>
2201         <li>All expiration-related calculations <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be done in GMT. The local time zone <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> influence the calculation or comparison of an age or expiration time.
2202         </li>
2203         <li>If an HTTP header incorrectly carries a date value with a time zone other than GMT, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be converted into GMT using the most conservative possible conversion.
2204         </li>
2205      </ul>
2206      <h1 id="rfc.section.C"><a href="#rfc.section.C">C.</a>&nbsp;<a id="conversion.of.date.formats" href="#conversion.of.date.formats">Conversion of Date Formats</a></h1>
2207      <p id="rfc.section.C.p.1">HTTP/1.1 uses a restricted set of date formats (<a href="#full.date" title="Full Date">Section&nbsp;3.3.1</a>) to simplify the process of date comparison. Proxies and gateways from other protocols <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> 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.
2208      </p>
2209      <h1 id="rfc.section.D"><a href="#rfc.section.D">D.</a>&nbsp;<a id="compatibility" href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a></h1>
2210      <p id="rfc.section.D.p.1">It is beyond the scope of a protocol specification to mandate compliance with previous versions. HTTP/1.1 was deliberately
2211         designed, however, to make supporting previous versions easy. It is worth noting that, at the time of composing this specification
2212         (1996), we would expect commercial HTTP/1.1 servers to:
2213      </p>
2214      <ul>
2215         <li>recognize the format of the Request-Line for HTTP/0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 requests;</li>
2216         <li>understand any valid request in the format of HTTP/0.9, 1.0, or 1.1;</li>
2217         <li>respond appropriately with a message in the same major version used by the client.</li>
2218      </ul>
2219      <p id="rfc.section.D.p.2">And we would expect HTTP/1.1 clients to: </p>
2220      <ul>
2221         <li>recognize the format of the Status-Line for HTTP/1.0 and 1.1 responses;</li>
2222         <li>understand any valid response in the format of HTTP/0.9, 1.0, or 1.1.</li>
2223      </ul>
2224      <p id="rfc.section.D.p.3">For most implementations of HTTP/1.0, each connection is established by the client prior to the request and closed by the
2225         server after sending the response. Some implementations implement the Keep-Alive version of persistent connections described
2226         in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.7.1">Section 19.7.1</a> of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>.
2227      </p>
2228      <h2 id="rfc.section.D.1"><a href="#rfc.section.D.1">D.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.1.0" href="#changes.from.1.0">Changes from HTTP/1.0</a></h2>
2229      <p id="rfc.section.D.1.p.1">This section summarizes major differences between versions HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1.</p>
2230      <h3 id="rfc.section.D.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.D.1.1">D.1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.to.simplify.multi-homed.web.servers.and.conserve.ip.addresses" href="#changes.to.simplify.multi-homed.web.servers.and.conserve.ip.addresses">Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and Conserve IP Addresses</a></h3>
2231      <p id="rfc.section.D.1.1.p.1">The requirements that clients and servers support the Host request-header, report an error if the Host request-header (<a href="#header.host" id="rfc.xref.header.host.1" title="Host">Section&nbsp;8.4</a>) is missing from an HTTP/1.1 request, and accept absolute URIs (<a href="#request-uri" title="Request-URI">Section&nbsp;5.1.2</a>) are among the most important changes defined by this specification.
2232      </p>
2233      <p id="rfc.section.D.1.1.p.2">Older HTTP/1.0 clients assumed a one-to-one relationship of IP addresses and servers; there was no other established mechanism
2234         for distinguishing the intended server of a request than the IP address to which that request was directed. The changes outlined
2235         above will allow the Internet, once older HTTP clients are no longer common, to support multiple Web sites from a single IP
2236         address, greatly simplifying large operational Web servers, where allocation of many IP addresses to a single host has created
2237         serious problems. The Internet will also be able to recover the IP addresses that have been allocated for the sole purpose
2238         of allowing special-purpose domain names to be used in root-level HTTP URLs. Given the rate of growth of the Web, and the
2239         number of servers already deployed, it is extremely important that all implementations of HTTP (including updates to existing
2240         HTTP/1.0 applications) correctly implement these requirements:
2241      </p>
2242      <ul>
2243         <li>Both clients and servers <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> support the Host request-header.
2244         </li>
2245         <li>A client that sends an HTTP/1.1 request <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send a Host header.
2246         </li>
2247         <li>Servers <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> report a 400 (Bad Request) error if an HTTP/1.1 request does not include a Host request-header.
2248         </li>
2249         <li>Servers <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> accept absolute URIs.
2250         </li>
2251      </ul>
2252      <h2 id="rfc.section.D.2"><a href="#rfc.section.D.2">D.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="compatibility.with.http.1.0.persistent.connections" href="#compatibility.with.http.1.0.persistent.connections">Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections</a></h2>
2253      <p id="rfc.section.D.2.p.1">Some clients and servers might wish to be compatible with some previous implementations of persistent connections in HTTP/1.0
2254         clients and servers. Persistent connections in HTTP/1.0 are explicitly negotiated as they are not the default behavior. HTTP/1.0
2255         experimental implementations of persistent connections are faulty, and the new facilities in HTTP/1.1 are designed to rectify
2256         these problems. The problem was that some existing 1.0 clients may be sending Keep-Alive to a proxy server that doesn't understand
2257         Connection, which would then erroneously forward it to the next inbound server, which would establish the Keep-Alive connection
2258         and result in a hung HTTP/1.0 proxy waiting for the close on the response. The result is that HTTP/1.0 clients must be prevented
2259         from using Keep-Alive when talking to proxies.
2260      </p>
2261      <p id="rfc.section.D.2.p.2">However, talking to proxies is the most important use of persistent connections, so that prohibition is clearly unacceptable.
2262         Therefore, we need some other mechanism for indicating a persistent connection is desired, which is safe to use even when
2263         talking to an old proxy that ignores Connection. Persistent connections are the default for HTTP/1.1 messages; we introduce
2264         a new keyword (Connection: close) for declaring non-persistence. See <a href="#header.connection" id="rfc.xref.header.connection.6" title="Connection">Section&nbsp;8.1</a>.
2265      </p>
2266      <p id="rfc.section.D.2.p.3">The original HTTP/1.0 form of persistent connections (the Connection: Keep-Alive and Keep-Alive header) is documented in <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.6"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>.
2267      </p>
2268      <h2 id="rfc.section.D.3"><a href="#rfc.section.D.3">D.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.rfc.2068" href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></h2>
2269      <p id="rfc.section.D.3.p.1">This specification has been carefully audited to correct and disambiguate key word usage; RFC 2068 had many problems in respect
2270         to the conventions laid out in <a href="#RFC2119" id="rfc.xref.RFC2119.2"><cite title="Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels">[RFC2119]</cite></a>.
2271      </p>
2272      <p id="rfc.section.D.3.p.2">Transfer-coding and message lengths all interact in ways that required fixing exactly when chunked encoding is used (to allow
2273         for transfer encoding that may not be self delimiting); it was important to straighten out exactly how message lengths are
2274         computed.
2275      </p>
2276      <p id="rfc.section.D.3.p.3">The use and interpretation of HTTP version numbers has been clarified by <a href="#RFC2145" id="rfc.xref.RFC2145.3"><cite title="Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers">[RFC2145]</cite></a>. Require proxies to upgrade requests to highest protocol version they support to deal with problems discovered in HTTP/1.0
2277         implementations (<a href="#http.version" title="HTTP Version">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>)
2278      </p>
2279      <p id="rfc.section.D.3.p.4">Proxies should be able to add Content-Length when appropriate.</p>
2280      <p id="rfc.section.D.3.p.5">Transfer-coding had significant problems, particularly with interactions with chunked encoding. The solution is that transfer-codings
2281         become as full fledged as content-codings. This involves adding an IANA registry for transfer-codings (separate from content
2282         codings), a new header field (TE) and enabling trailer headers in the future. Transfer encoding is a major performance benefit,
2283         so it was worth fixing <a href="#Nie1997" id="rfc.xref.Nie1997.2"><cite title="Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG">[Nie1997]</cite></a>. TE also solves another, obscure, downward interoperability problem that could have occurred due to interactions between
2284         authentication trailers, chunked encoding and HTTP/1.0 clients.(Section <a href="#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">3.4</a>, <a href="#chunked.transfer.encoding" title="Chunked Transfer Coding">3.4.1</a>, and <a href="#header.te" id="rfc.xref.header.te.3" title="TE">8.5</a>)
2285      </p>
2286      <h2 id="rfc.section.D.4"><a href="#rfc.section.D.4">D.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.rfc.2616" href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h2>
2287      <p id="rfc.section.D.4.p.1">Remove reference to non-existant identity transfer-coding value tokens. (Sections <a href="#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">3.4</a> and <a href="#message.length" title="Message Length">4.4</a>)
2288      </p>
2289      <p id="rfc.section.D.4.p.2">Clarification that the chunk length does not include the count of the octets in the chunk header and trailer. (<a href="#chunked.transfer.encoding" title="Chunked Transfer Coding">Section&nbsp;3.4.1</a>)
2290      </p>
2291      <h1><a id="rfc.copyright" href="#rfc.copyright">Full Copyright Statement</a></h1>
2292      <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2007).</p>
2293      <p>This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the
2294         authors retain all their rights.
2295      </p>
2296      <p>This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
2297         HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
2298         DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
2299         WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
2300      </p>
2301      <h1><a id="rfc.ipr" href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property</a></h1>
2302      <p>The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might
2303         be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any
2304         license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to
2305         identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and
2306         BCP 79.
2307      </p>
2308      <p>Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result
2309         of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users
2310         of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at &lt;<a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>&gt;.
2311      </p>
2312      <p>The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
2313         rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF
2314         at <a href="mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org">ietf-ipr@ietf.org</a>.
2315      </p>
2316      <h1>Acknowledgement</h1>
2317      <p>Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).</p>
2318      <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1>
2319      <p class="noprint"><a href="#rfc.index.A">A</a> <a href="#rfc.index.C">C</a> <a href="#rfc.index.D">D</a> <a href="#rfc.index.E">E</a> <a href="#rfc.index.G">G</a> <a href="#rfc.index.H">H</a> <a href="#rfc.index.I">I</a> <a href="#rfc.index.M">M</a> <a href="#rfc.index.N">N</a> <a href="#rfc.index.O">O</a> <a href="#rfc.index.P">P</a> <a href="#rfc.index.R">R</a> <a href="#rfc.index.S">S</a> <a href="#rfc.index.T">T</a> <a href="#rfc.index.U">U</a> <a href="#rfc.index.V">V</a> <a href="#rfc.index.W">W</a> 
2320      </p>
2321      <div class="print2col">
2322         <ul class="ind">
2323            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.A" href="#rfc.index.A"><b>A</b></a><ul class="ind">
2324                  <li class="indline1">application/http Media Type&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.a.1"><b>A</b></a></li>
2325               </ul>
2326            </li>
2327            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.C" href="#rfc.index.C"><b>C</b></a><ul class="ind">
2328                  <li class="indline1">cache&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.c.4">1.3</a></li>
2329                  <li class="indline1">cacheable&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.c.5">1.3</a></li>
2330                  <li class="indline1">client&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.c.3">1.3</a></li>
2331                  <li class="indline1">connection&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.c.1">1.3</a></li>
2332                  <li class="indline1">Connection header&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.1">4.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.2">7.1.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.3">7.1.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.c.6"><b>8.1</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.4">8.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.5">8.8</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.6">D.2</a></li>
2333                  <li class="indline1">content negotiation&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.c.2">1.3</a></li>
2334                  <li class="indline1">Content-Length header&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.content-length.1">4.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.c.7"><b>8.2</b></a></li>
2335               </ul>
2336            </li>
2337            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.D" href="#rfc.index.D"><b>D</b></a><ul class="ind">
2338                  <li class="indline1">Date header&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.date.1">4.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.d.2"><b>8.3</b></a></li>
2339                  <li class="indline1">downstream&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.d.1">1.3</a></li>
2340               </ul>
2341            </li>
2342            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.E" href="#rfc.index.E"><b>E</b></a><ul class="ind">
2343                  <li class="indline1">entity&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.e.1">1.3</a></li>
2344               </ul>
2345            </li>
2346            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.G" href="#rfc.index.G"><b>G</b></a><ul class="ind">
2347                  <li class="indline1">gateway&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.1">1.3</a></li>
2348                  <li class="indline1"><tt>Grammar</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;
2349                     <ul class="ind">
2350                        <li class="indline1"><tt>ALPHA</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.6"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2351                        <li class="indline1"><tt>asctime-date</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.29"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2352                        <li class="indline1"><tt>attribute</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.40"><b>3.4</b></a></li>
2353                        <li class="indline1"><tt>CHAR</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.3"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2354                        <li class="indline1"><tt>chunk</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.43"><b>3.4.1</b></a></li>
2355                        <li class="indline1"><tt>chunk-data</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.49"><b>3.4.1</b></a></li>
2356                        <li class="indline1"><tt>chunk-ext-name</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.47"><b>3.4.1</b></a></li>
2357                        <li class="indline1"><tt>chunk-ext-val</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.48"><b>3.4.1</b></a></li>
2358                        <li class="indline1"><tt>chunk-extension</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.46"><b>3.4.1</b></a></li>
2359                        <li class="indline1"><tt>chunk-size</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.44"><b>3.4.1</b></a></li>
2360                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Chunked-Body</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.42"><b>3.4.1</b></a></li>
2361                        <li class="indline1"><tt>comment</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.19"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2362                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Connection</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.70"><b>8.1</b></a></li>
2363                        <li class="indline1"><tt>connection-token</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.71"><b>8.1</b></a></li>
2364                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Content-Length</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.72"><b>8.2</b></a></li>
2365                        <li class="indline1"><tt>CR</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.9"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2366                        <li class="indline1"><tt>CRLF</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.13"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2367                        <li class="indline1"><tt>ctext</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.20"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2368                        <li class="indline1"><tt>CTL</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.8"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2369                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Date</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.73"><b>8.3</b></a></li>
2370                        <li class="indline1"><tt>date1</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.30"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2371                        <li class="indline1"><tt>date2</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.31"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2372                        <li class="indline1"><tt>date3</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.32"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2373                        <li class="indline1"><tt>DIGIT</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.7"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2374                        <li class="indline1"><tt>extension-code</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.68"><b>6.1.1</b></a></li>
2375                        <li class="indline1"><tt>extension-method</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.63"><b>5.1.1</b></a></li>
2376                        <li class="indline1"><tt>field-content</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.57"><b>4.2</b></a></li>
2377                        <li class="indline1"><tt>field-name</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.55"><b>4.2</b></a></li>
2378                        <li class="indline1"><tt>field-value</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.56"><b>4.2</b></a></li>
2379                        <li class="indline1"><tt>general-header</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.59"><b>4.5</b></a></li>
2380                        <li class="indline1"><tt>generic-message</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.52"><b>4.1</b></a></li>
2381                        <li class="indline1"><tt>HEX</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.16"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2382                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Host</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.74"><b>8.4</b></a></li>
2383                        <li class="indline1"><tt>HT</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.12"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2384                        <li class="indline1"><tt>HTTP-date</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.26"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2385                        <li class="indline1"><tt>HTTP-message</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.51"><b>4.1</b></a></li>
2386                        <li class="indline1"><tt>HTTP-Version</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.24"><b>3.1</b></a></li>
2387                        <li class="indline1"><tt>http_URL</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.25"><b>3.2.2</b></a></li>
2388                        <li class="indline1"><tt>last-chunk</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.45"><b>3.4.1</b></a></li>
2389                        <li class="indline1"><tt>LF</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.10"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2390                        <li class="indline1"><tt>LOALPHA</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.5"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2391                        <li class="indline1"><tt>LWS</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.14"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2392                        <li class="indline1"><tt>message-body</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.58"><b>4.3</b></a></li>
2393                        <li class="indline1"><tt>message-header</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.54"><b>4.2</b></a></li>
2394                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Method</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.62"><b>5.1.1</b></a></li>
2395                        <li class="indline1"><tt>month</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.36"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2396                        <li class="indline1"><tt>OCTET</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.2"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2397                        <li class="indline1"><tt>parameter</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.39"><b>3.4</b></a></li>
2398                        <li class="indline1"><tt>protocol-name</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.82"><b>8.9</b></a></li>
2399                        <li class="indline1"><tt>protocol-version</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.83"><b>8.9</b></a></li>
2400                        <li class="indline1"><tt>pseudonym</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.85"><b>8.9</b></a></li>
2401                        <li class="indline1"><tt>qdtext</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.22"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2402                        <li class="indline1"><tt>quoted-pair</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.23"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2403                        <li class="indline1"><tt>quoted-string</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.21"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2404                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Reason-Phrase</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.69"><b>6.1.1</b></a></li>
2405                        <li class="indline1"><tt>received-by</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.84"><b>8.9</b></a></li>
2406                        <li class="indline1"><tt>received-protocol</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.81"><b>8.9</b></a></li>
2407                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Request</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.60"><b>5</b></a></li>
2408                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Request-Line</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.61"><b>5.1</b></a></li>
2409                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Request-URI</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.64"><b>5.1.2</b></a></li>
2410                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Response</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.65"><b>6</b></a></li>
2411                        <li class="indline1"><tt>rfc1123-date</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.27"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2412                        <li class="indline1"><tt>rfc850-date</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.28"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2413                        <li class="indline1"><tt>separators</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.18"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2414                        <li class="indline1"><tt>SP</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.11"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2415                        <li class="indline1"><tt>start-line</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.53"><b>4.1</b></a></li>
2416                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Status-Code</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.67"><b>6.1.1</b></a></li>
2417                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Status-Line</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.66"><b>6.1</b></a></li>
2418                        <li class="indline1"><tt>t-codings</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.76"><b>8.5</b></a></li>
2419                        <li class="indline1"><tt>TE</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.75"><b>8.5</b></a></li>
2420                        <li class="indline1"><tt>TEXT</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.15"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2421                        <li class="indline1"><tt>time</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.33"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2422                        <li class="indline1"><tt>token</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.17"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2423                        <li class="indline1"><tt>trailer</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.50"><b>3.4.1</b></a></li>
2424                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Trailer</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.77"><b>8.6</b></a></li>
2425                        <li class="indline1"><tt>transfer-coding</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.37"><b>3.4</b></a></li>
2426                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Transfer-Encoding</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.78"><b>8.7</b></a></li>
2427                        <li class="indline1"><tt>transfer-extension</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.38"><b>3.4</b></a></li>
2428                        <li class="indline1"><tt>UPALPHA</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.4"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
2429                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Upgrade</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.79"><b>8.8</b></a></li>
2430                        <li class="indline1"><tt>value</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.41"><b>3.4</b></a></li>
2431                        <li class="indline1"><tt>Via</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.80"><b>8.9</b></a></li>
2432                        <li class="indline1"><tt>weekday</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.35"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2433                        <li class="indline1"><tt>wkday</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.g.34"><b>3.3.1</b></a></li>
2434                     </ul>
2435                  </li>
2436               </ul>
2437            </li>
2438            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.H" href="#rfc.index.H"><b>H</b></a><ul class="ind">
2439                  <li class="indline1">Headers&nbsp;&nbsp;
2440                     <ul class="ind">
2441                        <li class="indline1">Connection&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.1">4.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.2">7.1.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.3">7.1.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.1"><b>8.1</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.4">8.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.5">8.8</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.connection.6">D.2</a></li>
2442                        <li class="indline1">Content-Length&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.content-length.1">4.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.2"><b>8.2</b></a></li>
2443                        <li class="indline1">Date&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.date.1">4.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.3"><b>8.3</b></a></li>
2444                        <li class="indline1">Host&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.5"><b>8.4</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.host.1">D.1.1</a></li>
2445                        <li class="indline1">TE&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.te.1">3.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.te.2">3.4.1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.6"><b>8.5</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.te.3">D.3</a></li>
2446                        <li class="indline1">Trailer&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.trailer.1">3.4.1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.trailer.2">4.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.7"><b>8.6</b></a></li>
2447                        <li class="indline1">Transfer-Encoding&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.transfer-encoding.1">3.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.transfer-encoding.2">4.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.transfer-encoding.3">4.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.transfer-encoding.4">4.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.8"><b>8.7</b></a></li>
2448                        <li class="indline1">Upgrade&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.upgrade.1">4.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.9"><b>8.8</b></a></li>
2449                        <li class="indline1">Via&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.via.1">4.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.10"><b>8.9</b></a></li>
2450                     </ul>
2451                  </li>
2452                  <li class="indline1">Host header&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.h.4"><b>8.4</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.header.host.1">D.1.1</a></li>
2453               </ul>
2454            </li>
2455            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.I" href="#rfc.index.I"><b>I</b></a><ul class="ind">
2456                  <li class="indline1">inbound&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.i.1">1.3</a></li>
2457                  <li class="indline1"><em>ISO-8859</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.ISO-8859.1">2.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#ISO-8859"><b>12</b></a></li>
2458               </ul>
2459            </li>
2460            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.M" href="#rfc.index.M"><b>M</b></a><ul class="ind">
2461                  <li class="indline1">Media Type&nbsp;&nbsp;
2462                     <ul class="ind">
2463                        <li class="indline1">application/http&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.m.4"><b>A</b></a></li>
2464                        <li class="indline1">message/http&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.m.2"><b>A</b></a></li>
2465                     </ul>
2466                  </li>
2467                  <li class="indline1">message&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.m.1">1.3</a></li>
2468                  <li class="indline1">message/http Media Type&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.m.3"><b>A</b></a></li>
2469               </ul>
2470            </li>
2471            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.N" href="#rfc.index.N"><b>N</b></a><ul class="ind">
2472                  <li class="indline1"><em>Nie1997</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Nie1997.1">7.1.1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#Nie1997"><b>12</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Nie1997.2">D.3</a></li>
2473               </ul>
2474            </li>
2475            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.O" href="#rfc.index.O"><b>O</b></a><ul class="ind">
2476                  <li class="indline1">origin server&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.o.1">1.3</a></li>
2477                  <li class="indline1">outbound&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.iref.o.2">1.3</a></li>
2478               </ul>
2479            </li>
2480            <li class="indline0"><a id="rfc.index.P" href="#rfc.index.P"><b>P</b></a><ul class="ind">
2481                  <li class="indline1"><em>Pad1995</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Pad1995.1">7.1.1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#Pad1995"><b>12</b></a></li>
2482                  <li class="indline1"><em>Part2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.1">3.2.1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.2">4.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.3">4.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.4">4.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.5">5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.6">5.1.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.7">6</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.8">6.1.1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.9">7.1.2.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.10">7.1.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.11">7.2.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.12">7.2.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.13">7.2.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.14">7.2.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#Part2"><b>12</b></a><ul class="ind">
2483                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.4">4.3</a></li>
2484                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.2">4.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.5">5</a></li>
2485                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 6</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.3">4.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.7">6</a></li>
2486                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 8.1.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.9">7.1.2.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.10">7.1.4</a></li>
2487                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 8.9</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.6">5.1.2</a></li>
2488                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 9</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.8">6.1.1</a></li>
2489                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 9.1.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.11">7.2.3</a></li>
2490                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 9.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.14">7.2.3</a></li>
2491                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 9.4.15</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.1">3.2.1</a></li>
2492                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 10.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.12">7.2.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part2.13">7.2.3</a></li>
2493                     </ul>
2494                  </li>
2495                  <li class="indline1"><em>Part3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.1">1.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.2">1.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.3">1.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.4">1.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.5">2.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.6">3.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.7">3.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.8">3.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.9">3.4</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.10">4.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.11">5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.12">6</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.13">8.5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#Part3"><b>12</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.14">B</a><ul class="ind">
2496                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 2.4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.13">8.5</a></li>
2497                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.1">1.3</a></li>
2498                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 3.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.10">4.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.11">5</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.12">6</a></li>
2499                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section 4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.2">1.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.3">1.3</a></li>
2500                        <li class="indline1"><em>Section A</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part3.4">1.4</a&g