Changeset 1685
- Timestamp:
- 22/06/12 07:32:37 (10 years ago)
- Location:
- draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
- Files:
-
- 12 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.html
r1682 r1685 449 449 } 450 450 @bottom-center { 451 content: "Expires December 2 3, 2012";451 content: "Expires December 24, 2012"; 452 452 } 453 453 @bottom-right { … … 491 491 <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F."> 492 492 <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest"> 493 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2012-06-2 1">493 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2012-06-22"> 494 494 <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2145"> 495 495 <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616"> … … 523 523 </tr> 524 524 <tr> 525 <td class="left">Expires: December 2 3, 2012</td>525 <td class="left">Expires: December 24, 2012</td> 526 526 <td class="right">greenbytes</td> 527 527 </tr> 528 528 <tr> 529 529 <td class="left"></td> 530 <td class="right">June 2 1, 2012</td>530 <td class="right">June 22, 2012</td> 531 531 </tr> 532 532 </tbody> … … 545 545 </p> 546 546 <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 547 <p>Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived547 <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 548 548 at <<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>>. 549 549 </p> … … 561 561 in progress”. 562 562 </p> 563 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on December 2 3, 2012.</p>563 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on December 24, 2012.</p> 564 564 <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1> 565 565 <p>Copyright © 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p> … … 914 914 when transport-layer security is used to establish private communication through a shared firewall proxy. 915 915 </p> 916 <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.10"><span id="rfc.iref.i.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.t.3"></span> <span id="rfc.iref.c.3"></span> In addition, there m ayexist network intermediaries that are not considered part of the HTTP communication but nevertheless916 <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.10"><span id="rfc.iref.i.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.t.3"></span> <span id="rfc.iref.c.3"></span> In addition, there might exist network intermediaries that are not considered part of the HTTP communication but nevertheless 917 917 act as filters or redirecting agents (usually violating HTTP semantics, causing security problems, and otherwise making a 918 918 mess of things). Such a network intermediary, often referred to as an "<dfn>interception proxy</dfn>" <a href="#RFC3040" id="rfc.xref.RFC3040.1"><cite title="Internet Web Replication and Caching Taxonomy">[RFC3040]</cite></a>, "<dfn>transparent proxy</dfn>" <a href="#RFC1919" id="rfc.xref.RFC1919.1"><cite title="Classical versus Transparent IP Proxies">[RFC1919]</cite></a>, or "<dfn>captive portal</dfn>", differs from an HTTP proxy because it has not been selected by the client. Instead, the network intermediary redirects -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.xml
r1682 r1685 139 139 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 140 140 <t> 141 Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group141 Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 142 142 mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 143 143 <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. … … 515 515 <t><iref primary="true" item="interception proxy"/><iref primary="true" item="transparent proxy"/> 516 516 <iref primary="true" item="captive portal"/> 517 In addition, there m ayexist network intermediaries that are not517 In addition, there might exist network intermediaries that are not 518 518 considered part of the HTTP communication but nevertheless act as 519 519 filters or redirecting agents (usually violating HTTP semantics, -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html
r1684 r1685 547 547 </p> 548 548 <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 549 <p>Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived549 <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 550 550 at <<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>>. 551 551 </p> … … 931 931 <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.1">2.2.1</a> <a id="considerations.for.new.methods" href="#considerations.for.new.methods">Considerations for New Methods</a></h3> 932 932 <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.1">When it is necessary to express new semantics for a HTTP request that aren't specific to a single application or media type, 933 and currently defined methods are inadequate, it m aybe appropriate to register a new method.933 and currently defined methods are inadequate, it might be appropriate to register a new method. 934 934 </p> 935 935 <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.2">HTTP methods are generic; that is, they are potentially applicable to any resource, not just one particular media type, "type" … … 1156 1156 if the eventual response is negative, and the connection may be reset with no response if more than one TCP segment is outstanding. 1157 1157 </p> 1158 <p id="rfc.section.2.3.8.p.10">It m ay be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested origin server through another proxy. In this case, the1159 first proxy <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> make a CONNECT request of that next proxy, requesting a tunnel to the authority. A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> respond with any 2xx status code unless it has either a direct or tunnel connection established to the authority.1158 <p id="rfc.section.2.3.8.p.10">It might be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested origin server through another proxy. In this case, 1159 the first proxy <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> make a CONNECT request of that next proxy, requesting a tunnel to the authority. A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> respond with any 2xx status code unless it has either a direct or tunnel connection established to the authority. 1160 1160 </p> 1161 1161 <p id="rfc.section.2.3.8.p.11">If at any point either one of the peers gets disconnected, any outstanding data that came from that peer will be passed to … … 2034 2034 <span id="s426body">This service requires use of the HTTP/3.0 protocol. 2035 2035 </span></pre><p id="rfc.section.4.6.15.p.3">The server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include a message body in the 426 response which indicates in human readable form the reason for the error and describes any 2036 alternative courses which m aybe available to the user.2036 alternative courses which might be available to the user. 2037 2037 </p> 2038 2038 <h2 id="rfc.section.4.7"><a href="#rfc.section.4.7">4.7</a> <a id="status.5xx" href="#status.5xx">Server Error 5xx</a></h2> … … 3623 3623 no better mechanism. 3624 3624 </p> 3625 <p id="rfc.section.11.1.p.8">Furthermore, the User-Agent header field m aycontain enough entropy to be used, possibly in conjunction with other material,3625 <p id="rfc.section.11.1.p.8">Furthermore, the User-Agent header field might contain enough entropy to be used, possibly in conjunction with other material, 3626 3626 to uniquely identify the user. 3627 3627 </p> … … 4558 4558 <p id="rfc.section.E.26.p.1">Closed issues: </p> 4559 4559 <ul> 4560 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43</a>>: "Fragment combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning about having a fragid on the redirect m aycause inconvenience4560 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43</a>>: "Fragment combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning about having a fragid on the redirect might cause inconvenience 4561 4561 in some cases) 4562 4562 </li> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml
r1684 r1685 202 202 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 203 203 <t> 204 Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group204 Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 205 205 mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 206 206 <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. … … 469 469 When it is necessary to express new semantics for a HTTP request that 470 470 aren't specific to a single application or media type, and currently defined 471 methods are inadequate, it m aybe appropriate to register a new method.471 methods are inadequate, it might be appropriate to register a new method. 472 472 </t> 473 473 <t> … … 937 937 </t> 938 938 <t> 939 It m aybe the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested939 It might be the case that the proxy itself can only reach the requested 940 940 origin server through another proxy. In this case, the first proxy 941 941 &SHOULD; make a CONNECT request of that next proxy, requesting a tunnel … … 2003 2003 The server &SHOULD; include a message body in the 426 response which 2004 2004 indicates in human readable form the reason for the error and describes any 2005 alternative courses which m aybe available to the user.2005 alternative courses which might be available to the user. 2006 2006 </t> 2007 2007 </section> … … 4413 4413 </t> 4414 4414 <t> 4415 Furthermore, the User-Agent header field m aycontain enough entropy to be4415 Furthermore, the User-Agent header field might contain enough entropy to be 4416 4416 used, possibly in conjunction with other material, to uniquely identify the 4417 4417 user. … … 6423 6423 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/43"/>: 6424 6424 "Fragment combination / precedence during redirects" (added warning 6425 about having a fragid on the redirect m aycause inconvenience in6425 about having a fragid on the redirect might cause inconvenience in 6426 6426 some cases) 6427 6427 </t> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html
r1684 r1685 539 539 </p> 540 540 <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 541 <p>Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived541 <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 542 542 at <<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>>. 543 543 </p> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.xml
r1684 r1685 119 119 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 120 120 <t> 121 Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group121 Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 122 122 mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 123 123 <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.html
r1684 r1685 539 539 <p>Part 5 defines range requests and the rules for constructing and combining responses to those requests.</p> 540 540 <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 541 <p>Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived541 <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 542 542 at <<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>>. 543 543 </p> … … 885 885 </pre> </li> 886 886 </ul> 887 <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.10">If the server ignores a byte-range-spec (for example if it is syntactically invalid, or if it m aybe seen as a denial-of-service887 <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.10">If the server ignores a byte-range-spec (for example if it is syntactically invalid, or if it might be seen as a denial-of-service 888 888 attack), the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> treat the request as if the invalid Range header field did not exist. (Normally, this means return a 200 response containing 889 889 the full representation). … … 1107 1107 </p> 1108 1108 <h2 id="rfc.section.7.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a> <a id="overlapping.ranges" href="#overlapping.ranges">Overlapping Ranges</a></h2> 1109 <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">Range requests containing overlapping ranges maylead to the situation where a server is sending far more data than the size1109 <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">Range requests containing overlapping ranges can lead to the situation where a server is sending far more data than the size 1110 1110 of the complete resource representation. 1111 1111 </p> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.xml
r1684 r1685 115 115 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 116 116 <t> 117 Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group117 Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 118 118 mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 119 119 <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. … … 623 623 <t> 624 624 If the server ignores a byte-range-spec (for example if it is 625 syntactically invalid, or if it m aybe seen as a denial-of-service625 syntactically invalid, or if it might be seen as a denial-of-service 626 626 attack), the server &SHOULD; treat the request as if the invalid Range 627 627 header field did not exist. (Normally, this means return a 200 … … 963 963 <section title="Overlapping Ranges" anchor="overlapping.ranges"> 964 964 <t> 965 Range requests containing overlapping ranges maylead to the situation965 Range requests containing overlapping ranges can lead to the situation 966 966 where a server is sending far more data than the size of the complete 967 967 resource representation. -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html
r1684 r1685 551 551 </p> 552 552 <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 553 <p>Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived553 <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 554 554 at <<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>>. 555 555 </p> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.xml
r1684 r1685 135 135 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 136 136 <t> 137 Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group137 Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 138 138 mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 139 139 <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>. -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.html
r1684 r1685 537 537 <p>Part 7 defines the HTTP Authentication framework.</p> 538 538 <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 539 <p>Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived539 <p>Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived 540 540 at <<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>>. 541 541 </p> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.xml
r1684 r1685 112 112 <note title="Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)"> 113 113 <t> 114 Discussion of this draft shouldtake place on the HTTPBIS working group114 Discussion of this draft ought to take place on the HTTPBIS working group 115 115 mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 116 116 <eref target="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/"/>.
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.