Changeset 2726 for draft-ietf-httpbis/02/p2-semantics.html
- Timestamp:
- 14/06/14 11:20:37 (7 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis/02/p2-semantics.html
r1099 r2726 2 2 PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> 3 3 <html lang="en"> 4 <head profile="http:// www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/">4 <head profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/"> 5 5 <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> 6 6 <title>HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics</title><style type="text/css" title="Xml2Rfc (sans serif)"> … … 24 24 body { 25 25 color: black; 26 font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; 27 font-size: 10pt; 26 font-family: cambria, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; 27 font-size: 11pt; 28 margin-right: 2em; 28 29 } 29 30 cite { 30 31 font-style: normal; 31 32 } 32 dd {33 margin-right: 2em;34 }35 33 dl { 36 34 margin-left: 2em; 37 35 } 38 39 36 ul.empty { 40 37 list-style-type: none; … … 50 47 } 51 48 h1 { 52 font-size: 1 4pt;49 font-size: 130%; 53 50 line-height: 21pt; 54 51 page-break-after: avoid; … … 57 54 page-break-before: always; 58 55 } 59 h1 a {60 color: #333333;61 }62 56 h2 { 63 font-size: 12 pt;57 font-size: 120%; 64 58 line-height: 15pt; 65 59 page-break-after: avoid; 66 60 } 67 h3 , h4, h5, h6{68 font-size: 1 0pt;61 h3 { 62 font-size: 110%; 69 63 page-break-after: avoid; 70 64 } 71 h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a { 65 h4, h5, h6 { 66 page-break-after: avoid; 67 } 68 h1 a, h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a { 72 69 color: black; 73 70 } … … 77 74 li { 78 75 margin-left: 2em; 79 margin-right: 2em;80 76 } 81 77 ol { 82 78 margin-left: 2em; 83 margin-right: 2em; 79 } 80 ol.la { 81 list-style-type: lower-alpha; 82 } 83 ol.ua { 84 list-style-type: upper-alpha; 84 85 } 85 86 ol p { … … 88 89 p { 89 90 margin-left: 2em; 90 margin-right: 2em;91 91 } 92 92 pre { … … 94 94 background-color: lightyellow; 95 95 padding: .25em; 96 page-break-inside: avoid; 96 97 } 97 98 pre.text2 { … … 123 124 border-spacing: 1px; 124 125 width: 95%; 125 font-size: 1 0pt;126 font-size: 11pt; 126 127 color: white; 127 128 } … … 131 132 td.topnowrap { 132 133 vertical-align: top; 133 white-space: nowrap; 134 white-space: nowrap; 134 135 } 135 136 table.header td { … … 151 152 list-style: none; 152 153 margin-left: 1.5em; 153 margin-right: 0em;154 154 padding-left: 0em; 155 155 } … … 157 157 line-height: 150%; 158 158 font-weight: bold; 159 font-size: 10pt;160 159 margin-left: 0em; 161 margin-right: 0em;162 160 } 163 161 ul.toc li li { 164 162 line-height: normal; 165 163 font-weight: normal; 166 font-size: 9pt;164 font-size: 10pt; 167 165 margin-left: 0em; 168 margin-right: 0em;169 166 } 170 167 li.excluded { … … 173 170 ul p { 174 171 margin-left: 0em; 172 } 173 .title, .filename, h1, h2, h3, h4 { 174 font-family: candara, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; 175 } 176 samp, tt, code, pre { 177 font: consolas, monospace; 175 178 } 176 179 ul.ind, ul.ind ul { 177 180 list-style: none; 178 181 margin-left: 1.5em; 179 margin-right: 0em;180 182 padding-left: 0em; 181 183 page-break-before: avoid; … … 185 187 line-height: 200%; 186 188 margin-left: 0em; 187 margin-right: 0em;188 189 } 189 190 ul.ind li li { … … 191 192 line-height: 150%; 192 193 margin-left: 0em; 193 margin-right: 0em;194 194 } 195 195 .avoidbreak { … … 215 215 font-weight: bold; 216 216 text-align: center; 217 font-size: 9pt;217 font-size: 10pt; 218 218 } 219 219 .filename { 220 220 color: #333333; 221 font-size: 75%; 221 222 font-weight: bold; 222 font-size: 12pt;223 223 line-height: 21pt; 224 224 text-align: center; … … 227 227 font-weight: bold; 228 228 } 229 .hidden {230 display: none;231 }232 229 .left { 233 230 text-align: left; … … 237 234 } 238 235 .title { 239 color: #990000;240 font-size: 1 8pt;236 color: green; 237 font-size: 150%; 241 238 line-height: 18pt; 242 239 font-weight: bold; … … 244 241 margin-top: 36pt; 245 242 } 246 .vcardline {247 display: block;248 }249 243 .warning { 250 font-size: 1 4pt;244 font-size: 130%; 251 245 background-color: yellow; 252 246 } … … 257 251 display: none; 258 252 } 259 253 260 254 a { 261 255 color: black; … … 272 266 background-color: white; 273 267 vertical-align: top; 274 font-size: 1 2pt;268 font-size: 110%; 275 269 } 276 270 277 ul.toc a: :after {271 ul.toc a:nth-child(2)::after { 278 272 content: leader('.') target-counter(attr(href), page); 279 273 } 280 274 281 275 ul.ind li li a { 282 276 content: target-counter(attr(href), page); 283 277 } 284 278 285 279 .print2col { 286 280 column-count: 2; … … 292 286 @page { 293 287 @top-left { 294 content: "Internet-Draft"; 295 } 288 content: "Internet-Draft"; 289 } 296 290 @top-right { 297 content: "February 2008"; 298 } 291 content: "February 2008"; 292 } 299 293 @top-center { 300 content: "HTTP/1.1, Part 2"; 301 } 294 content: "HTTP/1.1, Part 2"; 295 } 302 296 @bottom-left { 303 content: "Fielding, et al."; 304 } 297 content: "Fielding, et al."; 298 } 305 299 @bottom-center { 306 content: " Standards Track";307 } 300 content: "Expires August 27, 2008"; 301 } 308 302 @bottom-right { 309 content: "[Page " counter(page) "]"; 310 } 303 content: "[Page " counter(page) "]"; 304 } 311 305 } 312 306 313 @page:first { 307 @page:first { 314 308 @top-left { 315 309 content: normal; … … 342 336 <link rel="Appendix" title="A Compatibility with Previous Versions" href="#rfc.section.A"> 343 337 <link rel="Appendix" title="B Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" href="#rfc.section.B"> 344 <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1. 537, 2010-12-30 14:21:59, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">338 <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.640, 2014/06/13 12:42:58, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/"> 345 339 <link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"> 346 340 <meta name="dct.creator" content="Fielding, R."> … … 371 365 </tr> 372 366 <tr> 373 <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)367 <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved) 374 368 </td> 375 369 <td class="right">J. Gettys</td> … … 442 436 </table> 443 437 <p class="title">HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics<br><span class="filename">draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-02</span></p> 444 <h1><a id="rfc.status" href="#rfc.status">Status of this Memo</a></h1> 445 <p>By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she 446 is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 447 6 of BCP 79. 448 </p> 449 <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note 450 that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 451 </p> 452 <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 453 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work 454 in progress”. 455 </p> 456 <p>The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt">http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt</a>. 457 </p> 458 <p>The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a>. 459 </p> 460 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2008.</p> 461 <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1> 438 <div id="rfc.status"> 439 <h1><a href="#rfc.status">Status of this Memo</a></h1> 440 <p>By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she 441 is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 442 6 of BCP 79. 443 </p> 444 <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note 445 that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 446 </p> 447 <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 448 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work 449 in progress”. 450 </p> 451 <p>The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt">http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt</a>. 452 </p> 453 <p>The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a>. 454 </p> 455 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2008.</p> 456 </div> 457 <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1> 462 458 <p>The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information 463 459 systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 2 of the … … 465 461 2 defines the semantics of HTTP messages as expressed by request methods, request-header fields, response status codes, and 466 462 response-header fields. 467 </p> 468 <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 463 </p> 464 <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 469 465 <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues 470 466 list is at <<a href="http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11">http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11</a>> and related documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at <<a href="http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/">http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/</a>>. 471 </p> 467 </p> 472 468 <p>This draft incorporates those issue resolutions that were either collected in the original RFC2616 errata list (<<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata</a>>), or which were agreed upon on the mailing list between October 2006 and November 2007 (as published in "draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03"). 473 </p> 469 </p> 474 470 <hr class="noprint"> 475 471 <h1 class="np" id="rfc.toc"><a href="#rfc.toc">Table of Contents</a></h1> 476 472 <ul class="toc"> 477 <li> 1. <a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul>478 <li> 1.1 <a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></li>473 <li><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a> <a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul> 474 <li><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a> <a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></li> 479 475 </ul> 480 476 </li> 481 <li> 2. <a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></li>482 <li> 3. <a href="#method">Method</a></li>483 <li> 4. <a href="#request.header.fields">Request Header Fields</a></li>484 <li> 5. <a href="#status.code.and.reason.phrase">Status Code and Reason Phrase</a></li>485 <li> 6. <a href="#response.header.fields">Response Header Fields</a></li>486 <li> 7. <a href="#entity">Entity</a></li>487 <li> 8. <a href="#method.definitions">Method Definitions</a><ul>488 <li> 8.1 <a href="#safe.and.idempotent">Safe and Idempotent Methods</a><ul>489 <li> 8.1.1 <a href="#safe.methods">Safe Methods</a></li>490 <li> 8.1.2 <a href="#idempotent.methods">Idempotent Methods</a></li>477 <li><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a> <a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></li> 478 <li><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a> <a href="#method">Method</a></li> 479 <li><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a> <a href="#request.header.fields">Request Header Fields</a></li> 480 <li><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a> <a href="#status.code.and.reason.phrase">Status Code and Reason Phrase</a></li> 481 <li><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a> <a href="#response.header.fields">Response Header Fields</a></li> 482 <li><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a> <a href="#entity">Entity</a></li> 483 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a> <a href="#method.definitions">Method Definitions</a><ul> 484 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a> <a href="#safe.and.idempotent">Safe and Idempotent Methods</a><ul> 485 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.1.1">8.1.1</a> <a href="#safe.methods">Safe Methods</a></li> 486 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.1.2">8.1.2</a> <a href="#idempotent.methods">Idempotent Methods</a></li> 491 487 </ul> 492 488 </li> 493 <li> 8.2 <a href="#OPTIONS">OPTIONS</a></li>494 <li> 8.3 <a href="#GET">GET</a></li>495 <li> 8.4 <a href="#HEAD">HEAD</a></li>496 <li> 8.5 <a href="#POST">POST</a></li>497 <li> 8.6 <a href="#PUT">PUT</a></li>498 <li> 8.7 <a href="#DELETE">DELETE</a></li>499 <li> 8.8 <a href="#TRACE">TRACE</a></li>500 <li> 8.9 <a href="#CONNECT">CONNECT</a></li>489 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.2">8.2</a> <a href="#OPTIONS">OPTIONS</a></li> 490 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.3">8.3</a> <a href="#GET">GET</a></li> 491 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.4">8.4</a> <a href="#HEAD">HEAD</a></li> 492 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.5">8.5</a> <a href="#POST">POST</a></li> 493 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.6">8.6</a> <a href="#PUT">PUT</a></li> 494 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.7">8.7</a> <a href="#DELETE">DELETE</a></li> 495 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.8">8.8</a> <a href="#TRACE">TRACE</a></li> 496 <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.9">8.9</a> <a href="#CONNECT">CONNECT</a></li> 501 497 </ul> 502 498 </li> 503 <li> 9. <a href="#status.codes">Status Code Definitions</a><ul>504 <li> 9.1 <a href="#status.1xx">Informational 1xx</a><ul>505 <li> 9.1.1 <a href="#status.100">100 Continue</a></li>506 <li> 9.1.2 <a href="#status.101">101 Switching Protocols</a></li>499 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a> <a href="#status.codes">Status Code Definitions</a><ul> 500 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.1">9.1</a> <a href="#status.1xx">Informational 1xx</a><ul> 501 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.1.1">9.1.1</a> <a href="#status.100">100 Continue</a></li> 502 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.1.2">9.1.2</a> <a href="#status.101">101 Switching Protocols</a></li> 507 503 </ul> 508 504 </li> 509 <li> 9.2 <a href="#status.2xx">Successful 2xx</a><ul>510 <li> 9.2.1 <a href="#status.200">200 OK</a></li>511 <li> 9.2.2 <a href="#status.201">201 Created</a></li>512 <li> 9.2.3 <a href="#status.202">202 Accepted</a></li>513 <li> 9.2.4 <a href="#status.203">203 Non-Authoritative Information</a></li>514 <li> 9.2.5 <a href="#status.204">204 No Content</a></li>515 <li> 9.2.6 <a href="#status.205">205 Reset Content</a></li>516 <li> 9.2.7 <a href="#status.206">206 Partial Content</a></li>505 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.2">9.2</a> <a href="#status.2xx">Successful 2xx</a><ul> 506 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.1">9.2.1</a> <a href="#status.200">200 OK</a></li> 507 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.2">9.2.2</a> <a href="#status.201">201 Created</a></li> 508 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.3">9.2.3</a> <a href="#status.202">202 Accepted</a></li> 509 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.4">9.2.4</a> <a href="#status.203">203 Non-Authoritative Information</a></li> 510 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.5">9.2.5</a> <a href="#status.204">204 No Content</a></li> 511 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.6">9.2.6</a> <a href="#status.205">205 Reset Content</a></li> 512 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.7">9.2.7</a> <a href="#status.206">206 Partial Content</a></li> 517 513 </ul> 518 514 </li> 519 <li> 9.3 <a href="#status.3xx">Redirection 3xx</a><ul>520 <li> 9.3.1 <a href="#status.300">300 Multiple Choices</a></li>521 <li> 9.3.2 <a href="#status.301">301 Moved Permanently</a></li>522 <li> 9.3.3 <a href="#status.302">302 Found</a></li>523 <li> 9.3.4 <a href="#status.303">303 See Other</a></li>524 <li> 9.3.5 <a href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></li>525 <li> 9.3.6 <a href="#status.305">305 Use Proxy</a></li>526 <li> 9.3.7 <a href="#status.306">306 (Unused)</a></li>527 <li> 9.3.8 <a href="#status.307">307 Temporary Redirect</a></li>515 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.3">9.3</a> <a href="#status.3xx">Redirection 3xx</a><ul> 516 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.1">9.3.1</a> <a href="#status.300">300 Multiple Choices</a></li> 517 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.2">9.3.2</a> <a href="#status.301">301 Moved Permanently</a></li> 518 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.3">9.3.3</a> <a href="#status.302">302 Found</a></li> 519 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.4">9.3.4</a> <a href="#status.303">303 See Other</a></li> 520 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.5">9.3.5</a> <a href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></li> 521 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.6">9.3.6</a> <a href="#status.305">305 Use Proxy</a></li> 522 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.7">9.3.7</a> <a href="#status.306">306 (Unused)</a></li> 523 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.8">9.3.8</a> <a href="#status.307">307 Temporary Redirect</a></li> 528 524 </ul> 529 525 </li> 530 <li> 9.4 <a href="#status.4xx">Client Error 4xx</a><ul>531 <li> 9.4.1 <a href="#status.400">400 Bad Request</a></li>532 <li> 9.4.2 <a href="#status.401">401 Unauthorized</a></li>533 <li> 9.4.3 <a href="#status.402">402 Payment Required</a></li>534 <li> 9.4.4 <a href="#status.403">403 Forbidden</a></li>535 <li> 9.4.5 <a href="#status.404">404 Not Found</a></li>536 <li> 9.4.6 <a href="#status.405">405 Method Not Allowed</a></li>537 <li> 9.4.7 <a href="#status.406">406 Not Acceptable</a></li>538 <li> 9.4.8 <a href="#status.407">407 Proxy Authentication Required</a></li>539 <li> 9.4.9 <a href="#status.408">408 Request Timeout</a></li>540 <li> 9.4.10 <a href="#status.409">409 Conflict</a></li>541 <li> 9.4.11 <a href="#status.410">410 Gone</a></li>542 <li> 9.4.12 <a href="#status.411">411 Length Required</a></li>543 <li> 9.4.13 <a href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></li>544 <li> 9.4.14 <a href="#status.413">413 Request Entity Too Large</a></li>545 <li> 9.4.15 <a href="#status.414">414 Request-URI Too Long</a></li>546 <li> 9.4.16 <a href="#status.415">415 Unsupported Media Type</a></li>547 <li> 9.4.17 <a href="#status.416">416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable</a></li>548 <li> 9.4.18 <a href="#status.417">417 Expectation Failed</a></li>526 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4">9.4</a> <a href="#status.4xx">Client Error 4xx</a><ul> 527 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.1">9.4.1</a> <a href="#status.400">400 Bad Request</a></li> 528 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.2">9.4.2</a> <a href="#status.401">401 Unauthorized</a></li> 529 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.3">9.4.3</a> <a href="#status.402">402 Payment Required</a></li> 530 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.4">9.4.4</a> <a href="#status.403">403 Forbidden</a></li> 531 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.5">9.4.5</a> <a href="#status.404">404 Not Found</a></li> 532 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.6">9.4.6</a> <a href="#status.405">405 Method Not Allowed</a></li> 533 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.7">9.4.7</a> <a href="#status.406">406 Not Acceptable</a></li> 534 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.8">9.4.8</a> <a href="#status.407">407 Proxy Authentication Required</a></li> 535 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.9">9.4.9</a> <a href="#status.408">408 Request Timeout</a></li> 536 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.10">9.4.10</a> <a href="#status.409">409 Conflict</a></li> 537 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.11">9.4.11</a> <a href="#status.410">410 Gone</a></li> 538 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.12">9.4.12</a> <a href="#status.411">411 Length Required</a></li> 539 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.13">9.4.13</a> <a href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></li> 540 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.14">9.4.14</a> <a href="#status.413">413 Request Entity Too Large</a></li> 541 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.15">9.4.15</a> <a href="#status.414">414 Request-URI Too Long</a></li> 542 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.16">9.4.16</a> <a href="#status.415">415 Unsupported Media Type</a></li> 543 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.17">9.4.17</a> <a href="#status.416">416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable</a></li> 544 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.18">9.4.18</a> <a href="#status.417">417 Expectation Failed</a></li> 549 545 </ul> 550 546 </li> 551 <li> 9.5 <a href="#status.5xx">Server Error 5xx</a><ul>552 <li> 9.5.1 <a href="#status.500">500 Internal Server Error</a></li>553 <li> 9.5.2 <a href="#status.501">501 Not Implemented</a></li>554 <li> 9.5.3 <a href="#status.502">502 Bad Gateway</a></li>555 <li> 9.5.4 <a href="#status.503">503 Service Unavailable</a></li>556 <li> 9.5.5 <a href="#status.504">504 Gateway Timeout</a></li>557 <li> 9.5.6 <a href="#status.505">505 HTTP Version Not Supported</a></li>547 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.5">9.5</a> <a href="#status.5xx">Server Error 5xx</a><ul> 548 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.1">9.5.1</a> <a href="#status.500">500 Internal Server Error</a></li> 549 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.2">9.5.2</a> <a href="#status.501">501 Not Implemented</a></li> 550 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.3">9.5.3</a> <a href="#status.502">502 Bad Gateway</a></li> 551 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.4">9.5.4</a> <a href="#status.503">503 Service Unavailable</a></li> 552 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.5">9.5.5</a> <a href="#status.504">504 Gateway Timeout</a></li> 553 <li><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.6">9.5.6</a> <a href="#status.505">505 HTTP Version Not Supported</a></li> 558 554 </ul> 559 555 </li> 560 556 </ul> 561 557 </li> 562 <li> 10. <a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a><ul>563 <li> 10.1 <a href="#header.allow">Allow</a></li>564 <li> 10.2 <a href="#header.expect">Expect</a></li>565 <li> 10.3 <a href="#header.from">From</a></li>566 <li> 10.4 <a href="#header.location">Location</a></li>567 <li> 10.5 <a href="#header.max-forwards">Max-Forwards</a></li>568 <li> 10.6 <a href="#header.referer">Referer</a></li>569 <li> 10.7 <a href="#header.retry-after">Retry-After</a></li>570 <li> 10.8 <a href="#header.server">Server</a></li>571 <li> 10.9 <a href="#header.user-agent">User-Agent</a></li>558 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a> <a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a><ul> 559 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.1">10.1</a> <a href="#header.allow">Allow</a></li> 560 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.2">10.2</a> <a href="#header.expect">Expect</a></li> 561 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.3">10.3</a> <a href="#header.from">From</a></li> 562 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.4">10.4</a> <a href="#header.location">Location</a></li> 563 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.5">10.5</a> <a href="#header.max-forwards">Max-Forwards</a></li> 564 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.6">10.6</a> <a href="#header.referer">Referer</a></li> 565 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.7">10.7</a> <a href="#header.retry-after">Retry-After</a></li> 566 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.8">10.8</a> <a href="#header.server">Server</a></li> 567 <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.9">10.9</a> <a href="#header.user-agent">User-Agent</a></li> 572 568 </ul> 573 569 </li> 574 <li> 11. <a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></li>575 <li> 12. <a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a><ul>576 <li> 12.1 <a href="#security.sensitive">Transfer of Sensitive Information</a></li>577 <li> 12.2 <a href="#encoding.sensitive.information.in.uris">Encoding Sensitive Information in URIs</a></li>578 <li> 12.3 <a href="#location.spoofing">Location Headers and Spoofing</a></li>570 <li><a href="#rfc.section.11">11.</a> <a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></li> 571 <li><a href="#rfc.section.12">12.</a> <a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a><ul> 572 <li><a href="#rfc.section.12.1">12.1</a> <a href="#security.sensitive">Transfer of Sensitive Information</a></li> 573 <li><a href="#rfc.section.12.2">12.2</a> <a href="#encoding.sensitive.information.in.uris">Encoding Sensitive Information in URIs</a></li> 574 <li><a href="#rfc.section.12.3">12.3</a> <a href="#location.spoofing">Location Headers and Spoofing</a></li> 579 575 </ul> 580 576 </li> 581 <li> 13. <a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></li>582 <li> 14. <a href="#rfc.references">References</a><ul>583 <li> 14.1 <a href="#rfc.references.1">Normative References</a></li>584 <li> 14.2 <a href="#rfc.references.2">Informative References</a></li>577 <li><a href="#rfc.section.13">13.</a> <a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></li> 578 <li><a href="#rfc.section.14">14.</a> <a href="#rfc.references">References</a><ul> 579 <li><a href="#rfc.section.14.1">14.1</a> <a href="#rfc.references.1">Normative References</a></li> 580 <li><a href="#rfc.section.14.2">14.2</a> <a href="#rfc.references.2">Informative References</a></li> 585 581 </ul> 586 582 </li> 587 <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li> 588 <li>A. <a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a><ul> 589 <li>A.1 <a href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></li> 590 <li>A.2 <a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></li> 583 <li><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a> <a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a><ul> 584 <li><a href="#rfc.section.A.1">A.1</a> <a href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></li> 585 <li><a href="#rfc.section.A.2">A.2</a> <a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></li> 591 586 </ul> 592 587 </li> 593 <li> B. <a href="#rfc.section.B">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a><ul>594 <li> B.1 <a href="#rfc.section.B.1">Since RFC2616</a></li>595 <li> B.2 <a href="#rfc.section.B.2">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-00</a></li>596 <li> B.3 <a href="#rfc.section.B.3">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01</a></li>588 <li><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a> <a href="#rfc.section.B">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a><ul> 589 <li><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a> <a href="#rfc.section.B.1">Since RFC2616</a></li> 590 <li><a href="#rfc.section.B.2">B.2</a> <a href="#rfc.section.B.2">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-00</a></li> 591 <li><a href="#rfc.section.B.3">B.3</a> <a href="#rfc.section.B.3">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01</a></li> 597 592 </ul> 598 593 </li> 599 594 <li><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></li> 595 <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li> 600 596 <li><a href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements</a></li> 601 597 </ul> 602 <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a> <a id="introduction" href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1> 603 <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document defines HTTP/1.1 request and response semantics. Each HTTP message, as defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, is in the form of either a request or a response. An HTTP server listens on a connection for HTTP requests and responds 604 to each request, in the order received on that connection, with one or more HTTP response messages. This document defines 605 the commonly agreed upon semantics of the HTTP uniform interface, the intentions defined by each request method, and the various 606 response messages that might be expected as a result of applying that method for the requested resource. 607 </p> 608 <p id="rfc.section.1.p.2">This document is currently disorganized in order to minimize the changes between drafts and enable reviewers to see the smaller 609 errata changes. The next draft will reorganize the sections to better reflect the content. In particular, the sections will 610 be ordered according to the typical processing of an HTTP request message (after message parsing): resource mapping, general 611 header fields, methods, request modifiers, response status, and resource metadata. The current mess reflects how widely dispersed 612 these topics and associated requirements had become in <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>. 613 </p> 614 <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a> <a id="intro.requirements" href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></h2> 615 <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.1">The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" 616 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>. 617 </p> 618 <p id="rfc.section.1.1.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." 619 </p> 620 <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a> <a id="notation" href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></h1> 621 <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#notation.abnf" title="Augmented BNF">Section 2.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> and the core rules defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>: <span class="comment" id="abnf.dep">[<a href="#abnf.dep" class="smpl">abnf.dep</a>: ABNF syntax and basic rules will be adopted from RFC 5234, see <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>>.]</span> 622 </p> 623 <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline"> DIGIT = <DIGIT, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>> 598 <div id="introduction"> 599 <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a> <a href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1> 600 <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document defines HTTP/1.1 request and response semantics. Each HTTP message, as defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, is in the form of either a request or a response. An HTTP server listens on a connection for HTTP requests and responds 601 to each request, in the order received on that connection, with one or more HTTP response messages. This document defines 602 the commonly agreed upon semantics of the HTTP uniform interface, the intentions defined by each request method, and the various 603 response messages that might be expected as a result of applying that method for the requested resource. 604 </p> 605 <p id="rfc.section.1.p.2">This document is currently disorganized in order to minimize the changes between drafts and enable reviewers to see the smaller 606 errata changes. The next draft will reorganize the sections to better reflect the content. In particular, the sections will 607 be ordered according to the typical processing of an HTTP request message (after message parsing): resource mapping, general 608 header fields, methods, request modifiers, response status, and resource metadata. The current mess reflects how widely dispersed 609 these topics and associated requirements had become in <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>. 610 </p> 611 <div id="intro.requirements"> 612 <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a> <a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></h2> 613 <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.1">The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" 614 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>. 615 </p> 616 <p id="rfc.section.1.1.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." 617 </p> 618 </div> 619 </div> 620 <div id="notation"> 621 <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a> <a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></h1> 622 <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#notation.abnf" title="Augmented BNF">Section 2.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> and the core rules defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>: <span class="comment" id="abnf.dep">[<a href="#abnf.dep" class="smpl">abnf.dep</a>: ABNF syntax and basic rules will be adopted from RFC 5234, see <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>>.]</span> 623 </p> 624 <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline"> DIGIT = <DIGIT, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>> 624 625 </pre><div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="inline"> comment = <comment, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>> 625 626 quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>> 626 627 token = <token, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.7"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>> 627 628 </pre><div id="abnf.dependencies"> 628 <p id="rfc.section.2.p.4">The ABNF rules below are defined in other parts:</p>629 </div>630 <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="inline"> absoluteURI = <absoluteURI, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#general.syntax" title="General Syntax">Section 3.2.1</a>>629 <p id="rfc.section.2.p.4">The ABNF rules below are defined in other parts:</p> 630 </div> 631 <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="inline"> absoluteURI = <absoluteURI, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#general.syntax" title="General Syntax">Section 3.2.1</a>> 631 632 fragment = <fragment, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#general.syntax" title="General Syntax">Section 3.2.1</a>> 632 633 Host = <Host, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.10"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#header.host" title="Host">Section 8.4</a>> … … 661 662 WWW-Authenticate = 662 663 <WWW-Authenticate, defined in <a href="#Part7" id="rfc.xref.Part7.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication">[Part7]</cite></a>, <a href="p7-auth.html#header.www-authenticate" title="WWW-Authenticate">Section 4.4</a>> 663 </pre><h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a> <a id="method" href="#method">Method</a></h1> 664 <p id="rfc.section.3.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> 665 <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span> Method = "OPTIONS" ; <a href="#OPTIONS" id="rfc.xref.OPTIONS.1" title="OPTIONS">Section 8.2</a> 664 </pre></div> 665 <div id="method"> 666 <h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a> <a href="#method">Method</a></h1> 667 <p id="rfc.section.3.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> 668 <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span> Method = "OPTIONS" ; <a href="#OPTIONS" id="rfc.xref.OPTIONS.1" title="OPTIONS">Section 8.2</a> 666 669 | "GET" ; <a href="#GET" id="rfc.xref.GET.1" title="GET">Section 8.3</a> 667 670 | "HEAD" ; <a href="#HEAD" id="rfc.xref.HEAD.1" title="HEAD">Section 8.4</a> … … 674 677 extension-method = token 675 678 </pre><p id="rfc.section.3.p.3">The list of methods allowed by a resource can be specified in an Allow header field (<a href="#header.allow" id="rfc.xref.header.allow.1" title="Allow">Section 10.1</a>). The return code of the response always notifies the client whether a method is currently allowed on a resource, since the 676 set of allowed methods can change dynamically. An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return the status code 405 (Method Not Allowed) if the method is known by the origin server but not allowed for the requested 677 resource, and 501 (Not Implemented) if the method is unrecognized or not implemented by the origin server. The methods GET 678 and HEAD <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be supported by all general-purpose servers. All other methods are <em class="bcp14">OPTIONAL</em>; however, if the above methods are implemented, they <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be implemented with the same semantics as those specified in <a href="#method.definitions" title="Method Definitions">Section 8</a>. 679 </p> 680 <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a> <a id="request.header.fields" href="#request.header.fields">Request Header Fields</a></h1> 681 <p id="rfc.section.4.p.1">The request-header fields allow the client to pass additional information about the request, and about the client itself, 682 to the server. These fields act as request modifiers, with semantics equivalent to the parameters on a programming language 683 method invocation. 684 </p> 685 <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span> request-header = Accept ; <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>, <a href="p3-payload.html#header.accept" title="Accept">Section 6.1</a> 679 set of allowed methods can change dynamically. An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return the status code 405 (Method Not Allowed) if the method is known by the origin server but not allowed for the requested 680 resource, and 501 (Not Implemented) if the method is unrecognized or not implemented by the origin server. The methods GET 681 and HEAD <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be supported by all general-purpose servers. All other methods are <em class="bcp14">OPTIONAL</em>; however, if the above methods are implemented, they <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be implemented with the same semantics as those specified in <a href="#method.definitions" title="Method Definitions">Section 8</a>. 682 </p> 683 </div> 684 <div id="request.header.fields"> 685 <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a> <a href="#request.header.fields">Request Header Fields</a></h1> 686 <p id="rfc.section.4.p.1">The request-header fields allow the client to pass additional information about the request, and about the client itself, 687 to the server. These fields act as request modifiers, with semantics equivalent to the parameters on a programming language 688 method invocation. 689 </p> 690 <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span> request-header = Accept ; <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>, <a href="p3-payload.html#header.accept" title="Accept">Section 6.1</a> 686 691 | Accept-Charset ; <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>, <a href="p3-payload.html#header.accept-charset" title="Accept-Charset">Section 6.2</a> 687 692 | Accept-Encoding ; <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.7"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>, <a href="p3-payload.html#header.accept-encoding" title="Accept-Encoding">Section 6.3</a> … … 703 708 | User-Agent ; <a href="#header.user-agent" id="rfc.xref.header.user-agent.1" title="User-Agent">Section 10.9</a> 704 709 </pre><p id="rfc.section.4.p.3">Request-header field names can be extended reliably only in combination with a change in the protocol version. However, new 705 or experimental header fields <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be given the semantics of request-header fields if all parties in the communication recognize them to be request-header fields. 706 Unrecognized header fields are treated as entity-header fields. 707 </p> 708 <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a> <a id="status.code.and.reason.phrase" href="#status.code.and.reason.phrase">Status Code and Reason Phrase</a></h1> 709 <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">The Status-Code element is a 3-digit integer result code of the attempt to understand and satisfy the request. The status 710 codes listed below are defined in <a href="#status.codes" title="Status Code Definitions">Section 9</a>. The Reason-Phrase is intended to give a short textual description of the Status-Code. The Status-Code is intended for use 711 by automata and the Reason-Phrase is intended for the human user. The client is not required to examine or display the Reason-Phrase. 712 </p> 713 <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">The individual values of the numeric status codes defined for HTTP/1.1, and an example set of corresponding Reason-Phrase's, 714 are presented below. The reason phrases listed here are only recommendations -- they <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be replaced by local equivalents without affecting the protocol. 715 </p> 716 <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span> Status-Code = 710 or experimental header fields <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be given the semantics of request-header fields if all parties in the communication recognize them to be request-header fields. 711 Unrecognized header fields are treated as entity-header fields. 712 </p> 713 </div> 714 <div id="status.code.and.reason.phrase"> 715 <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a> <a href="#status.code.and.reason.phrase">Status Code and Reason Phrase</a></h1> 716 <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">The Status-Code element is a 3-digit integer result code of the attempt to understand and satisfy the request. The status 717 codes listed below are defined in <a href="#status.codes" title="Status Code Definitions">Section 9</a>. The Reason-Phrase is intended to give a short textual description of the Status-Code. The Status-Code is intended for use 718 by automata and the Reason-Phrase is intended for the human user. The client is not required to examine or display the Reason-Phrase. 719 </p> 720 <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">The individual values of the numeric status codes defined for HTTP/1.1, and an example set of corresponding Reason-Phrase's, 721 are presented below. The reason phrases listed here are only recommendations -- they <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be replaced by local equivalents without affecting the protocol. 722 </p> 723 <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span> Status-Code = 717 724 "100" ; <a href="#status.100" id="rfc.xref.status.100.1" title="100 Continue">Section 9.1.1</a>: Continue 718 725 | "101" ; <a href="#status.101" id="rfc.xref.status.101.1" title="101 Switching Protocols">Section 9.1.2</a>: Switching Protocols … … 760 767 Reason-Phrase = *<TEXT, excluding CR, LF> 761 768 </pre><p id="rfc.section.5.p.4">HTTP status codes are extensible. HTTP applications are not required to understand the meaning of all registered status codes, 762 though such understanding is obviously desirable. However, applications <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> understand the class of any status code, as indicated by the first digit, and treat any unrecognized response as being equivalent 763 to the x00 status code of that class, with the exception that an unrecognized response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be cached. For example, if an unrecognized status code of 431 is received by the client, it can safely assume that there was 764 something wrong with its request and treat the response as if it had received a 400 status code. In such cases, user agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> present to the user the entity returned with the response, since that entity is likely to include human-readable information 765 which will explain the unusual status. 766 </p> 767 <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a> <a id="response.header.fields" href="#response.header.fields">Response Header Fields</a></h1> 768 <p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">The response-header fields allow the server to pass additional information about the response which cannot be placed in the 769 Status-Line. These header fields give information about the server and about further access to the resource identified by 770 the Request-URI. 771 </p> 772 <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span> response-header = Accept-Ranges ; <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>, <a href="p5-range.html#header.accept-ranges" title="Accept-Ranges">Section 6.1</a> 769 though such understanding is obviously desirable. However, applications <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> understand the class of any status code, as indicated by the first digit, and treat any unrecognized response as being equivalent 770 to the x00 status code of that class, with the exception that an unrecognized response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be cached. For example, if an unrecognized status code of 431 is received by the client, it can safely assume that there was 771 something wrong with its request and treat the response as if it had received a 400 status code. In such cases, user agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> present to the user the entity returned with the response, since that entity is likely to include human-readable information 772 which will explain the unusual status. 773 </p> 774 </div> 775 <div id="response.header.fields"> 776 <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a> <a href="#response.header.fields">Response Header Fields</a></h1> 777 <p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">The response-header fields allow the server to pass additional information about the response which cannot be placed in the 778 Status-Line. These header fields give information about the server and about further access to the resource identified by 779 the Request-URI. 780 </p> 781 <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span> response-header = Accept-Ranges ; <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>, <a href="p5-range.html#header.accept-ranges" title="Accept-Ranges">Section 6.1</a> 773 782 | Age ; <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.age" title="Age">Section 16.1</a> 774 783 | ETag ; <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.10"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>, <a href="p4-conditional.html#header.etag" title="ETag">Section 7.1</a> … … 780 789 | WWW-Authenticate ; <a href="#Part7" id="rfc.xref.Part7.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication">[Part7]</cite></a>, <a href="p7-auth.html#header.www-authenticate" title="WWW-Authenticate">Section 4.4</a> 781 790 </pre><p id="rfc.section.6.p.3">Response-header field names can be extended reliably only in combination with a change in the protocol version. However, new 782 or experimental header fields <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be given the semantics of response-header fields if all parties in the communication recognize them to be response-header 783 fields. Unrecognized header fields are treated as entity-header fields. 784 </p> 785 <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a> <a id="entity" href="#entity">Entity</a></h1> 786 <p id="rfc.section.7.p.1">Request and Response messages <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> transfer an entity if not otherwise restricted by the request method or response status code. An entity consists of entity-header 787 fields and an entity-body, although some responses will only include the entity-headers. HTTP entity-body and entity-header 788 fields are defined in <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>. 789 </p> 790 <p id="rfc.section.7.p.2">An entity-body is only present in a message when a message-body is present, as described in <a href="p1-messaging.html#message.body" title="Message Body">Section 4.3</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.17"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. The entity-body is obtained from the message-body by decoding any Transfer-Encoding that might have been applied to ensure 791 safe and proper transfer of the message. 792 </p> 793 <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a> <a id="method.definitions" href="#method.definitions">Method Definitions</a></h1> 794 <p id="rfc.section.8.p.1">The set of common methods for HTTP/1.1 is defined below. Although this set can be expanded, additional methods cannot be assumed 795 to share the same semantics for separately extended clients and servers. 796 </p> 797 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a> <a id="safe.and.idempotent" href="#safe.and.idempotent">Safe and Idempotent Methods</a></h2> 798 <h3 id="rfc.section.8.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1.1">8.1.1</a> <a id="safe.methods" href="#safe.methods">Safe Methods</a></h3> 799 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.1.p.1">Implementors should be aware that the software represents the user in their interactions over the Internet, and should be 800 careful to allow the user to be aware of any actions they might take which may have an unexpected significance to themselves 801 or others. 802 </p> 803 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.1.p.2">In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user 804 agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact 805 that a possibly unsafe action is being requested. 806 </p> 807 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.1.p.3">Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; 808 in fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important distinction here is that the user did not request the 809 side-effects, so therefore cannot be held accountable for them. 810 </p> 811 <h3 id="rfc.section.8.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1.2">8.1.2</a> <a id="idempotent.methods" href="#idempotent.methods">Idempotent Methods</a></h3> 812 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.2.p.1">Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N 813 > 0 identical requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, 814 the methods OPTIONS and TRACE <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent. 815 </p> 816 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.2.p.2">However, it is possible that a sequence of several requests is non-idempotent, even if all of the methods executed in that 817 sequence are idempotent. (A sequence is idempotent if a single execution of the entire sequence always yields a result that 818 is not changed by a reexecution of all, or part, of that sequence.) For example, a sequence is non-idempotent if its result 819 depends on a value that is later modified in the same sequence. 820 </p> 821 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.2.p.3">A sequence that never has side effects is idempotent, by definition (provided that no concurrent operations are being executed 822 on the same set of resources). 823 </p> 824 <div id="rfc.iref.o.1"></div> 825 <div id="rfc.iref.m.1"></div> 826 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.2"><a href="#rfc.section.8.2">8.2</a> <a id="OPTIONS" href="#OPTIONS">OPTIONS</a></h2> 827 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.1">The OPTIONS method represents a request for information about the communication options available on the request/response 828 chain identified by the Request-URI. This method allows the client to determine the options and/or requirements associated 829 with a resource, or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action or initiating a resource retrieval. 830 </p> 831 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.2">Responses to this method are not cacheable.</p> 832 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.3">If the OPTIONS request includes an entity-body (as indicated by the presence of Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding), then 833 the media type <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be indicated by a Content-Type field. Although this specification does not define any use for such a body, future extensions 834 to HTTP might use the OPTIONS body to make more detailed queries on the server. A server that does not support such an extension <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> discard the request body. 835 </p> 836 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.4">If the Request-URI is an asterisk ("*"), the OPTIONS request is intended to apply to the server in general rather than to 837 a specific resource. Since a server's communication options typically depend on the resource, the "*" request is only useful 838 as a "ping" or "no-op" type of method; it does nothing beyond allowing the client to test the capabilities of the server. 839 For example, this can be used to test a proxy for HTTP/1.1 compliance (or lack thereof). 840 </p> 841 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.5">If the Request-URI is not an asterisk, the OPTIONS request applies only to the options that are available when communicating 842 with that resource. 843 </p> 844 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.6">A 200 response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include any header fields that indicate optional features implemented by the server and applicable to that resource (e.g., 845 Allow), possibly including extensions not defined by this specification. The response body, if any, <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> also include information about the communication options. The format for such a body is not defined by this specification, 846 but might be defined by future extensions to HTTP. Content negotiation <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used to select the appropriate response format. If no response body is included, the response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a Content-Length field with a field-value of "0". 847 </p> 848 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.7">The Max-Forwards request-header field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used to target a specific proxy in the request chain. When a proxy receives an OPTIONS request on an absoluteURI for which 849 request forwarding is permitted, the proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> check for a Max-Forwards field. If the Max-Forwards field-value is zero ("0"), the proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> forward the message; instead, the proxy <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with its own communication options. If the Max-Forwards field-value is an integer greater than zero, the proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> decrement the field-value when it forwards the request. If no Max-Forwards field is present in the request, then the forwarded 850 request <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include a Max-Forwards field. 851 </p> 852 <div id="rfc.iref.g.8"></div> 853 <div id="rfc.iref.m.2"></div> 854 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.3"><a href="#rfc.section.8.3">8.3</a> <a id="GET" href="#GET">GET</a></h2> 855 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.1">The GET method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of an entity) is identified by the Request-URI. If the Request-URI 856 refers to a data-producing process, it is the produced data which shall be returned as the entity in the response and not 857 the source text of the process, unless that text happens to be the output of the process. 858 </p> 859 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.2">The semantics of the GET method change to a "conditional GET" if the request message includes an If-Modified-Since, If-Unmodified-Since, 860 If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range header field. A conditional GET method requests that the entity be transferred only under 861 the circumstances described by the conditional header field(s). The conditional GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary 862 network usage by allowing cached entities to be refreshed without requiring multiple requests or transferring data already 863 held by the client. 864 </p> 865 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.3">The semantics of the GET method change to a "partial GET" if the request message includes a Range header field. A partial 866 GET requests that only part of the entity be transferred, as described in <a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 6.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.7"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>. The partial GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary network usage by allowing partially-retrieved entities to be completed 867 without transferring data already held by the client. 868 </p> 869 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.4">The response to a GET request is cacheable if and only if it meets the requirements for HTTP caching described in <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>. 870 </p> 871 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.5">See <a href="#encoding.sensitive.information.in.uris" title="Encoding Sensitive Information in URIs">Section 12.2</a> for security considerations when used for forms. 872 </p> 873 <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div> 874 <div id="rfc.iref.m.3"></div> 875 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.4"><a href="#rfc.section.8.4">8.4</a> <a id="HEAD" href="#HEAD">HEAD</a></h2> 876 <p id="rfc.section.8.4.p.1">The HEAD method is identical to GET except that the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a message-body in the response. The metainformation contained in the HTTP headers in response to a HEAD request <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be identical to the information sent in response to a GET request. This method can be used for obtaining metainformation about 877 the entity implied by the request without transferring the entity-body itself. This method is often used for testing hypertext 878 links for validity, accessibility, and recent modification. 879 </p> 880 <p id="rfc.section.8.4.p.2">The response to a HEAD request <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be cacheable in the sense that the information contained in the response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used to update a previously cached entity from that resource. If the new field values indicate that the cached entity differs 881 from the current entity (as would be indicated by a change in Content-Length, Content-MD5, ETag or Last-Modified), then the 882 cache <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> treat the cache entry as stale. 883 </p> 884 <div id="rfc.iref.p.1"></div> 885 <div id="rfc.iref.m.4"></div> 886 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.5"><a href="#rfc.section.8.5">8.5</a> <a id="POST" href="#POST">POST</a></h2> 887 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.1">The POST method is used to request that the origin server accept the entity enclosed in the request as data to be processed 888 by the resource identified by the Request-URI in the Request-Line. POST is designed to allow a uniform method to cover the 889 following functions: 890 </p> 891 <ul> 892 <li>Annotation of existing resources;</li> 893 <li>Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list, or similar group of articles;</li> 894 <li>Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a form, to a data-handling process;</li> 895 <li>Extending a database through an append operation.</li> 896 </ul> 897 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.2">The actual function performed by the POST method is determined by the server and is usually dependent on the Request-URI.</p> 898 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.3">The action performed by the POST method might not result in a resource that can be identified by a URI. In this case, either 899 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) is the appropriate response status, depending on whether or not the response includes an entity 900 that describes the result. 901 </p> 902 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.4">If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a Location 903 header (see <a href="#header.location" id="rfc.xref.header.location.2" title="Location">Section 10.4</a>). 904 </p> 905 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.5">Responses to this method are not cacheable, unless the response includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields. 906 However, the 303 (See Other) response can be used to direct the user agent to retrieve a cacheable resource. 907 </p> 908 <div id="rfc.iref.p.2"></div> 909 <div id="rfc.iref.m.5"></div> 910 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.6"><a href="#rfc.section.8.6">8.6</a> <a id="PUT" href="#PUT">PUT</a></h2> 911 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.1">The PUT method requests that the enclosed entity be stored under the supplied Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers to an 912 already existing resource, the enclosed entity <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be considered as a modified version of the one residing on the origin server. If the Request-URI does not point to an existing 913 resource, and that URI is capable of being defined as a new resource by the requesting user agent, the origin server can create 914 the resource with that URI. If a new resource is created at the Request-URI, the origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> inform the user agent via the 201 (Created) response. If an existing resource is modified, either the 200 (OK) or 204 (No 915 Content) response codes <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be sent to indicate successful completion of the request. If the resource could not be created or modified with the Request-URI, 916 an appropriate error response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given that reflects the nature of the problem. The recipient of the entity <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> ignore any Content-* (e.g. Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases. 917 </p> 918 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.2">If the request passes through a cache and the Request-URI identifies one or more currently cached entities, those entries <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be treated as stale. Responses to this method are not cacheable. 919 </p> 920 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.3">The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The 921 URI in a POST request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed entity. That resource might be a data-accepting 922 process, a gateway to some other protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In contrast, the URI in a PUT request 923 identifies the entity enclosed with the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> attempt to apply the request to some other resource. If the server desires that the request be applied to a different URI, 924 it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send a 301 (Moved Permanently) response; the user agent <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> then make its own decision regarding whether or not to redirect the request. 925 </p> 926 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.4">A single resource <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be identified by many different URIs. For example, an article might have a URI for identifying "the current version" which 927 is separate from the URI identifying each particular version. In this case, a PUT request on a general URI might result in 928 several other URIs being defined by the origin server. 929 </p> 930 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.5">HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an origin server.</p> 931 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.6">Unless otherwise specified for a particular entity-header, the entity-headers in the PUT request <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be applied to the resource created or modified by the PUT. 932 </p> 933 <div id="rfc.iref.d.1"></div> 934 <div id="rfc.iref.m.6"></div> 935 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.7"><a href="#rfc.section.8.7">8.7</a> <a id="DELETE" href="#DELETE">DELETE</a></h2> 936 <p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.1">The DELETE method requests that the origin server delete the resource identified by the Request-URI. This method <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be overridden by human intervention (or other means) on the origin server. The client cannot be guaranteed that the operation 937 has been carried out, even if the status code returned from the origin server indicates that the action has been completed 938 successfully. However, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> indicate success unless, at the time the response is given, it intends to delete the resource or move it to an inaccessible 939 location. 940 </p> 941 <p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.2">A successful response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be 200 (OK) if the response includes an entity describing the status, 202 (Accepted) if the action has not yet been enacted, 942 or 204 (No Content) if the action has been enacted but the response does not include an entity. 943 </p> 944 <p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.3">If the request passes through a cache and the Request-URI identifies one or more currently cached entities, those entries <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be treated as stale. Responses to this method are not cacheable. 945 </p> 946 <div id="rfc.iref.t.1"></div> 947 <div id="rfc.iref.m.7"></div> 948 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8.8">8.8</a> <a id="TRACE" href="#TRACE">TRACE</a></h2> 949 <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.1">The TRACE method is used to invoke a remote, application-layer loop-back of the request message. The final recipient of the 950 request <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> reflect the message received back to the client as the entity-body of a 200 (OK) response. The final recipient is either the 951 origin server or the first proxy or gateway to receive a Max-Forwards value of zero (0) in the request (see <a href="#header.max-forwards" id="rfc.xref.header.max-forwards.2" title="Max-Forwards">Section 10.5</a>). A TRACE request <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include an entity. 952 </p> 953 <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.2">TRACE allows the client to see what is being received at the other end of the request chain and use that data for testing 954 or diagnostic information. The value of the Via header field (<a href="p1-messaging.html#header.via" title="Via">Section 8.9</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.18"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) is of particular interest, since it acts as a trace of the request chain. Use of the Max-Forwards header field allows the 955 client to limit the length of the request chain, which is useful for testing a chain of proxies forwarding messages in an 956 infinite loop. 957 </p> 958 <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.3">If the request is valid, the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain the entire request message in the entity-body, with a Content-Type of "message/http". Responses to this method <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be cached. 959 </p> 960 <div id="rfc.iref.c.1"></div> 961 <div id="rfc.iref.m.8"></div> 962 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.9"><a href="#rfc.section.8.9">8.9</a> <a id="CONNECT" href="#CONNECT">CONNECT</a></h2> 963 <p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.1">This specification reserves the method name CONNECT for use with a proxy that can dynamically switch to being a tunnel (e.g. 964 SSL tunneling <a href="#Luo1998" id="rfc.xref.Luo1998.1"><cite title="Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web proxy servers">[Luo1998]</cite></a>). 965 </p> 966 <h1 id="rfc.section.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a> <a id="status.codes" href="#status.codes">Status Code Definitions</a></h1> 967 <p id="rfc.section.9.p.1">Each Status-Code is described below, including a description of which method(s) it can follow and any metainformation required 968 in the response. 969 </p> 970 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.1">9.1</a> <a id="status.1xx" href="#status.1xx">Informational 1xx</a></h2> 971 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.p.1">This class of status code indicates a provisional response, consisting only of the Status-Line and optional headers, and is 972 terminated by an empty line. There are no required headers for this class of status code. Since HTTP/1.0 did not define any 973 1xx status codes, servers <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a 1xx response to an HTTP/1.0 client except under experimental conditions. 974 </p> 975 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.p.2">A client <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be prepared to accept one or more 1xx status responses prior to a regular response, even if the client does not expect a 100 976 (Continue) status message. Unexpected 1xx status responses <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be ignored by a user agent. 977 </p> 978 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.p.3">Proxies <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> forward 1xx responses, unless the connection between the proxy and its client has been closed, or unless the proxy itself 979 requested the generation of the 1xx response. (For example, if a proxy adds a "Expect: 100-continue" field when it forwards 980 a request, then it need not forward the corresponding 100 (Continue) response(s).) 981 </p> 982 <div id="rfc.iref.23"></div> 983 <div id="rfc.iref.s.1"></div> 984 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.1.1">9.1.1</a> <a id="status.100" href="#status.100">100 Continue</a></h3> 985 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.1.p.1">The client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> continue with its request. This interim response is used to inform the client that the initial part of the request has been 986 received and has not yet been rejected by the server. The client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> continue by sending the remainder of the request or, if the request has already been completed, ignore this response. The 987 server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send a final response after the request has been completed. See <a href="p1-messaging.html#use.of.the.100.status" title="Use of the 100 (Continue) Status">Section 7.2.3</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.19"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> for detailed discussion of the use and handling of this status code. 988 </p> 989 <div id="rfc.iref.24"></div> 990 <div id="rfc.iref.s.2"></div> 991 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.1.2">9.1.2</a> <a id="status.101" href="#status.101">101 Switching Protocols</a></h3> 992 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.2.p.1">The server understands and is willing to comply with the client's request, via the Upgrade message header field (<a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 6.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>), for a change in the application protocol being used on this connection. The server will switch protocols to those defined 993 by the response's Upgrade header field immediately after the empty line which terminates the 101 response. 994 </p> 995 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.2.p.2">The protocol <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be switched only when it is advantageous to do so. For example, switching to a newer version of HTTP is advantageous over 996 older versions, and switching to a real-time, synchronous protocol might be advantageous when delivering resources that use 997 such features. 998 </p> 999 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2">9.2</a> <a id="status.2xx" href="#status.2xx">Successful 2xx</a></h2> 1000 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.p.1">This class of status code indicates that the client's request was successfully received, understood, and accepted.</p> 1001 <div id="rfc.iref.25"></div> 1002 <div id="rfc.iref.s.3"></div> 1003 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.1">9.2.1</a> <a id="status.200" href="#status.200">200 OK</a></h3> 1004 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.1.p.1">The request has succeeded. The information returned with the response is dependent on the method used in the request, for 1005 example: 1006 </p> 1007 <dl> 1008 <dt>GET</dt> 1009 <dd>an entity corresponding to the requested resource is sent in the response;</dd> 1010 <dt>HEAD</dt> 1011 <dd>the entity-header fields corresponding to the requested resource are sent in the response without any message-body;</dd> 1012 <dt>POST</dt> 1013 <dd>an entity describing or containing the result of the action;</dd> 1014 <dt>TRACE</dt> 1015 <dd>an entity containing the request message as received by the end server.</dd> 1016 </dl> 1017 <div id="rfc.iref.26"></div> 1018 <div id="rfc.iref.s.4"></div> 1019 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.2">9.2.2</a> <a id="status.201" href="#status.201">201 Created</a></h3> 1020 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.2.p.1">The request has been fulfilled and resulted in a new resource being created. The newly created resource can be referenced 1021 by the URI(s) returned in the entity of the response, with the most specific URI for the resource given by a Location header 1022 field. The response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose 1023 the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type header field. The origin 1024 server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> create the resource before returning the 201 status code. If the action cannot be carried out immediately, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with 202 (Accepted) response instead. 1025 </p> 1026 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.2.p.2">A 201 response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> contain an ETag response header field indicating the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just created, 1027 see <a href="p4-conditional.html#header.etag" title="ETag">Section 7.1</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.11"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>. 1028 </p> 1029 <div id="rfc.iref.27"></div> 1030 <div id="rfc.iref.s.5"></div> 1031 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.3">9.2.3</a> <a id="status.202" href="#status.202">202 Accepted</a></h3> 1032 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.3.p.1">The request has been accepted for processing, but the processing has not been completed. The request might or might not eventually 1033 be acted upon, as it might be disallowed when processing actually takes place. There is no facility for re-sending a status 1034 code from an asynchronous operation such as this. 1035 </p> 1036 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.3.p.2">The 202 response is intentionally non-committal. Its purpose is to allow a server to accept a request for some other process 1037 (perhaps a batch-oriented process that is only run once per day) without requiring that the user agent's connection to the 1038 server persist until the process is completed. The entity returned with this response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an indication of the request's current status and either a pointer to a status monitor or some estimate of when the 1039 user can expect the request to be fulfilled. 1040 </p> 1041 <div id="rfc.iref.28"></div> 1042 <div id="rfc.iref.s.6"></div> 1043 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.4">9.2.4</a> <a id="status.203" href="#status.203">203 Non-Authoritative Information</a></h3> 1044 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.4.p.1">The returned metainformation in the entity-header is not the definitive set as available from the origin server, but is gathered 1045 from a local or a third-party copy. The set presented <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be a subset or superset of the original version. For example, including local annotation information about the resource might 1046 result in a superset of the metainformation known by the origin server. Use of this response code is not required and is only 1047 appropriate when the response would otherwise be 200 (OK). 1048 </p> 1049 <div id="rfc.iref.29"></div> 1050 <div id="rfc.iref.s.7"></div> 1051 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.5">9.2.5</a> <a id="status.204" href="#status.204">204 No Content</a></h3> 1052 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.5.p.1">The server has fulfilled the request but does not need to return an entity-body, and might want to return updated metainformation. 1053 The response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include new or updated metainformation in the form of entity-headers, which if present <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be associated with the requested variant. 1054 </p> 1055 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.5.p.2">If the client is a user agent, it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> change its document view from that which caused the request to be sent. This response is primarily intended to allow input 1056 for actions to take place without causing a change to the user agent's active document view, although any new or updated metainformation <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be applied to the document currently in the user agent's active view. 1057 </p> 1058 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.5.p.3">The 204 response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields. 1059 </p> 1060 <div id="rfc.iref.30"></div> 1061 <div id="rfc.iref.s.8"></div> 1062 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.6"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.6">9.2.6</a> <a id="status.205" href="#status.205">205 Reset Content</a></h3> 1063 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.6.p.1">The server has fulfilled the request and the user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> reset the document view which caused the request to be sent. This response is primarily intended to allow input for actions 1064 to take place via user input, followed by a clearing of the form in which the input is given so that the user can easily initiate 1065 another input action. The response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include an entity. 1066 </p> 1067 <div id="rfc.iref.31"></div> 1068 <div id="rfc.iref.s.9"></div> 1069 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.7"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.7">9.2.7</a> <a id="status.206" href="#status.206">206 Partial Content</a></h3> 1070 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.7.p.1">The server has fulfilled the partial GET request for the resource and the enclosed entity is a partial representation as defined 1071 in <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>. 1072 </p> 1073 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3">9.3</a> <a id="status.3xx" href="#status.3xx">Redirection 3xx</a></h2> 1074 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.p.1">This class of status code indicates that further action needs to be taken by the user agent in order to fulfill the request. 1075 The action required <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be carried out by the user agent without interaction with the user if and only if the method used in the second request is 1076 GET or HEAD. A client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> detect infinite redirection loops, since such loops generate network traffic for each redirection. 1077 </p> 1078 <ul class="empty"> 1079 <li> <b>Note:</b> previous versions of this specification recommended a maximum of five redirections. Content developers should be aware that 1080 there might be clients that implement such a fixed limitation. 1081 </li> 1082 </ul> 1083 <div id="rfc.iref.32"></div> 1084 <div id="rfc.iref.s.10"></div> 1085 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.1">9.3.1</a> <a id="status.300" href="#status.300">300 Multiple Choices</a></h3> 1086 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.1.p.1">The requested resource corresponds to any one of a set of representations, each with its own specific location, and agent-driven 1087 negotiation information (<a href="p3-payload.html#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section 5</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>) is being provided so that the user (or user agent) can select a preferred representation and redirect its request to that 1088 location. 1089 </p> 1090 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.1.p.2">Unless it was a HEAD request, the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose 1091 the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type header field. Depending 1092 upon the format and the capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be performed automatically. However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic selection. 1093 </p> 1094 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.1.p.3">If the server has a preferred choice of representation, it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include the specific URI for that representation in the Location field; user agents <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use the Location field value for automatic redirection. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. 1095 </p> 1096 <div id="rfc.iref.33"></div> 1097 <div id="rfc.iref.s.11"></div> 1098 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.2">9.3.2</a> <a id="status.301" href="#status.301">301 Moved Permanently</a></h3> 1099 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.2.p.1">The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use one of the returned URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the Request-URI 1100 to one or more of the new references returned by the server, where possible. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. 1101 </p> 1102 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.2.p.2">The new permanent URI <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). 1103 </p> 1104 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.2.p.3">If the 301 status code is received in response to a request method that is known to be "safe", as defined in <a href="#safe.methods" title="Safe Methods">Section 8.1.1</a>, then the request <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be automatically redirected by the user agent without confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which 1105 the request was issued. 1106 </p> 1107 <ul class="empty"> 1108 <li> <b>Note:</b> When automatically redirecting a POST request after receiving a 301 status code, some existing HTTP/1.0 user agents will erroneously 1109 change it into a GET request. 1110 </li> 1111 </ul> 1112 <div id="rfc.iref.34"></div> 1113 <div id="rfc.iref.s.12"></div> 1114 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.3">9.3.3</a> <a id="status.302" href="#status.302">302 Found</a></h3> 1115 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.3.p.1">The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the 1116 client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires 1117 header field. 1118 </p> 1119 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.3.p.2">The temporary URI <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). 1120 </p> 1121 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.3.p.3">If the 302 status code is received in response to a request method that is known to be "safe", as defined in <a href="#safe.methods" title="Safe Methods">Section 8.1.1</a>, then the request <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be automatically redirected by the user agent without confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which 1122 the request was issued. 1123 </p> 1124 <ul class="empty"> 1125 <li> <b>Note:</b> <a href="#RFC1945" id="rfc.xref.RFC1945.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0">[RFC1945]</cite></a> and <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a> specify that the client is not allowed to change the method on the redirected request. However, most existing user agent implementations 1126 treat 302 as if it were a 303 response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless of the original request method. 1127 The status codes 303 and 307 have been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear which kind of reaction is expected 1128 of the client. 1129 </li> 1130 </ul> 1131 <div id="rfc.iref.35"></div> 1132 <div id="rfc.iref.s.13"></div> 1133 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.4">9.3.4</a> <a id="status.303" href="#status.303">303 See Other</a></h3> 1134 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.4.p.1">The response to the request can be found under a different URI and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script 1135 to redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a substitute reference for the originally requested 1136 resource. The 303 response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be cached, but the response to the second (redirected) request might be cacheable. 1137 </p> 1138 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.4.p.2">The different URI <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). 1139 </p> 1140 <ul class="empty"> 1141 <li> <b>Note:</b> Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303 status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the 1142 302 status code may be used instead, since most user agents react to a 302 response as described here for 303. 1143 </li> 1144 </ul> 1145 <div id="rfc.iref.36"></div> 1146 <div id="rfc.iref.s.14"></div> 1147 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.5">9.3.5</a> <a id="status.304" href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></h3> 1148 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.5.p.1">The response to the request has not been modified since the conditions indicated by the client's conditional GET request, 1149 as defined in <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.12"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>. 1150 </p> 1151 <div id="rfc.iref.37"></div> 1152 <div id="rfc.iref.s.15"></div> 1153 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.6"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.6">9.3.6</a> <a id="status.305" href="#status.305">305 Use Proxy</a></h3> 1154 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.6.p.1">The requested resource <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be accessed through the proxy given by the Location field. The Location field gives the URI of the proxy. The recipient is 1155 expected to repeat this single request via the proxy. 305 responses <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> only be generated by origin servers. 1156 </p> 1157 <ul class="empty"> 1158 <li> <b>Note:</b> <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a> was not clear that 305 was intended to redirect a single request, and to be generated by origin servers only. Not observing 1159 these limitations has significant security consequences. 1160 </li> 1161 </ul> 1162 <div id="rfc.iref.38"></div> 1163 <div id="rfc.iref.s.16"></div> 1164 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.7"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.7">9.3.7</a> <a id="status.306" href="#status.306">306 (Unused)</a></h3> 1165 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.7.p.1">The 306 status code was used in a previous version of the specification, is no longer used, and the code is reserved.</p> 1166 <div id="rfc.iref.39"></div> 1167 <div id="rfc.iref.s.17"></div> 1168 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.8"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.8">9.3.8</a> <a id="status.307" href="#status.307">307 Temporary Redirect</a></h3> 1169 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.8.p.1">The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be altered on occasion, the client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires 1170 header field. 1171 </p> 1172 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.8.p.2">The temporary URI <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s) , since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand 1173 the 307 status. Therefore, the note <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain the information necessary for a user to repeat the original request on the new URI. 1174 </p> 1175 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.8.p.3">If the 307 status code is received in response to a request method that is known to be "safe", as defined in <a href="#safe.methods" title="Safe Methods">Section 8.1.1</a>, then the request <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be automatically redirected by the user agent without confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which 1176 the request was issued. 1177 </p> 1178 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4">9.4</a> <a id="status.4xx" href="#status.4xx">Client Error 4xx</a></h2> 1179 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.p.1">The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred. Except when responding to a HEAD 1180 request, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. 1181 These status codes are applicable to any request method. User agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> display any included entity to the user. 1182 </p> 1183 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.p.2">If the client is sending data, a server implementation using TCP <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be careful to ensure that the client acknowledges receipt of the packet(s) containing the response, before the server closes 1184 the input connection. If the client continues sending data to the server after the close, the server's TCP stack will send 1185 a reset packet to the client, which may erase the client's unacknowledged input buffers before they can be read and interpreted 1186 by the HTTP application. 1187 </p> 1188 <div id="rfc.iref.40"></div> 1189 <div id="rfc.iref.s.18"></div> 1190 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.1">9.4.1</a> <a id="status.400" href="#status.400">400 Bad Request</a></h3> 1191 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.1.p.1">The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax. The client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> repeat the request without modifications. 1192 </p> 1193 <div id="rfc.iref.41"></div> 1194 <div id="rfc.iref.s.19"></div> 1195 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.2">9.4.2</a> <a id="status.401" href="#status.401">401 Unauthorized</a></h3> 1196 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.2.p.1">The request requires user authentication (see <a href="#Part7" id="rfc.xref.Part7.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication">[Part7]</cite></a>). 1197 </p> 1198 <div id="rfc.iref.42"></div> 1199 <div id="rfc.iref.s.20"></div> 1200 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.3">9.4.3</a> <a id="status.402" href="#status.402">402 Payment Required</a></h3> 1201 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.3.p.1">This code is reserved for future use.</p> 1202 <div id="rfc.iref.43"></div> 1203 <div id="rfc.iref.s.21"></div> 1204 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.4">9.4.4</a> <a id="status.403" href="#status.403">403 Forbidden</a></h3> 1205 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.4.p.1">The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help and the request <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be repeated. If the request method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make public why the request has not been fulfilled, 1206 it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> describe the reason for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, 1207 the status code 404 (Not Found) can be used instead. 1208 </p> 1209 <div id="rfc.iref.44"></div> 1210 <div id="rfc.iref.s.22"></div> 1211 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.5">9.4.5</a> <a id="status.404" href="#status.404">404 Not Found</a></h3> 1212 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.5.p.1">The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or 1213 permanent. The 410 (Gone) status code <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable 1214 and has no forwarding address. This status code is commonly used when the server does not wish to reveal exactly why the request 1215 has been refused, or when no other response is applicable. 1216 </p> 1217 <div id="rfc.iref.45"></div> 1218 <div id="rfc.iref.s.23"></div> 1219 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.6"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.6">9.4.6</a> <a id="status.405" href="#status.405">405 Method Not Allowed</a></h3> 1220 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.6.p.1">The method specified in the Request-Line is not allowed for the resource identified by the Request-URI. The response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include an Allow header containing a list of valid methods for the requested resource. 1221 </p> 1222 <div id="rfc.iref.46"></div> 1223 <div id="rfc.iref.s.24"></div> 1224 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.7"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.7">9.4.7</a> <a id="status.406" href="#status.406">406 Not Acceptable</a></h3> 1225 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.7.p.1">The resource identified by the request is only capable of generating response entities which have content characteristics 1226 not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the request. 1227 </p> 1228 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.7.p.2">Unless it was a HEAD request, the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing a list of available entity characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent 1229 can choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type header field. 1230 Depending upon the format and the capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be performed automatically. However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic selection. 1231 </p> 1232 <ul class="empty"> 1233 <li> <b>Note:</b> HTTP/1.1 servers are allowed to return responses which are not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the request. 1234 In some cases, this may even be preferable to sending a 406 response. User agents are encouraged to inspect the headers of 1235 an incoming response to determine if it is acceptable. 1236 </li> 1237 </ul> 1238 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.7.p.3">If the response could be unacceptable, a user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> temporarily stop receipt of more data and query the user for a decision on further actions. 1239 </p> 1240 <div id="rfc.iref.47"></div> 1241 <div id="rfc.iref.s.25"></div> 1242 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.8"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.8">9.4.8</a> <a id="status.407" href="#status.407">407 Proxy Authentication Required</a></h3> 1243 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.8.p.1">This code is similar to 401 (Unauthorized), but indicates that the client must first authenticate itself with the proxy (see <a href="#Part7" id="rfc.xref.Part7.10"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication">[Part7]</cite></a>). 1244 </p> 1245 <div id="rfc.iref.48"></div> 1246 <div id="rfc.iref.s.26"></div> 1247 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.9">9.4.9</a> <a id="status.408" href="#status.408">408 Request Timeout</a></h3> 1248 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.9.p.1">The client did not produce a request within the time that the server was prepared to wait. The client <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> repeat the request without modifications at any later time. 1249 </p> 1250 <div id="rfc.iref.49"></div> 1251 <div id="rfc.iref.s.27"></div> 1252 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.10"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.10">9.4.10</a> <a id="status.409" href="#status.409">409 Conflict</a></h3> 1253 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.10.p.1">The request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the resource. This code is only allowed in 1254 situations where it is expected that the user might be able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the request. The response 1255 body <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include enough information for the user to recognize the source of the conflict. Ideally, the response entity would include 1256 enough information for the user or user agent to fix the problem; however, that might not be possible and is not required. 1257 </p> 1258 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.10.p.2">Conflicts are most likely to occur in response to a PUT request. For example, if versioning were being used and the entity 1259 being PUT included changes to a resource which conflict with those made by an earlier (third-party) request, the server might 1260 use the 409 response to indicate that it can't complete the request. In this case, the response entity would likely contain 1261 a list of the differences between the two versions in a format defined by the response Content-Type. 1262 </p> 1263 <div id="rfc.iref.50"></div> 1264 <div id="rfc.iref.s.28"></div> 1265 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.11"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.11">9.4.11</a> <a id="status.410" href="#status.410">410 Gone</a></h3> 1266 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.11.p.1">The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected 1267 to be considered permanent. Clients with link editing capabilities <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> delete references to the Request-URI after user approval. If the server does not know, or has no facility to determine, whether 1268 or not the condition is permanent, the status code 404 (Not Found) <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be used instead. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. 1269 </p> 1270 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.11.p.2">The 410 response is primarily intended to assist the task of web maintenance by notifying the recipient that the resource 1271 is intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that remote links to that resource be removed. Such an event 1272 is common for limited-time, promotional services and for resources belonging to individuals no longer working at the server's 1273 site. It is not necessary to mark all permanently unavailable resources as "gone" or to keep the mark for any length of time 1274 -- that is left to the discretion of the server owner. 1275 </p> 1276 <div id="rfc.iref.51"></div> 1277 <div id="rfc.iref.s.29"></div> 1278 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.12"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.12">9.4.12</a> <a id="status.411" href="#status.411">411 Length Required</a></h3> 1279 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.12.p.1">The server refuses to accept the request without a defined Content-Length. The client <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> repeat the request if it adds a valid Content-Length header field containing the length of the message-body in the request 1280 message. 1281 </p> 1282 <div id="rfc.iref.52"></div> 1283 <div id="rfc.iref.s.30"></div> 1284 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.13"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.13">9.4.13</a> <a id="status.412" href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></h3> 1285 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.13.p.1">The precondition given in one or more of the request-header fields evaluated to false when it was tested on the server, as 1286 defined in <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.13"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>. 1287 </p> 1288 <div id="rfc.iref.53"></div> 1289 <div id="rfc.iref.s.31"></div> 1290 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.14"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.14">9.4.14</a> <a id="status.413" href="#status.413">413 Request Entity Too Large</a></h3> 1291 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.14.p.1">The server is refusing to process a request because the request entity is larger than the server is willing or able to process. 1292 The server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> close the connection to prevent the client from continuing the request. 1293 </p> 1294 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.14.p.2">If the condition is temporary, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include a Retry-After header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what time the client <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> try again. 1295 </p> 1296 <div id="rfc.iref.54"></div> 1297 <div id="rfc.iref.s.32"></div> 1298 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.15"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.15">9.4.15</a> <a id="status.414" href="#status.414">414 Request-URI Too Long</a></h3> 1299 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.15.p.1">The server is refusing to service the request because the Request-URI is longer than the server is willing to interpret. This 1300 rare condition is only likely to occur when a client has improperly converted a POST request to a GET request with long query 1301 information, when the client has descended into a URI "black hole" of redirection (e.g., a redirected URI prefix that points 1302 to a suffix of itself), or when the server is under attack by a client attempting to exploit security holes present in some 1303 servers using fixed-length buffers for reading or manipulating the Request-URI. 1304 </p> 1305 <div id="rfc.iref.55"></div> 1306 <div id="rfc.iref.s.33"></div> 1307 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.16"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.16">9.4.16</a> <a id="status.415" href="#status.415">415 Unsupported Media Type</a></h3> 1308 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.16.p.1">The server is refusing to service the request because the entity of the request is in a format not supported by the requested 1309 resource for the requested method. 1310 </p> 1311 <div id="rfc.iref.56"></div> 1312 <div id="rfc.iref.s.34"></div> 1313 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.17"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.17">9.4.17</a> <a id="status.416" href="#status.416">416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable</a></h3> 1314 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.17.p.1">The request included a Range request-header field (<a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 6.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.10"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) and none of the range-specifier values in this field overlap the current extent of the selected resource. 1315 </p> 1316 <div id="rfc.iref.57"></div> 1317 <div id="rfc.iref.s.35"></div> 1318 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.18"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.18">9.4.18</a> <a id="status.417" href="#status.417">417 Expectation Failed</a></h3> 1319 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.18.p.1">The expectation given in an Expect request-header field (see <a href="#header.expect" id="rfc.xref.header.expect.2" title="Expect">Section 10.2</a>) could not be met by this server, or, if the server is a proxy, the server has unambiguous evidence that the request could 1320 not be met by the next-hop server. 1321 </p> 1322 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5">9.5</a> <a id="status.5xx" href="#status.5xx">Server Error 5xx</a></h2> 1323 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.p.1">Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable 1324 of performing the request. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. 1325 User agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> display any included entity to the user. These response codes are applicable to any request method. 1326 </p> 1327 <div id="rfc.iref.58"></div> 1328 <div id="rfc.iref.s.36"></div> 1329 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.1">9.5.1</a> <a id="status.500" href="#status.500">500 Internal Server Error</a></h3> 1330 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.1.p.1">The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.</p> 1331 <div id="rfc.iref.59"></div> 1332 <div id="rfc.iref.s.37"></div> 1333 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.2">9.5.2</a> <a id="status.501" href="#status.501">501 Not Implemented</a></h3> 1334 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.2.p.1">The server does not support the functionality required to fulfill the request. This is the appropriate response when the server 1335 does not recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for any resource. 1336 </p> 1337 <div id="rfc.iref.60"></div> 1338 <div id="rfc.iref.s.38"></div> 1339 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.3">9.5.3</a> <a id="status.502" href="#status.502">502 Bad Gateway</a></h3> 1340 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.3.p.1">The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, received an invalid response from the upstream server it accessed in attempting 1341 to fulfill the request. 1342 </p> 1343 <div id="rfc.iref.61"></div> 1344 <div id="rfc.iref.s.39"></div> 1345 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.4">9.5.4</a> <a id="status.503" href="#status.503">503 Service Unavailable</a></h3> 1346 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.4.p.1">The server is currently unable to handle the request due to a temporary overloading or maintenance of the server. The implication 1347 is that this is a temporary condition which will be alleviated after some delay. If known, the length of the delay <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be indicated in a Retry-After header. If no Retry-After is given, the client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> handle the response as it would for a 500 response. 1348 </p> 1349 <ul class="empty"> 1350 <li> <b>Note:</b> The existence of the 503 status code does not imply that a server must use it when becoming overloaded. Some servers may wish 1351 to simply refuse the connection. 1352 </li> 1353 </ul> 1354 <div id="rfc.iref.62"></div> 1355 <div id="rfc.iref.s.40"></div> 1356 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.5">9.5.5</a> <a id="status.504" href="#status.504">504 Gateway Timeout</a></h3> 1357 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.5.p.1">The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, did not receive a timely response from the upstream server specified by the 1358 URI (e.g. HTTP, FTP, LDAP) or some other auxiliary server (e.g. DNS) it needed to access in attempting to complete the request. 1359 </p> 1360 <ul class="empty"> 1361 <li> <b>Note:</b> Note to implementors: some deployed proxies are known to return 400 or 500 when DNS lookups time out. 1362 </li> 1363 </ul> 1364 <div id="rfc.iref.63"></div> 1365 <div id="rfc.iref.s.41"></div> 1366 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.6"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.6">9.5.6</a> <a id="status.505" href="#status.505">505 HTTP Version Not Supported</a></h3> 1367 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.6.p.1">The server does not support, or refuses to support, the protocol version that was used in the request message. The server 1368 is indicating that it is unable or unwilling to complete the request using the same major version as the client, as described 1369 in <a href="p1-messaging.html#http.version" title="HTTP Version">Section 3.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.20"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, other than with this error message. The response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain an entity describing why that version is not supported and what other protocols are supported by that server. 1370 </p> 1371 <h1 id="rfc.section.10"><a href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a> <a id="header.fields" href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1> 1372 <p id="rfc.section.10.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields related to request and response semantics.</p> 1373 <p id="rfc.section.10.p.2">For entity-header fields, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who 1374 receives the entity. 1375 </p> 1376 <div id="rfc.iref.a.1"></div> 1377 <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div> 1378 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.1"><a href="#rfc.section.10.1">10.1</a> <a id="header.allow" href="#header.allow">Allow</a></h2> 1379 <p id="rfc.section.10.1.p.1">The Allow entity-header field lists the set of methods supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI. The purpose 1380 of this field is strictly to inform the recipient of valid methods associated with the resource. An Allow header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be present in a 405 (Method Not Allowed) response. 1381 </p> 1382 <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span> Allow = "Allow" ":" #Method 791 or experimental header fields <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be given the semantics of response-header fields if all parties in the communication recognize them to be response-header 792 fields. Unrecognized header fields are treated as entity-header fields. 793 </p> 794 </div> 795 <div id="entity"> 796 <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a> <a href="#entity">Entity</a></h1> 797 <p id="rfc.section.7.p.1">Request and Response messages <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> transfer an entity if not otherwise restricted by the request method or response status code. An entity consists of entity-header 798 fields and an entity-body, although some responses will only include the entity-headers. HTTP entity-body and entity-header 799 fields are defined in <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>. 800 </p> 801 <p id="rfc.section.7.p.2">An entity-body is only present in a message when a message-body is present, as described in <a href="p1-messaging.html#message.body" title="Message Body">Section 4.3</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.17"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. The entity-body is obtained from the message-body by decoding any Transfer-Encoding that might have been applied to ensure 802 safe and proper transfer of the message. 803 </p> 804 </div> 805 <div id="method.definitions"> 806 <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a> <a href="#method.definitions">Method Definitions</a></h1> 807 <p id="rfc.section.8.p.1">The set of common methods for HTTP/1.1 is defined below. Although this set can be expanded, additional methods cannot be assumed 808 to share the same semantics for separately extended clients and servers. 809 </p> 810 <div id="safe.and.idempotent"> 811 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a> <a href="#safe.and.idempotent">Safe and Idempotent Methods</a></h2> 812 <div id="safe.methods"> 813 <h3 id="rfc.section.8.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1.1">8.1.1</a> <a href="#safe.methods">Safe Methods</a></h3> 814 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.1.p.1">Implementors should be aware that the software represents the user in their interactions over the Internet, and should be 815 careful to allow the user to be aware of any actions they might take which may have an unexpected significance to themselves 816 or others. 817 </p> 818 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.1.p.2">In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user 819 agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact 820 that a possibly unsafe action is being requested. 821 </p> 822 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.1.p.3">Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; 823 in fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important distinction here is that the user did not request the 824 side-effects, so therefore cannot be held accountable for them. 825 </p> 826 </div> 827 <div id="idempotent.methods"> 828 <h3 id="rfc.section.8.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1.2">8.1.2</a> <a href="#idempotent.methods">Idempotent Methods</a></h3> 829 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.2.p.1">Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N 830 > 0 identical requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, 831 the methods OPTIONS and TRACE <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent. 832 </p> 833 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.2.p.2">However, it is possible that a sequence of several requests is non-idempotent, even if all of the methods executed in that 834 sequence are idempotent. (A sequence is idempotent if a single execution of the entire sequence always yields a result that 835 is not changed by a reexecution of all, or part, of that sequence.) For example, a sequence is non-idempotent if its result 836 depends on a value that is later modified in the same sequence. 837 </p> 838 <p id="rfc.section.8.1.2.p.3">A sequence that never has side effects is idempotent, by definition (provided that no concurrent operations are being executed 839 on the same set of resources). 840 </p> 841 </div> 842 </div> 843 <div id="OPTIONS"> 844 <div id="rfc.iref.o.1"></div> 845 <div id="rfc.iref.m.1"></div> 846 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.2"><a href="#rfc.section.8.2">8.2</a> <a href="#OPTIONS">OPTIONS</a></h2> 847 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.1">The OPTIONS method represents a request for information about the communication options available on the request/response 848 chain identified by the Request-URI. This method allows the client to determine the options and/or requirements associated 849 with a resource, or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action or initiating a resource retrieval. 850 </p> 851 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.2">Responses to this method are not cacheable.</p> 852 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.3">If the OPTIONS request includes an entity-body (as indicated by the presence of Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding), then 853 the media type <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be indicated by a Content-Type field. Although this specification does not define any use for such a body, future extensions 854 to HTTP might use the OPTIONS body to make more detailed queries on the server. A server that does not support such an extension <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> discard the request body. 855 </p> 856 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.4">If the Request-URI is an asterisk ("*"), the OPTIONS request is intended to apply to the server in general rather than to 857 a specific resource. Since a server's communication options typically depend on the resource, the "*" request is only useful 858 as a "ping" or "no-op" type of method; it does nothing beyond allowing the client to test the capabilities of the server. 859 For example, this can be used to test a proxy for HTTP/1.1 compliance (or lack thereof). 860 </p> 861 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.5">If the Request-URI is not an asterisk, the OPTIONS request applies only to the options that are available when communicating 862 with that resource. 863 </p> 864 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.6">A 200 response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include any header fields that indicate optional features implemented by the server and applicable to that resource (e.g., 865 Allow), possibly including extensions not defined by this specification. The response body, if any, <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> also include information about the communication options. The format for such a body is not defined by this specification, 866 but might be defined by future extensions to HTTP. Content negotiation <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used to select the appropriate response format. If no response body is included, the response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a Content-Length field with a field-value of "0". 867 </p> 868 <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.7">The Max-Forwards request-header field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used to target a specific proxy in the request chain. When a proxy receives an OPTIONS request on an absoluteURI for which 869 request forwarding is permitted, the proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> check for a Max-Forwards field. If the Max-Forwards field-value is zero ("0"), the proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> forward the message; instead, the proxy <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with its own communication options. If the Max-Forwards field-value is an integer greater than zero, the proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> decrement the field-value when it forwards the request. If no Max-Forwards field is present in the request, then the forwarded 870 request <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include a Max-Forwards field. 871 </p> 872 </div> 873 <div id="GET"> 874 <div id="rfc.iref.g.8"></div> 875 <div id="rfc.iref.m.2"></div> 876 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.3"><a href="#rfc.section.8.3">8.3</a> <a href="#GET">GET</a></h2> 877 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.1">The GET method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of an entity) is identified by the Request-URI. If the Request-URI 878 refers to a data-producing process, it is the produced data which shall be returned as the entity in the response and not 879 the source text of the process, unless that text happens to be the output of the process. 880 </p> 881 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.2">The semantics of the GET method change to a "conditional GET" if the request message includes an If-Modified-Since, If-Unmodified-Since, 882 If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range header field. A conditional GET method requests that the entity be transferred only under 883 the circumstances described by the conditional header field(s). The conditional GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary 884 network usage by allowing cached entities to be refreshed without requiring multiple requests or transferring data already 885 held by the client. 886 </p> 887 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.3">The semantics of the GET method change to a "partial GET" if the request message includes a Range header field. A partial 888 GET requests that only part of the entity be transferred, as described in <a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 6.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.7"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>. The partial GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary network usage by allowing partially-retrieved entities to be completed 889 without transferring data already held by the client. 890 </p> 891 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.4">The response to a GET request is cacheable if and only if it meets the requirements for HTTP caching described in <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>. 892 </p> 893 <p id="rfc.section.8.3.p.5">See <a href="#encoding.sensitive.information.in.uris" title="Encoding Sensitive Information in URIs">Section 12.2</a> for security considerations when used for forms. 894 </p> 895 </div> 896 <div id="HEAD"> 897 <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div> 898 <div id="rfc.iref.m.3"></div> 899 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.4"><a href="#rfc.section.8.4">8.4</a> <a href="#HEAD">HEAD</a></h2> 900 <p id="rfc.section.8.4.p.1">The HEAD method is identical to GET except that the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a message-body in the response. The metainformation contained in the HTTP headers in response to a HEAD request <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be identical to the information sent in response to a GET request. This method can be used for obtaining metainformation about 901 the entity implied by the request without transferring the entity-body itself. This method is often used for testing hypertext 902 links for validity, accessibility, and recent modification. 903 </p> 904 <p id="rfc.section.8.4.p.2">The response to a HEAD request <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be cacheable in the sense that the information contained in the response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used to update a previously cached entity from that resource. If the new field values indicate that the cached entity differs 905 from the current entity (as would be indicated by a change in Content-Length, Content-MD5, ETag or Last-Modified), then the 906 cache <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> treat the cache entry as stale. 907 </p> 908 </div> 909 <div id="POST"> 910 <div id="rfc.iref.p.1"></div> 911 <div id="rfc.iref.m.4"></div> 912 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.5"><a href="#rfc.section.8.5">8.5</a> <a href="#POST">POST</a></h2> 913 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.1">The POST method is used to request that the origin server accept the entity enclosed in the request as data to be processed 914 by the resource identified by the Request-URI in the Request-Line. POST is designed to allow a uniform method to cover the 915 following functions: 916 </p> 917 <ul> 918 <li>Annotation of existing resources;</li> 919 <li>Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list, or similar group of articles;</li> 920 <li>Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a form, to a data-handling process;</li> 921 <li>Extending a database through an append operation.</li> 922 </ul> 923 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.2">The actual function performed by the POST method is determined by the server and is usually dependent on the Request-URI.</p> 924 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.3">The action performed by the POST method might not result in a resource that can be identified by a URI. In this case, either 925 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) is the appropriate response status, depending on whether or not the response includes an entity 926 that describes the result. 927 </p> 928 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.4">If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a Location 929 header (see <a href="#header.location" id="rfc.xref.header.location.2" title="Location">Section 10.4</a>). 930 </p> 931 <p id="rfc.section.8.5.p.5">Responses to this method are not cacheable, unless the response includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields. 932 However, the 303 (See Other) response can be used to direct the user agent to retrieve a cacheable resource. 933 </p> 934 </div> 935 <div id="PUT"> 936 <div id="rfc.iref.p.2"></div> 937 <div id="rfc.iref.m.5"></div> 938 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.6"><a href="#rfc.section.8.6">8.6</a> <a href="#PUT">PUT</a></h2> 939 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.1">The PUT method requests that the enclosed entity be stored under the supplied Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers to an 940 already existing resource, the enclosed entity <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be considered as a modified version of the one residing on the origin server. If the Request-URI does not point to an existing 941 resource, and that URI is capable of being defined as a new resource by the requesting user agent, the origin server can create 942 the resource with that URI. If a new resource is created at the Request-URI, the origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> inform the user agent via the 201 (Created) response. If an existing resource is modified, either the 200 (OK) or 204 (No 943 Content) response codes <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be sent to indicate successful completion of the request. If the resource could not be created or modified with the Request-URI, 944 an appropriate error response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given that reflects the nature of the problem. The recipient of the entity <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> ignore any Content-* (e.g. Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases. 945 </p> 946 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.2">If the request passes through a cache and the Request-URI identifies one or more currently cached entities, those entries <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be treated as stale. Responses to this method are not cacheable. 947 </p> 948 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.3">The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The 949 URI in a POST request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed entity. That resource might be a data-accepting 950 process, a gateway to some other protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In contrast, the URI in a PUT request 951 identifies the entity enclosed with the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> attempt to apply the request to some other resource. If the server desires that the request be applied to a different URI, 952 it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send a 301 (Moved Permanently) response; the user agent <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> then make its own decision regarding whether or not to redirect the request. 953 </p> 954 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.4">A single resource <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be identified by many different URIs. For example, an article might have a URI for identifying "the current version" which 955 is separate from the URI identifying each particular version. In this case, a PUT request on a general URI might result in 956 several other URIs being defined by the origin server. 957 </p> 958 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.5">HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an origin server.</p> 959 <p id="rfc.section.8.6.p.6">Unless otherwise specified for a particular entity-header, the entity-headers in the PUT request <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be applied to the resource created or modified by the PUT. 960 </p> 961 </div> 962 <div id="DELETE"> 963 <div id="rfc.iref.d.1"></div> 964 <div id="rfc.iref.m.6"></div> 965 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.7"><a href="#rfc.section.8.7">8.7</a> <a href="#DELETE">DELETE</a></h2> 966 <p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.1">The DELETE method requests that the origin server delete the resource identified by the Request-URI. This method <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be overridden by human intervention (or other means) on the origin server. The client cannot be guaranteed that the operation 967 has been carried out, even if the status code returned from the origin server indicates that the action has been completed 968 successfully. However, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> indicate success unless, at the time the response is given, it intends to delete the resource or move it to an inaccessible 969 location. 970 </p> 971 <p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.2">A successful response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be 200 (OK) if the response includes an entity describing the status, 202 (Accepted) if the action has not yet been enacted, 972 or 204 (No Content) if the action has been enacted but the response does not include an entity. 973 </p> 974 <p id="rfc.section.8.7.p.3">If the request passes through a cache and the Request-URI identifies one or more currently cached entities, those entries <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be treated as stale. Responses to this method are not cacheable. 975 </p> 976 </div> 977 <div id="TRACE"> 978 <div id="rfc.iref.t.1"></div> 979 <div id="rfc.iref.m.7"></div> 980 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8.8">8.8</a> <a href="#TRACE">TRACE</a></h2> 981 <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.1">The TRACE method is used to invoke a remote, application-layer loop-back of the request message. The final recipient of the 982 request <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> reflect the message received back to the client as the entity-body of a 200 (OK) response. The final recipient is either the 983 origin server or the first proxy or gateway to receive a Max-Forwards value of zero (0) in the request (see <a href="#header.max-forwards" id="rfc.xref.header.max-forwards.2" title="Max-Forwards">Section 10.5</a>). A TRACE request <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include an entity. 984 </p> 985 <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.2">TRACE allows the client to see what is being received at the other end of the request chain and use that data for testing 986 or diagnostic information. The value of the Via header field (<a href="p1-messaging.html#header.via" title="Via">Section 8.9</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.18"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) is of particular interest, since it acts as a trace of the request chain. Use of the Max-Forwards header field allows the 987 client to limit the length of the request chain, which is useful for testing a chain of proxies forwarding messages in an 988 infinite loop. 989 </p> 990 <p id="rfc.section.8.8.p.3">If the request is valid, the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain the entire request message in the entity-body, with a Content-Type of "message/http". Responses to this method <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be cached. 991 </p> 992 </div> 993 <div id="CONNECT"> 994 <div id="rfc.iref.c.1"></div> 995 <div id="rfc.iref.m.8"></div> 996 <h2 id="rfc.section.8.9"><a href="#rfc.section.8.9">8.9</a> <a href="#CONNECT">CONNECT</a></h2> 997 <p id="rfc.section.8.9.p.1">This specification reserves the method name CONNECT for use with a proxy that can dynamically switch to being a tunnel (e.g. 998 SSL tunneling <a href="#Luo1998" id="rfc.xref.Luo1998.1"><cite title="Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web proxy servers">[Luo1998]</cite></a>). 999 </p> 1000 </div> 1001 </div> 1002 <div id="status.codes"> 1003 <h1 id="rfc.section.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a> <a href="#status.codes">Status Code Definitions</a></h1> 1004 <p id="rfc.section.9.p.1">Each Status-Code is described below, including a description of which method(s) it can follow and any metainformation required 1005 in the response. 1006 </p> 1007 <div id="status.1xx"> 1008 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.1">9.1</a> <a href="#status.1xx">Informational 1xx</a></h2> 1009 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.p.1">This class of status code indicates a provisional response, consisting only of the Status-Line and optional headers, and is 1010 terminated by an empty line. There are no required headers for this class of status code. Since HTTP/1.0 did not define any 1011 1xx status codes, servers <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a 1xx response to an HTTP/1.0 client except under experimental conditions. 1012 </p> 1013 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.p.2">A client <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be prepared to accept one or more 1xx status responses prior to a regular response, even if the client does not expect a 100 1014 (Continue) status message. Unexpected 1xx status responses <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be ignored by a user agent. 1015 </p> 1016 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.p.3">Proxies <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> forward 1xx responses, unless the connection between the proxy and its client has been closed, or unless the proxy itself 1017 requested the generation of the 1xx response. (For example, if a proxy adds a "Expect: 100-continue" field when it forwards 1018 a request, then it need not forward the corresponding 100 (Continue) response(s).) 1019 </p> 1020 <div id="status.100"> 1021 <div id="rfc.iref.1.1"></div> 1022 <div id="rfc.iref.s.1"></div> 1023 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.1.1">9.1.1</a> <a href="#status.100">100 Continue</a></h3> 1024 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.1.p.1">The client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> continue with its request. This interim response is used to inform the client that the initial part of the request has been 1025 received and has not yet been rejected by the server. The client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> continue by sending the remainder of the request or, if the request has already been completed, ignore this response. The 1026 server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send a final response after the request has been completed. See <a href="p1-messaging.html#use.of.the.100.status" title="Use of the 100 (Continue) Status">Section 7.2.3</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.19"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> for detailed discussion of the use and handling of this status code. 1027 </p> 1028 </div> 1029 <div id="status.101"> 1030 <div id="rfc.iref.1.2"></div> 1031 <div id="rfc.iref.s.2"></div> 1032 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.1.2">9.1.2</a> <a href="#status.101">101 Switching Protocols</a></h3> 1033 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.2.p.1">The server understands and is willing to comply with the client's request, via the Upgrade message header field (<a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 6.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>), for a change in the application protocol being used on this connection. The server will switch protocols to those defined 1034 by the response's Upgrade header field immediately after the empty line which terminates the 101 response. 1035 </p> 1036 <p id="rfc.section.9.1.2.p.2">The protocol <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be switched only when it is advantageous to do so. For example, switching to a newer version of HTTP is advantageous over 1037 older versions, and switching to a real-time, synchronous protocol might be advantageous when delivering resources that use 1038 such features. 1039 </p> 1040 </div> 1041 </div> 1042 <div id="status.2xx"> 1043 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2">9.2</a> <a href="#status.2xx">Successful 2xx</a></h2> 1044 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.p.1">This class of status code indicates that the client's request was successfully received, understood, and accepted.</p> 1045 <div id="status.200"> 1046 <div id="rfc.iref.2.1"></div> 1047 <div id="rfc.iref.s.3"></div> 1048 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.1">9.2.1</a> <a href="#status.200">200 OK</a></h3> 1049 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.1.p.1">The request has succeeded. The information returned with the response is dependent on the method used in the request, for 1050 example: 1051 </p> 1052 <dl> 1053 <dt>GET</dt> 1054 <dd>an entity corresponding to the requested resource is sent in the response;</dd> 1055 <dt>HEAD</dt> 1056 <dd>the entity-header fields corresponding to the requested resource are sent in the response without any message-body;</dd> 1057 <dt>POST</dt> 1058 <dd>an entity describing or containing the result of the action;</dd> 1059 <dt>TRACE</dt> 1060 <dd>an entity containing the request message as received by the end server.</dd> 1061 </dl> 1062 </div> 1063 <div id="status.201"> 1064 <div id="rfc.iref.2.2"></div> 1065 <div id="rfc.iref.s.4"></div> 1066 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.2">9.2.2</a> <a href="#status.201">201 Created</a></h3> 1067 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.2.p.1">The request has been fulfilled and resulted in a new resource being created. The newly created resource can be referenced 1068 by the URI(s) returned in the entity of the response, with the most specific URI for the resource given by a Location header 1069 field. The response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose 1070 the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type header field. The origin 1071 server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> create the resource before returning the 201 status code. If the action cannot be carried out immediately, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with 202 (Accepted) response instead. 1072 </p> 1073 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.2.p.2">A 201 response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> contain an ETag response header field indicating the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just created, 1074 see <a href="p4-conditional.html#header.etag" title="ETag">Section 7.1</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.11"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>. 1075 </p> 1076 </div> 1077 <div id="status.202"> 1078 <div id="rfc.iref.2.3"></div> 1079 <div id="rfc.iref.s.5"></div> 1080 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.3">9.2.3</a> <a href="#status.202">202 Accepted</a></h3> 1081 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.3.p.1">The request has been accepted for processing, but the processing has not been completed. The request might or might not eventually 1082 be acted upon, as it might be disallowed when processing actually takes place. There is no facility for re-sending a status 1083 code from an asynchronous operation such as this. 1084 </p> 1085 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.3.p.2">The 202 response is intentionally non-committal. Its purpose is to allow a server to accept a request for some other process 1086 (perhaps a batch-oriented process that is only run once per day) without requiring that the user agent's connection to the 1087 server persist until the process is completed. The entity returned with this response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an indication of the request's current status and either a pointer to a status monitor or some estimate of when the 1088 user can expect the request to be fulfilled. 1089 </p> 1090 </div> 1091 <div id="status.203"> 1092 <div id="rfc.iref.2.4"></div> 1093 <div id="rfc.iref.s.6"></div> 1094 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.4">9.2.4</a> <a href="#status.203">203 Non-Authoritative Information</a></h3> 1095 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.4.p.1">The returned metainformation in the entity-header is not the definitive set as available from the origin server, but is gathered 1096 from a local or a third-party copy. The set presented <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be a subset or superset of the original version. For example, including local annotation information about the resource might 1097 result in a superset of the metainformation known by the origin server. Use of this response code is not required and is only 1098 appropriate when the response would otherwise be 200 (OK). 1099 </p> 1100 </div> 1101 <div id="status.204"> 1102 <div id="rfc.iref.2.5"></div> 1103 <div id="rfc.iref.s.7"></div> 1104 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.5">9.2.5</a> <a href="#status.204">204 No Content</a></h3> 1105 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.5.p.1">The server has fulfilled the request but does not need to return an entity-body, and might want to return updated metainformation. 1106 The response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include new or updated metainformation in the form of entity-headers, which if present <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be associated with the requested variant. 1107 </p> 1108 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.5.p.2">If the client is a user agent, it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> change its document view from that which caused the request to be sent. This response is primarily intended to allow input 1109 for actions to take place without causing a change to the user agent's active document view, although any new or updated metainformation <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be applied to the document currently in the user agent's active view. 1110 </p> 1111 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.5.p.3">The 204 response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields. 1112 </p> 1113 </div> 1114 <div id="status.205"> 1115 <div id="rfc.iref.2.6"></div> 1116 <div id="rfc.iref.s.8"></div> 1117 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.6"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.6">9.2.6</a> <a href="#status.205">205 Reset Content</a></h3> 1118 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.6.p.1">The server has fulfilled the request and the user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> reset the document view which caused the request to be sent. This response is primarily intended to allow input for actions 1119 to take place via user input, followed by a clearing of the form in which the input is given so that the user can easily initiate 1120 another input action. The response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include an entity. 1121 </p> 1122 </div> 1123 <div id="status.206"> 1124 <div id="rfc.iref.2.7"></div> 1125 <div id="rfc.iref.s.9"></div> 1126 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.2.7"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2.7">9.2.7</a> <a href="#status.206">206 Partial Content</a></h3> 1127 <p id="rfc.section.9.2.7.p.1">The server has fulfilled the partial GET request for the resource and the enclosed entity is a partial representation as defined 1128 in <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>. 1129 </p> 1130 </div> 1131 </div> 1132 <div id="status.3xx"> 1133 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3">9.3</a> <a href="#status.3xx">Redirection 3xx</a></h2> 1134 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.p.1">This class of status code indicates that further action needs to be taken by the user agent in order to fulfill the request. 1135 The action required <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be carried out by the user agent without interaction with the user if and only if the method used in the second request is 1136 GET or HEAD. A client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> detect infinite redirection loops, since such loops generate network traffic for each redirection. 1137 </p> 1138 <ul class="empty"> 1139 <li><b>Note:</b> previous versions of this specification recommended a maximum of five redirections. Content developers should be aware that 1140 there might be clients that implement such a fixed limitation. 1141 </li> 1142 </ul> 1143 <div id="status.300"> 1144 <div id="rfc.iref.3.1"></div> 1145 <div id="rfc.iref.s.10"></div> 1146 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.1">9.3.1</a> <a href="#status.300">300 Multiple Choices</a></h3> 1147 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.1.p.1">The requested resource corresponds to any one of a set of representations, each with its own specific location, and agent-driven 1148 negotiation information (<a href="p3-payload.html#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section 5</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>) is being provided so that the user (or user agent) can select a preferred representation and redirect its request to that 1149 location. 1150 </p> 1151 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.1.p.2">Unless it was a HEAD request, the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose 1152 the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type header field. Depending 1153 upon the format and the capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be performed automatically. However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic selection. 1154 </p> 1155 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.1.p.3">If the server has a preferred choice of representation, it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include the specific URI for that representation in the Location field; user agents <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use the Location field value for automatic redirection. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. 1156 </p> 1157 </div> 1158 <div id="status.301"> 1159 <div id="rfc.iref.3.2"></div> 1160 <div id="rfc.iref.s.11"></div> 1161 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.2">9.3.2</a> <a href="#status.301">301 Moved Permanently</a></h3> 1162 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.2.p.1">The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use one of the returned URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the Request-URI 1163 to one or more of the new references returned by the server, where possible. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. 1164 </p> 1165 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.2.p.2">The new permanent URI <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). 1166 </p> 1167 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.2.p.3">If the 301 status code is received in response to a request method that is known to be "safe", as defined in <a href="#safe.methods" title="Safe Methods">Section 8.1.1</a>, then the request <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be automatically redirected by the user agent without confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which 1168 the request was issued. 1169 </p> 1170 <ul class="empty"> 1171 <li><b>Note:</b> When automatically redirecting a POST request after receiving a 301 status code, some existing HTTP/1.0 user agents will erroneously 1172 change it into a GET request. 1173 </li> 1174 </ul> 1175 </div> 1176 <div id="status.302"> 1177 <div id="rfc.iref.3.3"></div> 1178 <div id="rfc.iref.s.12"></div> 1179 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.3">9.3.3</a> <a href="#status.302">302 Found</a></h3> 1180 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.3.p.1">The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the 1181 client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires 1182 header field. 1183 </p> 1184 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.3.p.2">The temporary URI <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). 1185 </p> 1186 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.3.p.3">If the 302 status code is received in response to a request method that is known to be "safe", as defined in <a href="#safe.methods" title="Safe Methods">Section 8.1.1</a>, then the request <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be automatically redirected by the user agent without confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which 1187 the request was issued. 1188 </p> 1189 <ul class="empty"> 1190 <li><b>Note:</b> <a href="#RFC1945" id="rfc.xref.RFC1945.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0">[RFC1945]</cite></a> and <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a> specify that the client is not allowed to change the method on the redirected request. However, most existing user agent implementations 1191 treat 302 as if it were a 303 response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless of the original request method. 1192 The status codes 303 and 307 have been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear which kind of reaction is expected 1193 of the client. 1194 </li> 1195 </ul> 1196 </div> 1197 <div id="status.303"> 1198 <div id="rfc.iref.3.4"></div> 1199 <div id="rfc.iref.s.13"></div> 1200 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.4">9.3.4</a> <a href="#status.303">303 See Other</a></h3> 1201 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.4.p.1">The response to the request can be found under a different URI and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script 1202 to redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a substitute reference for the originally requested 1203 resource. The 303 response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be cached, but the response to the second (redirected) request might be cacheable. 1204 </p> 1205 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.4.p.2">The different URI <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). 1206 </p> 1207 <ul class="empty"> 1208 <li><b>Note:</b> Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303 status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the 1209 302 status code may be used instead, since most user agents react to a 302 response as described here for 303. 1210 </li> 1211 </ul> 1212 </div> 1213 <div id="status.304"> 1214 <div id="rfc.iref.3.5"></div> 1215 <div id="rfc.iref.s.14"></div> 1216 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.5">9.3.5</a> <a href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></h3> 1217 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.5.p.1">The response to the request has not been modified since the conditions indicated by the client's conditional GET request, 1218 as defined in <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.12"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>. 1219 </p> 1220 </div> 1221 <div id="status.305"> 1222 <div id="rfc.iref.3.6"></div> 1223 <div id="rfc.iref.s.15"></div> 1224 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.6"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.6">9.3.6</a> <a href="#status.305">305 Use Proxy</a></h3> 1225 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.6.p.1">The requested resource <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be accessed through the proxy given by the Location field. The Location field gives the URI of the proxy. The recipient is 1226 expected to repeat this single request via the proxy. 305 responses <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> only be generated by origin servers. 1227 </p> 1228 <ul class="empty"> 1229 <li><b>Note:</b> <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a> was not clear that 305 was intended to redirect a single request, and to be generated by origin servers only. Not observing 1230 these limitations has significant security consequences. 1231 </li> 1232 </ul> 1233 </div> 1234 <div id="status.306"> 1235 <div id="rfc.iref.3.7"></div> 1236 <div id="rfc.iref.s.16"></div> 1237 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.7"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.7">9.3.7</a> <a href="#status.306">306 (Unused)</a></h3> 1238 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.7.p.1">The 306 status code was used in a previous version of the specification, is no longer used, and the code is reserved.</p> 1239 </div> 1240 <div id="status.307"> 1241 <div id="rfc.iref.3.8"></div> 1242 <div id="rfc.iref.s.17"></div> 1243 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.3.8"><a href="#rfc.section.9.3.8">9.3.8</a> <a href="#status.307">307 Temporary Redirect</a></h3> 1244 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.8.p.1">The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be altered on occasion, the client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires 1245 header field. 1246 </p> 1247 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.8.p.2">The temporary URI <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s) , since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand 1248 the 307 status. Therefore, the note <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain the information necessary for a user to repeat the original request on the new URI. 1249 </p> 1250 <p id="rfc.section.9.3.8.p.3">If the 307 status code is received in response to a request method that is known to be "safe", as defined in <a href="#safe.methods" title="Safe Methods">Section 8.1.1</a>, then the request <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be automatically redirected by the user agent without confirmation. Otherwise, the user agent <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which 1251 the request was issued. 1252 </p> 1253 </div> 1254 </div> 1255 <div id="status.4xx"> 1256 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4">9.4</a> <a href="#status.4xx">Client Error 4xx</a></h2> 1257 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.p.1">The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred. Except when responding to a HEAD 1258 request, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. 1259 These status codes are applicable to any request method. User agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> display any included entity to the user. 1260 </p> 1261 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.p.2">If the client is sending data, a server implementation using TCP <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be careful to ensure that the client acknowledges receipt of the packet(s) containing the response, before the server closes 1262 the input connection. If the client continues sending data to the server after the close, the server's TCP stack will send 1263 a reset packet to the client, which may erase the client's unacknowledged input buffers before they can be read and interpreted 1264 by the HTTP application. 1265 </p> 1266 <div id="status.400"> 1267 <div id="rfc.iref.4.1"></div> 1268 <div id="rfc.iref.s.18"></div> 1269 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.1">9.4.1</a> <a href="#status.400">400 Bad Request</a></h3> 1270 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.1.p.1">The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax. The client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> repeat the request without modifications. 1271 </p> 1272 </div> 1273 <div id="status.401"> 1274 <div id="rfc.iref.4.2"></div> 1275 <div id="rfc.iref.s.19"></div> 1276 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.2">9.4.2</a> <a href="#status.401">401 Unauthorized</a></h3> 1277 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.2.p.1">The request requires user authentication (see <a href="#Part7" id="rfc.xref.Part7.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication">[Part7]</cite></a>). 1278 </p> 1279 </div> 1280 <div id="status.402"> 1281 <div id="rfc.iref.4.3"></div> 1282 <div id="rfc.iref.s.20"></div> 1283 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.3">9.4.3</a> <a href="#status.402">402 Payment Required</a></h3> 1284 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.3.p.1">This code is reserved for future use.</p> 1285 </div> 1286 <div id="status.403"> 1287 <div id="rfc.iref.4.4"></div> 1288 <div id="rfc.iref.s.21"></div> 1289 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.4">9.4.4</a> <a href="#status.403">403 Forbidden</a></h3> 1290 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.4.p.1">The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help and the request <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be repeated. If the request method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make public why the request has not been fulfilled, 1291 it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> describe the reason for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, 1292 the status code 404 (Not Found) can be used instead. 1293 </p> 1294 </div> 1295 <div id="status.404"> 1296 <div id="rfc.iref.4.5"></div> 1297 <div id="rfc.iref.s.22"></div> 1298 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.5">9.4.5</a> <a href="#status.404">404 Not Found</a></h3> 1299 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.5.p.1">The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or 1300 permanent. The 410 (Gone) status code <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable 1301 and has no forwarding address. This status code is commonly used when the server does not wish to reveal exactly why the request 1302 has been refused, or when no other response is applicable. 1303 </p> 1304 </div> 1305 <div id="status.405"> 1306 <div id="rfc.iref.4.6"></div> 1307 <div id="rfc.iref.s.23"></div> 1308 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.6"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.6">9.4.6</a> <a href="#status.405">405 Method Not Allowed</a></h3> 1309 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.6.p.1">The method specified in the Request-Line is not allowed for the resource identified by the Request-URI. The response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include an Allow header containing a list of valid methods for the requested resource. 1310 </p> 1311 </div> 1312 <div id="status.406"> 1313 <div id="rfc.iref.4.7"></div> 1314 <div id="rfc.iref.s.24"></div> 1315 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.7"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.7">9.4.7</a> <a href="#status.406">406 Not Acceptable</a></h3> 1316 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.7.p.1">The resource identified by the request is only capable of generating response entities which have content characteristics 1317 not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the request. 1318 </p> 1319 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.7.p.2">Unless it was a HEAD request, the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing a list of available entity characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent 1320 can choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type header field. 1321 Depending upon the format and the capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be performed automatically. However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic selection. 1322 </p> 1323 <ul class="empty"> 1324 <li><b>Note:</b> HTTP/1.1 servers are allowed to return responses which are not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the request. 1325 In some cases, this may even be preferable to sending a 406 response. User agents are encouraged to inspect the headers of 1326 an incoming response to determine if it is acceptable. 1327 </li> 1328 </ul> 1329 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.7.p.3">If the response could be unacceptable, a user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> temporarily stop receipt of more data and query the user for a decision on further actions. 1330 </p> 1331 </div> 1332 <div id="status.407"> 1333 <div id="rfc.iref.4.8"></div> 1334 <div id="rfc.iref.s.25"></div> 1335 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.8"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.8">9.4.8</a> <a href="#status.407">407 Proxy Authentication Required</a></h3> 1336 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.8.p.1">This code is similar to 401 (Unauthorized), but indicates that the client must first authenticate itself with the proxy (see <a href="#Part7" id="rfc.xref.Part7.10"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication">[Part7]</cite></a>). 1337 </p> 1338 </div> 1339 <div id="status.408"> 1340 <div id="rfc.iref.4.9"></div> 1341 <div id="rfc.iref.s.26"></div> 1342 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.9">9.4.9</a> <a href="#status.408">408 Request Timeout</a></h3> 1343 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.9.p.1">The client did not produce a request within the time that the server was prepared to wait. The client <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> repeat the request without modifications at any later time. 1344 </p> 1345 </div> 1346 <div id="status.409"> 1347 <div id="rfc.iref.4.10"></div> 1348 <div id="rfc.iref.s.27"></div> 1349 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.10"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.10">9.4.10</a> <a href="#status.409">409 Conflict</a></h3> 1350 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.10.p.1">The request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the resource. This code is only allowed in 1351 situations where it is expected that the user might be able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the request. The response 1352 body <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include enough information for the user to recognize the source of the conflict. Ideally, the response entity would include 1353 enough information for the user or user agent to fix the problem; however, that might not be possible and is not required. 1354 </p> 1355 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.10.p.2">Conflicts are most likely to occur in response to a PUT request. For example, if versioning were being used and the entity 1356 being PUT included changes to a resource which conflict with those made by an earlier (third-party) request, the server might 1357 use the 409 response to indicate that it can't complete the request. In this case, the response entity would likely contain 1358 a list of the differences between the two versions in a format defined by the response Content-Type. 1359 </p> 1360 </div> 1361 <div id="status.410"> 1362 <div id="rfc.iref.4.11"></div> 1363 <div id="rfc.iref.s.28"></div> 1364 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.11"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.11">9.4.11</a> <a href="#status.410">410 Gone</a></h3> 1365 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.11.p.1">The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected 1366 to be considered permanent. Clients with link editing capabilities <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> delete references to the Request-URI after user approval. If the server does not know, or has no facility to determine, whether 1367 or not the condition is permanent, the status code 404 (Not Found) <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be used instead. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. 1368 </p> 1369 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.11.p.2">The 410 response is primarily intended to assist the task of web maintenance by notifying the recipient that the resource 1370 is intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that remote links to that resource be removed. Such an event 1371 is common for limited-time, promotional services and for resources belonging to individuals no longer working at the server's 1372 site. It is not necessary to mark all permanently unavailable resources as "gone" or to keep the mark for any length of time 1373 -- that is left to the discretion of the server owner. 1374 </p> 1375 </div> 1376 <div id="status.411"> 1377 <div id="rfc.iref.4.12"></div> 1378 <div id="rfc.iref.s.29"></div> 1379 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.12"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.12">9.4.12</a> <a href="#status.411">411 Length Required</a></h3> 1380 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.12.p.1">The server refuses to accept the request without a defined Content-Length. The client <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> repeat the request if it adds a valid Content-Length header field containing the length of the message-body in the request 1381 message. 1382 </p> 1383 </div> 1384 <div id="status.412"> 1385 <div id="rfc.iref.4.13"></div> 1386 <div id="rfc.iref.s.30"></div> 1387 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.13"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.13">9.4.13</a> <a href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></h3> 1388 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.13.p.1">The precondition given in one or more of the request-header fields evaluated to false when it was tested on the server, as 1389 defined in <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.13"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>. 1390 </p> 1391 </div> 1392 <div id="status.413"> 1393 <div id="rfc.iref.4.14"></div> 1394 <div id="rfc.iref.s.31"></div> 1395 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.14"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.14">9.4.14</a> <a href="#status.413">413 Request Entity Too Large</a></h3> 1396 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.14.p.1">The server is refusing to process a request because the request entity is larger than the server is willing or able to process. 1397 The server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> close the connection to prevent the client from continuing the request. 1398 </p> 1399 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.14.p.2">If the condition is temporary, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include a Retry-After header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what time the client <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> try again. 1400 </p> 1401 </div> 1402 <div id="status.414"> 1403 <div id="rfc.iref.4.15"></div> 1404 <div id="rfc.iref.s.32"></div> 1405 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.15"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.15">9.4.15</a> <a href="#status.414">414 Request-URI Too Long</a></h3> 1406 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.15.p.1">The server is refusing to service the request because the Request-URI is longer than the server is willing to interpret. This 1407 rare condition is only likely to occur when a client has improperly converted a POST request to a GET request with long query 1408 information, when the client has descended into a URI "black hole" of redirection (e.g., a redirected URI prefix that points 1409 to a suffix of itself), or when the server is under attack by a client attempting to exploit security holes present in some 1410 servers using fixed-length buffers for reading or manipulating the Request-URI. 1411 </p> 1412 </div> 1413 <div id="status.415"> 1414 <div id="rfc.iref.4.16"></div> 1415 <div id="rfc.iref.s.33"></div> 1416 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.16"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.16">9.4.16</a> <a href="#status.415">415 Unsupported Media Type</a></h3> 1417 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.16.p.1">The server is refusing to service the request because the entity of the request is in a format not supported by the requested 1418 resource for the requested method. 1419 </p> 1420 </div> 1421 <div id="status.416"> 1422 <div id="rfc.iref.4.17"></div> 1423 <div id="rfc.iref.s.34"></div> 1424 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.17"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.17">9.4.17</a> <a href="#status.416">416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable</a></h3> 1425 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.17.p.1">The request included a Range request-header field (<a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 6.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.10"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) and none of the range-specifier values in this field overlap the current extent of the selected resource. 1426 </p> 1427 </div> 1428 <div id="status.417"> 1429 <div id="rfc.iref.4.18"></div> 1430 <div id="rfc.iref.s.35"></div> 1431 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.4.18"><a href="#rfc.section.9.4.18">9.4.18</a> <a href="#status.417">417 Expectation Failed</a></h3> 1432 <p id="rfc.section.9.4.18.p.1">The expectation given in an Expect request-header field (see <a href="#header.expect" id="rfc.xref.header.expect.2" title="Expect">Section 10.2</a>) could not be met by this server, or, if the server is a proxy, the server has unambiguous evidence that the request could 1433 not be met by the next-hop server. 1434 </p> 1435 </div> 1436 </div> 1437 <div id="status.5xx"> 1438 <h2 id="rfc.section.9.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5">9.5</a> <a href="#status.5xx">Server Error 5xx</a></h2> 1439 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.p.1">Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable 1440 of performing the request. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. 1441 User agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> display any included entity to the user. These response codes are applicable to any request method. 1442 </p> 1443 <div id="status.500"> 1444 <div id="rfc.iref.5.1"></div> 1445 <div id="rfc.iref.s.36"></div> 1446 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.1">9.5.1</a> <a href="#status.500">500 Internal Server Error</a></h3> 1447 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.1.p.1">The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.</p> 1448 </div> 1449 <div id="status.501"> 1450 <div id="rfc.iref.5.2"></div> 1451 <div id="rfc.iref.s.37"></div> 1452 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.2">9.5.2</a> <a href="#status.501">501 Not Implemented</a></h3> 1453 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.2.p.1">The server does not support the functionality required to fulfill the request. This is the appropriate response when the server 1454 does not recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for any resource. 1455 </p> 1456 </div> 1457 <div id="status.502"> 1458 <div id="rfc.iref.5.3"></div> 1459 <div id="rfc.iref.s.38"></div> 1460 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.3"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.3">9.5.3</a> <a href="#status.502">502 Bad Gateway</a></h3> 1461 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.3.p.1">The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, received an invalid response from the upstream server it accessed in attempting 1462 to fulfill the request. 1463 </p> 1464 </div> 1465 <div id="status.503"> 1466 <div id="rfc.iref.5.4"></div> 1467 <div id="rfc.iref.s.39"></div> 1468 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.4"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.4">9.5.4</a> <a href="#status.503">503 Service Unavailable</a></h3> 1469 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.4.p.1">The server is currently unable to handle the request due to a temporary overloading or maintenance of the server. The implication 1470 is that this is a temporary condition which will be alleviated after some delay. If known, the length of the delay <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be indicated in a Retry-After header. If no Retry-After is given, the client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> handle the response as it would for a 500 response. 1471 </p> 1472 <ul class="empty"> 1473 <li><b>Note:</b> The existence of the 503 status code does not imply that a server must use it when becoming overloaded. Some servers may wish 1474 to simply refuse the connection. 1475 </li> 1476 </ul> 1477 </div> 1478 <div id="status.504"> 1479 <div id="rfc.iref.5.5"></div> 1480 <div id="rfc.iref.s.40"></div> 1481 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.5"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.5">9.5.5</a> <a href="#status.504">504 Gateway Timeout</a></h3> 1482 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.5.p.1">The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, did not receive a timely response from the upstream server specified by the 1483 URI (e.g. HTTP, FTP, LDAP) or some other auxiliary server (e.g. DNS) it needed to access in attempting to complete the request. 1484 </p> 1485 <ul class="empty"> 1486 <li><b>Note:</b> Note to implementors: some deployed proxies are known to return 400 or 500 when DNS lookups time out. 1487 </li> 1488 </ul> 1489 </div> 1490 <div id="status.505"> 1491 <div id="rfc.iref.5.6"></div> 1492 <div id="rfc.iref.s.41"></div> 1493 <h3 id="rfc.section.9.5.6"><a href="#rfc.section.9.5.6">9.5.6</a> <a href="#status.505">505 HTTP Version Not Supported</a></h3> 1494 <p id="rfc.section.9.5.6.p.1">The server does not support, or refuses to support, the protocol version that was used in the request message. The server 1495 is indicating that it is unable or unwilling to complete the request using the same major version as the client, as described 1496 in <a href="p1-messaging.html#http.version" title="HTTP Version">Section 3.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.20"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, other than with this error message. The response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain an entity describing why that version is not supported and what other protocols are supported by that server. 1497 </p> 1498 </div> 1499 </div> 1500 </div> 1501 <div id="header.fields"> 1502 <h1 id="rfc.section.10"><a href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a> <a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1> 1503 <p id="rfc.section.10.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields related to request and response semantics.</p> 1504 <p id="rfc.section.10.p.2">For entity-header fields, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who 1505 receives the entity. 1506 </p> 1507 <div id="header.allow"> 1508 <div id="rfc.iref.a.1"></div> 1509 <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div> 1510 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.1"><a href="#rfc.section.10.1">10.1</a> <a href="#header.allow">Allow</a></h2> 1511 <p id="rfc.section.10.1.p.1">The Allow entity-header field lists the set of methods supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI. The purpose 1512 of this field is strictly to inform the recipient of valid methods associated with the resource. An Allow header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be present in a 405 (Method Not Allowed) response. 1513 </p> 1514 <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span> Allow = "Allow" ":" #Method 1383 1515 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.1.p.3">Example of use:</p> 1384 <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="text"> Allow: GET, HEAD, PUT1516 <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="text"> Allow: GET, HEAD, PUT 1385 1517 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.1.p.5">This field cannot prevent a client from trying other methods. However, the indications given by the Allow header field value <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be followed. The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server at the time of each request. 1386 </p> 1387 <p id="rfc.section.10.1.p.6">The Allow header field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be provided with a PUT request to recommend the methods to be supported by the new or modified resource. The server is not 1388 required to support these methods and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an Allow header in the response giving the actual supported methods. 1389 </p> 1390 <p id="rfc.section.10.1.p.7">A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> modify the Allow header field even if it does not understand all the methods specified, since the user agent might have other 1391 means of communicating with the origin server. 1392 </p> 1393 <div id="rfc.iref.e.1"></div> 1394 <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div> 1395 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.2"><a href="#rfc.section.10.2">10.2</a> <a id="header.expect" href="#header.expect">Expect</a></h2> 1396 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.1">The Expect request-header field is used to indicate that particular server behaviors are required by the client.</p> 1397 <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.10"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.11"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.12"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.13"></span> Expect = "Expect" ":" 1#expectation 1518 </p> 1519 <p id="rfc.section.10.1.p.6">The Allow header field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be provided with a PUT request to recommend the methods to be supported by the new or modified resource. The server is not 1520 required to support these methods and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include an Allow header in the response giving the actual supported methods. 1521 </p> 1522 <p id="rfc.section.10.1.p.7">A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> modify the Allow header field even if it does not understand all the methods specified, since the user agent might have other 1523 means of communicating with the origin server. 1524 </p> 1525 </div> 1526 <div id="header.expect"> 1527 <div id="rfc.iref.e.1"></div> 1528 <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div> 1529 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.2"><a href="#rfc.section.10.2">10.2</a> <a href="#header.expect">Expect</a></h2> 1530 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.1">The Expect request-header field is used to indicate that particular server behaviors are required by the client.</p> 1531 <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.10"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.11"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.12"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.13"></span> Expect = "Expect" ":" 1#expectation 1398 1532 1399 1533 expectation = "100-continue" | expectation-extension … … 1402 1536 expect-params = ";" token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ] 1403 1537 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.3">A server that does not understand or is unable to comply with any of the expectation values in the Expect field of a request <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with appropriate error status. The server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if any of the expectations cannot be met or, if there are other problems with 1404 the request, some other 4xx status. 1405 </p> 1406 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.4">This header field is defined with extensible syntax to allow for future extensions. If a server receives a request containing 1407 an Expect field that includes an expectation-extension that it does not support, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status. 1408 </p> 1409 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.5">Comparison of expectation values is case-insensitive for unquoted tokens (including the 100-continue token), and is case-sensitive 1410 for quoted-string expectation-extensions. 1411 </p> 1412 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.6">The Expect mechanism is hop-by-hop: that is, an HTTP/1.1 proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a request with an expectation that it cannot meet. However, the Expect 1413 request-header itself is end-to-end; it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be forwarded if the request is forwarded. 1414 </p> 1415 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.7">Many older HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 applications do not understand the Expect header.</p> 1416 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.8">See <a href="p1-messaging.html#use.of.the.100.status" title="Use of the 100 (Continue) Status">Section 7.2.3</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.21"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> for the use of the 100 (Continue) status. 1417 </p> 1418 <div id="rfc.iref.f.1"></div> 1419 <div id="rfc.iref.h.4"></div> 1420 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.3"><a href="#rfc.section.10.3">10.3</a> <a id="header.from" href="#header.from">From</a></h2> 1421 <p id="rfc.section.10.3.p.1">The From request-header field, if given, <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain an Internet e-mail address for the human user who controls the requesting user agent. The address <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be machine-usable, as defined by "mailbox" in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-3.4">Section 3.4</a> of <a href="#RFC2822" id="rfc.xref.RFC2822.1"><cite title="Internet Message Format">[RFC2822]</cite></a>: 1422 </p> 1423 <div id="rfc.figure.u.16"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.14"></span> From = "From" ":" mailbox 1538 the request, some other 4xx status. 1539 </p> 1540 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.4">This header field is defined with extensible syntax to allow for future extensions. If a server receives a request containing 1541 an Expect field that includes an expectation-extension that it does not support, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status. 1542 </p> 1543 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.5">Comparison of expectation values is case-insensitive for unquoted tokens (including the 100-continue token), and is case-sensitive 1544 for quoted-string expectation-extensions. 1545 </p> 1546 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.6">The Expect mechanism is hop-by-hop: that is, an HTTP/1.1 proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a request with an expectation that it cannot meet. However, the Expect 1547 request-header itself is end-to-end; it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be forwarded if the request is forwarded. 1548 </p> 1549 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.7">Many older HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 applications do not understand the Expect header.</p> 1550 <p id="rfc.section.10.2.p.8">See <a href="p1-messaging.html#use.of.the.100.status" title="Use of the 100 (Continue) Status">Section 7.2.3</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.21"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> for the use of the 100 (Continue) status. 1551 </p> 1552 </div> 1553 <div id="header.from"> 1554 <div id="rfc.iref.f.1"></div> 1555 <div id="rfc.iref.h.4"></div> 1556 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.3"><a href="#rfc.section.10.3">10.3</a> <a href="#header.from">From</a></h2> 1557 <p id="rfc.section.10.3.p.1">The From request-header field, if given, <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> contain an Internet e-mail address for the human user who controls the requesting user agent. The address <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be machine-usable, as defined by "mailbox" in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-3.4">Section 3.4</a> of <a href="#RFC2822" id="rfc.xref.RFC2822.1"><cite title="Internet Message Format">[RFC2822]</cite></a>: 1558 </p> 1559 <div id="rfc.figure.u.16"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.14"></span> From = "From" ":" mailbox 1424 1560 1425 mailbox = <mailbox, defined in <a href="#RFC2822" id="rfc.xref.RFC2822.2"><cite title="Internet Message Format">[RFC2822]</cite></a>, <a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-3.4">Section 3.4</a>>1561 mailbox = <mailbox, defined in <a href="#RFC2822" id="rfc.xref.RFC2822.2"><cite title="Internet Message Format">[RFC2822]</cite></a>, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-3.4">Section 3.4</a>> 1426 1562 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.3.p.3">An example is:</p> 1427 <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div><pre class="text"> From: webmaster@example.org1563 <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div><pre class="text"> From: webmaster@example.org 1428 1564 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.3.p.5">This header field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used for logging purposes and as a means for identifying the source of invalid or unwanted requests. It <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be used as an insecure form of access protection. The interpretation of this field is that the request is being performed 1429 on behalf of the person given, who accepts responsibility for the method performed. In particular, robot agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include this header so that the person responsible for running the robot can be contacted if problems occur on the receiving 1430 end. 1431 </p> 1432 <p id="rfc.section.10.3.p.6">The Internet e-mail address in this field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be separate from the Internet host which issued the request. For example, when a request is passed through a proxy the original 1433 issuer's address <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be used. 1434 </p> 1435 <p id="rfc.section.10.3.p.7">The client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> send the From header field without the user's approval, as it might conflict with the user's privacy interests or their site's 1436 security policy. It is strongly recommended that the user be able to disable, enable, and modify the value of this field at 1437 any time prior to a request. 1438 </p> 1439 <div id="rfc.iref.l.1"></div> 1440 <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div> 1441 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.4"><a href="#rfc.section.10.4">10.4</a> <a id="header.location" href="#header.location">Location</a></h2> 1442 <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.1">The Location response-header field is used to redirect the recipient to a location other than the Request-URI for completion 1443 of the request or identification of a new resource. For 201 (Created) responses, the Location is that of the new resource 1444 which was created by the request. For 3xx responses, the location <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> indicate the server's preferred URI for automatic redirection to the resource. The field value consists of a single absolute 1445 URI. 1446 </p> 1447 <div id="rfc.figure.u.18"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.15"></span> Location = "Location" ":" absoluteURI [ "#" fragment ] 1565 on behalf of the person given, who accepts responsibility for the method performed. In particular, robot agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include this header so that the person responsible for running the robot can be contacted if problems occur on the receiving 1566 end. 1567 </p> 1568 <p id="rfc.section.10.3.p.6">The Internet e-mail address in this field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be separate from the Internet host which issued the request. For example, when a request is passed through a proxy the original 1569 issuer's address <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be used. 1570 </p> 1571 <p id="rfc.section.10.3.p.7">The client <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> send the From header field without the user's approval, as it might conflict with the user's privacy interests or their site's 1572 security policy. It is strongly recommended that the user be able to disable, enable, and modify the value of this field at 1573 any time prior to a request. 1574 </p> 1575 </div> 1576 <div id="header.location"> 1577 <div id="rfc.iref.l.1"></div> 1578 <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div> 1579 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.4"><a href="#rfc.section.10.4">10.4</a> <a href="#header.location">Location</a></h2> 1580 <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.1">The Location response-header field is used to redirect the recipient to a location other than the Request-URI for completion 1581 of the request or identification of a new resource. For 201 (Created) responses, the Location is that of the new resource 1582 which was created by the request. For 3xx responses, the location <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> indicate the server's preferred URI for automatic redirection to the resource. The field value consists of a single absolute 1583 URI. 1584 </p> 1585 <div id="rfc.figure.u.18"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.15"></span> Location = "Location" ":" absoluteURI [ "#" fragment ] 1448 1586 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.3">An example is:</p> 1449 <div id="rfc.figure.u.19"></div><pre class="text"> Location: http://www.example.org/pub/WWW/People.html 1450 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.5"> </p> 1451 <ul class="empty"> 1452 <li> <b>Note:</b> The Content-Location header field (<a href="p3-payload.html#header.content-location" title="Content-Location">Section 6.7</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.11"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>) differs from Location in that the Content-Location identifies the original location of the entity enclosed in the request. 1453 It is therefore possible for a response to contain header fields for both Location and Content-Location. 1454 </li> 1455 </ul> 1456 <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.6">There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location URL would not be appropriate: </p> 1457 <ul> 1458 <li>With a 201 Created response, because in this usage the Location header specifies the URL for the entire created resource.</li> 1459 <li>With a 300 Multiple Choices, since the choice decision is intended to be made on resource characteristics and not fragment 1460 characteristics. 1461 </li> 1462 <li>With 305 Use Proxy.</li> 1463 </ul> 1464 <div id="rfc.iref.m.9"></div> 1465 <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div> 1466 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.5"><a href="#rfc.section.10.5">10.5</a> <a id="header.max-forwards" href="#header.max-forwards">Max-Forwards</a></h2> 1467 <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.1">The Max-Forwards request-header field provides a mechanism with the TRACE (<a href="#TRACE" id="rfc.xref.TRACE.2" title="TRACE">Section 8.8</a>) and OPTIONS (<a href="#OPTIONS" id="rfc.xref.OPTIONS.2" title="OPTIONS">Section 8.2</a>) methods to limit the number of proxies or gateways that can forward the request to the next inbound server. This can be 1468 useful when the client is attempting to trace a request chain which appears to be failing or looping in mid-chain. 1469 </p> 1470 <div id="rfc.figure.u.20"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.16"></span> Max-Forwards = "Max-Forwards" ":" 1*DIGIT 1587 <div id="rfc.figure.u.19"></div><pre class="text"> Location: http://www.example.org/pub/WWW/People.html 1588 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.5"></p> 1589 <ul class="empty"> 1590 <li><b>Note:</b> The Content-Location header field (<a href="p3-payload.html#header.content-location" title="Content-Location">Section 6.7</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.11"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>) differs from Location in that the Content-Location identifies the original location of the entity enclosed in the request. 1591 It is therefore possible for a response to contain header fields for both Location and Content-Location. 1592 </li> 1593 </ul> 1594 <p id="rfc.section.10.4.p.6">There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location URL would not be appropriate: </p> 1595 <ul> 1596 <li>With a 201 Created response, because in this usage the Location header specifies the URL for the entire created resource.</li> 1597 <li>With a 300 Multiple Choices, since the choice decision is intended to be made on resource characteristics and not fragment 1598 characteristics. 1599 </li> 1600 <li>With 305 Use Proxy.</li> 1601 </ul> 1602 </div> 1603 <div id="header.max-forwards"> 1604 <div id="rfc.iref.m.9"></div> 1605 <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div> 1606 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.5"><a href="#rfc.section.10.5">10.5</a> <a href="#header.max-forwards">Max-Forwards</a></h2> 1607 <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.1">The Max-Forwards request-header field provides a mechanism with the TRACE (<a href="#TRACE" id="rfc.xref.TRACE.2" title="TRACE">Section 8.8</a>) and OPTIONS (<a href="#OPTIONS" id="rfc.xref.OPTIONS.2" title="OPTIONS">Section 8.2</a>) methods to limit the number of proxies or gateways that can forward the request to the next inbound server. This can be 1608 useful when the client is attempting to trace a request chain which appears to be failing or looping in mid-chain. 1609 </p> 1610 <div id="rfc.figure.u.20"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.16"></span> Max-Forwards = "Max-Forwards" ":" 1*DIGIT 1471 1611 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.3">The Max-Forwards value is a decimal integer indicating the remaining number of times this request message may be forwarded.</p> 1472 <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.4">Each proxy or gateway recipient of a TRACE or OPTIONS request containing a Max-Forwards header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> check and update its value prior to forwarding the request. If the received value is zero (0), the recipient <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> forward the request; instead, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond as the final recipient. If the received Max-Forwards value is greater than zero, then the forwarded message <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> contain an updated Max-Forwards field with a value decremented by one (1). 1473 </p> 1474 <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.5">The Max-Forwards header field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be ignored for all other methods defined by this specification and for any extension methods for which it is not explicitly 1475 referred to as part of that method definition. 1476 </p> 1477 <div id="rfc.iref.r.1"></div> 1478 <div id="rfc.iref.h.7"></div> 1479 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.6"><a href="#rfc.section.10.6">10.6</a> <a id="header.referer" href="#header.referer">Referer</a></h2> 1480 <p id="rfc.section.10.6.p.1">The Referer[sic] request-header field allows the client to specify, for the server's benefit, the address (URI) of the resource 1481 from which the Request-URI was obtained (the "referrer", although the header field is misspelled.) The Referer request-header 1482 allows a server to generate lists of back-links to resources for interest, logging, optimized caching, etc. It also allows 1483 obsolete or mistyped links to be traced for maintenance. The Referer field <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be sent if the Request-URI was obtained from a source that does not have its own URI, such as input from the user keyboard. 1484 </p> 1485 <div id="rfc.figure.u.21"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.17"></span> Referer = "Referer" ":" ( absoluteURI | relativeURI ) 1612 <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.4">Each proxy or gateway recipient of a TRACE or OPTIONS request containing a Max-Forwards header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> check and update its value prior to forwarding the request. If the received value is zero (0), the recipient <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> forward the request; instead, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond as the final recipient. If the received Max-Forwards value is greater than zero, then the forwarded message <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> contain an updated Max-Forwards field with a value decremented by one (1). 1613 </p> 1614 <p id="rfc.section.10.5.p.5">The Max-Forwards header field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be ignored for all other methods defined by this specification and for any extension methods for which it is not explicitly 1615 referred to as part of that method definition. 1616 </p> 1617 </div> 1618 <div id="header.referer"> 1619 <div id="rfc.iref.r.1"></div> 1620 <div id="rfc.iref.h.7"></div> 1621 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.6"><a href="#rfc.section.10.6">10.6</a> <a href="#header.referer">Referer</a></h2> 1622 <p id="rfc.section.10.6.p.1">The Referer[sic] request-header field allows the client to specify, for the server's benefit, the address (URI) of the resource 1623 from which the Request-URI was obtained (the "referrer", although the header field is misspelled.) The Referer request-header 1624 allows a server to generate lists of back-links to resources for interest, logging, optimized caching, etc. It also allows 1625 obsolete or mistyped links to be traced for maintenance. The Referer field <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be sent if the Request-URI was obtained from a source that does not have its own URI, such as input from the user keyboard. 1626 </p> 1627 <div id="rfc.figure.u.21"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.17"></span> Referer = "Referer" ":" ( absoluteURI | relativeURI ) 1486 1628 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.6.p.3">Example:</p> 1487 <div id="rfc.figure.u.22"></div><pre class="text"> Referer: http://www.example.org/hypertext/Overview.html1629 <div id="rfc.figure.u.22"></div><pre class="text"> Referer: http://www.example.org/hypertext/Overview.html 1488 1630 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.6.p.5">If the field value is a relative URI, it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be interpreted relative to the Request-URI. The URI <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include a fragment. See <a href="#encoding.sensitive.information.in.uris" title="Encoding Sensitive Information in URIs">Section 12.2</a> for security considerations. 1489 </p> 1490 <div id="rfc.iref.r.2"></div> 1491 <div id="rfc.iref.h.8"></div> 1492 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.7"><a href="#rfc.section.10.7">10.7</a> <a id="header.retry-after" href="#header.retry-after">Retry-After</a></h2> 1493 <p id="rfc.section.10.7.p.1">The Retry-After response-header field can be used with a 503 (Service Unavailable) response to indicate how long the service 1494 is expected to be unavailable to the requesting client. This field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> also be used with any 3xx (Redirection) response to indicate the minimum time the user-agent is asked wait before issuing 1495 the redirected request. The value of this field can be either an HTTP-date or an integer number of seconds (in decimal) after 1496 the time of the response. 1497 </p> 1498 <div id="rfc.figure.u.23"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.18"></span> Retry-After = "Retry-After" ":" ( HTTP-date | delta-seconds ) 1631 </p> 1632 </div> 1633 <div id="header.retry-after"> 1634 <div id="rfc.iref.r.2"></div> 1635 <div id="rfc.iref.h.8"></div> 1636 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.7"><a href="#rfc.section.10.7">10.7</a> <a href="#header.retry-after">Retry-After</a></h2> 1637 <p id="rfc.section.10.7.p.1">The Retry-After response-header field can be used with a 503 (Service Unavailable) response to indicate how long the service 1638 is expected to be unavailable to the requesting client. This field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> also be used with any 3xx (Redirection) response to indicate the minimum time the user-agent is asked wait before issuing 1639 the redirected request. The value of this field can be either an HTTP-date or an integer number of seconds (in decimal) after 1640 the time of the response. 1641 </p> 1642 <div id="rfc.figure.u.23"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.18"></span> Retry-After = "Retry-After" ":" ( HTTP-date | delta-seconds ) 1499 1643 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.7.p.3">Time spans are non-negative decimal integers, representing time in seconds.</p> 1500 <div id="rfc.figure.u.24"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.19"></span> delta-seconds = 1*DIGIT1644 <div id="rfc.figure.u.24"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.19"></span> delta-seconds = 1*DIGIT 1501 1645 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.7.p.5">Two examples of its use are</p> 1502 <div id="rfc.figure.u.25"></div><pre class="text"> Retry-After: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 23:59:59 GMT1646 <div id="rfc.figure.u.25"></div><pre class="text"> Retry-After: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 23:59:59 GMT 1503 1647 Retry-After: 120 1504 1648 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.7.p.7">In the latter example, the delay is 2 minutes.</p> 1505 <div id="rfc.iref.s.42"></div> 1506 <div id="rfc.iref.h.9"></div> 1507 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.8"><a href="#rfc.section.10.8">10.8</a> <a id="header.server" href="#header.server">Server</a></h2> 1508 <p id="rfc.section.10.8.p.1">The Server response-header field contains information about the software used by the origin server to handle the request. 1509 The field can contain multiple product tokens (<a href="p1-messaging.html#product.tokens" title="Product Tokens">Section 3.5</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.22"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) and comments identifying the server and any significant subproducts. The product tokens are listed in order of their significance 1510 for identifying the application. 1511 </p> 1512 <div id="rfc.figure.u.26"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.20"></span> Server = "Server" ":" 1*( product | comment ) 1649 </div> 1650 <div id="header.server"> 1651 <div id="rfc.iref.s.42"></div> 1652 <div id="rfc.iref.h.9"></div> 1653 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.8"><a href="#rfc.section.10.8">10.8</a> <a href="#header.server">Server</a></h2> 1654 <p id="rfc.section.10.8.p.1">The Server response-header field contains information about the software used by the origin server to handle the request. 1655 The field can contain multiple product tokens (<a href="p1-messaging.html#product.tokens" title="Product Tokens">Section 3.5</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.22"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) and comments identifying the server and any significant subproducts. The product tokens are listed in order of their significance 1656 for identifying the application. 1657 </p> 1658 <div id="rfc.figure.u.26"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.20"></span> Server = "Server" ":" 1*( product | comment ) 1513 1659 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.8.p.3">Example:</p> 1514 <div id="rfc.figure.u.27"></div><pre class="text"> Server: CERN/3.0 libwww/2.171660 <div id="rfc.figure.u.27"></div><pre class="text"> Server: CERN/3.0 libwww/2.17 1515 1661 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.8.p.5">If the response is being forwarded through a proxy, the proxy application <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> modify the Server response-header. Instead, it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a Via field (as described in <a href="p1-messaging.html#header.via" title="Via">Section 8.9</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.23"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>). 1516 </p> 1517 <ul class="empty"> 1518 <li> <b>Note:</b> Revealing the specific software version of the server might allow the server machine to become more vulnerable to attacks 1519 against software that is known to contain security holes. Server implementors are encouraged to make this field a configurable 1520 option. 1521 </li> 1522 </ul> 1523 <div id="rfc.iref.u.1"></div> 1524 <div id="rfc.iref.h.10"></div> 1525 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.9"><a href="#rfc.section.10.9">10.9</a> <a id="header.user-agent" href="#header.user-agent">User-Agent</a></h2> 1526 <p id="rfc.section.10.9.p.1">The User-Agent request-header field contains information about the user agent originating the request. This is for statistical 1527 purposes, the tracing of protocol violations, and automated recognition of user agents for the sake of tailoring responses 1528 to avoid particular user agent limitations. User agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include this field with requests. The field can contain multiple product tokens (<a href="p1-messaging.html#product.tokens" title="Product Tokens">Section 3.5</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.24"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) and comments identifying the agent and any subproducts which form a significant part of the user agent. By convention, the 1529 product tokens are listed in order of their significance for identifying the application. 1530 </p> 1531 <div id="rfc.figure.u.28"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.21"></span> User-Agent = "User-Agent" ":" 1*( product | comment ) 1662 </p> 1663 <ul class="empty"> 1664 <li><b>Note:</b> Revealing the specific software version of the server might allow the server machine to become more vulnerable to attacks 1665 against software that is known to contain security holes. Server implementors are encouraged to make this field a configurable 1666 option. 1667 </li> 1668 </ul> 1669 </div> 1670 <div id="header.user-agent"> 1671 <div id="rfc.iref.u.1"></div> 1672 <div id="rfc.iref.h.10"></div> 1673 <h2 id="rfc.section.10.9"><a href="#rfc.section.10.9">10.9</a> <a href="#header.user-agent">User-Agent</a></h2> 1674 <p id="rfc.section.10.9.p.1">The User-Agent request-header field contains information about the user agent originating the request. This is for statistical 1675 purposes, the tracing of protocol violations, and automated recognition of user agents for the sake of tailoring responses 1676 to avoid particular user agent limitations. User agents <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include this field with requests. The field can contain multiple product tokens (<a href="p1-messaging.html#product.tokens" title="Product Tokens">Section 3.5</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.24"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) and comments identifying the agent and any subproducts which form a significant part of the user agent. By convention, the 1677 product tokens are listed in order of their significance for identifying the application. 1678 </p> 1679 <div id="rfc.figure.u.28"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.21"></span> User-Agent = "User-Agent" ":" 1*( product | comment ) 1532 1680 </pre><p id="rfc.section.10.9.p.3">Example:</p> 1533 <div id="rfc.figure.u.29"></div><pre class="text"> User-Agent: CERN-LineMode/2.15 libwww/2.17b3 1534 </pre><h1 id="rfc.section.11"><a href="#rfc.section.11">11.</a> <a id="IANA.considerations" href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1> 1535 <p id="rfc.section.11.p.1"> <span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.1">[<a href="#rfc.comment.1" class="smpl">rfc.comment.1</a>: TBD.]</span> 1536 </p> 1537 <h1 id="rfc.section.12"><a href="#rfc.section.12">12.</a> <a id="security.considerations" href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1> 1538 <p id="rfc.section.12.p.1">This section is meant to inform application developers, information providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 1539 as described by this document. The discussion does not include definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does 1540 make some suggestions for reducing security risks. 1541 </p> 1542 <h2 id="rfc.section.12.1"><a href="#rfc.section.12.1">12.1</a> <a id="security.sensitive" href="#security.sensitive">Transfer of Sensitive Information</a></h2> 1543 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.1">Like any generic data transfer protocol, HTTP cannot regulate the content of the data that is transferred, nor is there any 1544 a priori method of determining the sensitivity of any particular piece of information within the context of any given request. 1545 Therefore, applications <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> supply as much control over this information as possible to the provider of that information. Four header fields are worth 1546 special mention in this context: Server, Via, Referer and From. 1547 </p> 1548 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.2">Revealing the specific software version of the server might allow the server machine to become more vulnerable to attacks 1549 against software that is known to contain security holes. Implementors <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> make the Server header field a configurable option. 1550 </p> 1551 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.3">Proxies which serve as a portal through a network firewall <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> take special precautions regarding the transfer of header information that identifies the hosts behind the firewall. In particular, 1552 they <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> remove, or replace with sanitized versions, any Via fields generated behind the firewall. 1553 </p> 1554 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.4">The Referer header allows reading patterns to be studied and reverse links drawn. Although it can be very useful, its power 1555 can be abused if user details are not separated from the information contained in the Referer. Even when the personal information 1556 has been removed, the Referer header might indicate a private document's URI whose publication would be inappropriate. 1557 </p> 1558 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.5">The information sent in the From field might conflict with the user's privacy interests or their site's security policy, and 1559 hence it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be transmitted without the user being able to disable, enable, and modify the contents of the field. The user <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be able to set the contents of this field within a user preference or application defaults configuration. 1560 </p> 1561 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.6">We suggest, though do not require, that a convenient toggle interface be provided for the user to enable or disable the sending 1562 of From and Referer information. 1563 </p> 1564 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.7">The User-Agent (<a href="#header.user-agent" id="rfc.xref.header.user-agent.2" title="User-Agent">Section 10.9</a>) or Server (<a href="#header.server" id="rfc.xref.header.server.2" title="Server">Section 10.8</a>) header fields can sometimes be used to determine that a specific client or server have a particular security hole which 1565 might be exploited. Unfortunately, this same information is often used for other valuable purposes for which HTTP currently 1566 has no better mechanism. 1567 </p> 1568 <h2 id="rfc.section.12.2"><a href="#rfc.section.12.2">12.2</a> <a id="encoding.sensitive.information.in.uris" href="#encoding.sensitive.information.in.uris">Encoding Sensitive Information in URIs</a></h2> 1569 <p id="rfc.section.12.2.p.1">Because the source of a link might be private information or might reveal an otherwise private information source, it is strongly 1570 recommended that the user be able to select whether or not the Referer field is sent. For example, a browser client could 1571 have a toggle switch for browsing openly/anonymously, which would respectively enable/disable the sending of Referer and From 1572 information. 1573 </p> 1574 <p id="rfc.section.12.2.p.2">Clients <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> include a Referer header field in a (non-secure) HTTP request if the referring page was transferred with a secure protocol. 1575 </p> 1576 <p id="rfc.section.12.2.p.3">Authors of services should not use GET-based forms for the submission of sensitive data because that data will be encoded 1577 in the Request-URI. Many existing servers, proxies, and user agents log or display the Request-URI in places where it might 1578 be visible to third parties. Such services can use POST-based form submission instead. 1579 </p> 1580 <h2 id="rfc.section.12.3"><a href="#rfc.section.12.3">12.3</a> <a id="location.spoofing" href="#location.spoofing">Location Headers and Spoofing</a></h2> 1581 <p id="rfc.section.12.3.p.1">If a single server supports multiple organizations that do not trust one another, then it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> check the values of Location and Content-Location headers in responses that are generated under control of said organizations 1582 to make sure that they do not attempt to invalidate resources over which they have no authority. 1583 </p> 1584 <h1 id="rfc.section.13"><a href="#rfc.section.13">13.</a> <a id="ack" href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></h1> 1681 <div id="rfc.figure.u.29"></div><pre class="text"> User-Agent: CERN-LineMode/2.15 libwww/2.17b3 1682 </pre></div> 1683 </div> 1684 <div id="IANA.considerations"> 1685 <h1 id="rfc.section.11"><a href="#rfc.section.11">11.</a> <a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1> 1686 <p id="rfc.section.11.p.1"><span class="comment" id="rfc.comment.1">[<a href="#rfc.comment.1" class="smpl">rfc.comment.1</a>: TBD.]</span> 1687 </p> 1688 </div> 1689 <div id="security.considerations"> 1690 <h1 id="rfc.section.12"><a href="#rfc.section.12">12.</a> <a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1> 1691 <p id="rfc.section.12.p.1">This section is meant to inform application developers, information providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 1692 as described by this document. The discussion does not include definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does 1693 make some suggestions for reducing security risks. 1694 </p> 1695 <div id="security.sensitive"> 1696 <h2 id="rfc.section.12.1"><a href="#rfc.section.12.1">12.1</a> <a href="#security.sensitive">Transfer of Sensitive Information</a></h2> 1697 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.1">Like any generic data transfer protocol, HTTP cannot regulate the content of the data that is transferred, nor is there any 1698 a priori method of determining the sensitivity of any particular piece of information within the context of any given request. 1699 Therefore, applications <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> supply as much control over this information as possible to the provider of that information. Four header fields are worth 1700 special mention in this context: Server, Via, Referer and From. 1701 </p> 1702 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.2">Revealing the specific software version of the server might allow the server machine to become more vulnerable to attacks 1703 against software that is known to contain security holes. Implementors <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> make the Server header field a configurable option. 1704 </p> 1705 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.3">Proxies which serve as a portal through a network firewall <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> take special precautions regarding the transfer of header information that identifies the hosts behind the firewall. In particular, 1706 they <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> remove, or replace with sanitized versions, any Via fields generated behind the firewall. 1707 </p> 1708 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.4">The Referer header allows reading patterns to be studied and reverse links drawn. Although it can be very useful, its power 1709 can be abused if user details are not separated from the information contained in the Referer. Even when the personal information 1710 has been removed, the Referer header might indicate a private document's URI whose publication would be inappropriate. 1711 </p> 1712 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.5">The information sent in the From field might conflict with the user's privacy interests or their site's security policy, and 1713 hence it <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be transmitted without the user being able to disable, enable, and modify the contents of the field. The user <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be able to set the contents of this field within a user preference or application defaults configuration. 1714 </p> 1715 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.6">We suggest, though do not require, that a convenient toggle interface be provided for the user to enable or disable the sending 1716 of From and Referer information. 1717 </p> 1718 <p id="rfc.section.12.1.p.7">The User-Agent (<a href="#header.user-agent" id="rfc.xref.header.user-agent.2" title="User-Agent">Section 10.9</a>) or Server (<a href="#header.server" id="rfc.xref.header.server.2" title="Server">Section 10.8</a>) header fields can sometimes be used to determine that a specific client or server have a particular security hole which 1719 might be exploited. Unfortunately, this same information is often used for other valuable purposes for which HTTP currently 1720 has no better mechanism. 1721 </p> 1722 </div> 1723 <div id="encoding.sensitive.information.in.uris"> 1724 <h2 id="rfc.section.12.2"><a href="#rfc.section.12.2">12.2</a> <a href="#encoding.sensitive.information.in.uris">Encoding Sensitive Information in URIs</a></h2> 1725 <p id="rfc.section.12.2.p.1">Because the source of a link might be private information or might reveal an otherwise private information source, it is strongly 1726 recommended that the user be able to select whether or not the Referer field is sent. For example, a browser client could 1727 have a toggle switch for browsing openly/anonymously, which would respectively enable/disable the sending of Referer and From 1728 information. 1729 </p> 1730 <p id="rfc.section.12.2.p.2">Clients <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> include a Referer header field in a (non-secure) HTTP request if the referring page was transferred with a secure protocol. 1731 </p> 1732 <p id="rfc.section.12.2.p.3">Authors of services should not use GET-based forms for the submission of sensitive data because that data will be encoded 1733 in the Request-URI. Many existing servers, proxies, and user agents log or display the Request-URI in places where it might 1734 be visible to third parties. Such services can use POST-based form submission instead. 1735 </p> 1736 </div> 1737 <div id="location.spoofing"> 1738 <h2 id="rfc.section.12.3"><a href="#rfc.section.12.3">12.3</a> <a href="#location.spoofing">Location Headers and Spoofing</a></h2> 1739 <p id="rfc.section.12.3.p.1">If a single server supports multiple organizations that do not trust one another, then it <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> check the values of Location and Content-Location headers in responses that are generated under control of said organizations 1740 to make sure that they do not attempt to invalidate resources over which they have no authority. 1741 </p> 1742 </div> 1743 </div> 1744 <div id="ack"> 1745 <h1 id="rfc.section.13"><a href="#rfc.section.13">13.</a> <a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></h1> 1746 </div> 1585 1747 <h1 id="rfc.references"><a id="rfc.section.14" href="#rfc.section.14">14.</a> References 1586 1748 </h1> 1587 1749 <h2 id="rfc.references.1"><a href="#rfc.section.14.1" id="rfc.section.14.1">14.1</a> Normative References 1588 1750 </h2> 1589 <table> 1751 <table> 1590 1752 <tr> 1591 1753 <td class="reference"><b id="Part1">[Part1]</b></td> 1592 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-02">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-02 (work in progress), February 2008.1754 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-02">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-02 (work in progress), February 2008. 1593 1755 </td> 1594 1756 </tr> 1595 1757 <tr> 1596 1758 <td class="reference"><b id="Part3">[Part3]</b></td> 1597 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02">HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02 (work in progress), February 2008.1759 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02">HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02 (work in progress), February 2008. 1598 1760 </td> 1599 1761 </tr> 1600 1762 <tr> 1601 1763 <td class="reference"><b id="Part4">[Part4]</b></td> 1602 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-02">HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-02 (work in progress), February 2008.1764 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-02">HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-02 (work in progress), February 2008. 1603 1765 </td> 1604 1766 </tr> 1605 1767 <tr> 1606 1768 <td class="reference"><b id="Part5">[Part5]</b></td> 1607 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-02">HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-02 (work in progress), February 2008.1769 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-02">HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-02 (work in progress), February 2008. 1608 1770 </td> 1609 1771 </tr> 1610 1772 <tr> 1611 1773 <td class="reference"><b id="Part6">[Part6]</b></td> 1612 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-02">HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-02 (work in progress), February 2008.1774 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-02">HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-02 (work in progress), February 2008. 1613 1775 </td> 1614 1776 </tr> 1615 1777 <tr> 1616 1778 <td class="reference"><b id="Part7">[Part7]</b></td> 1617 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02">HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 (work in progress), February 2008.1779 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02">HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 (work in progress), February 2008. 1618 1780 </td> 1619 1781 </tr> 1620 1782 <tr> 1621 1783 <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</b></td> 1622 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:sob@harvard.edu" 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 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.1784 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:sob@harvard.edu" title="Harvard University">Bradner, S.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>”, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1623 1785 </td> 1624 1786 </tr> … … 1626 1788 <h2 id="rfc.references.2"><a href="#rfc.section.14.2" id="rfc.section.14.2">14.2</a> Informative References 1627 1789 </h2> 1628 <table> 1790 <table> 1629 1791 <tr> 1630 1792 <td class="reference"><b id="Luo1998">[Luo1998]</b></td> 1631 <td class="top">Luotonen, A., “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-luotonen-web-proxy-tunneling-01">Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web proxy servers</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-luotonen-web-proxy-tunneling-01 (work in progress), August 1998.1793 <td class="top">Luotonen, A., “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-luotonen-web-proxy-tunneling-01">Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web proxy servers</a>”, Internet-Draft draft-luotonen-web-proxy-tunneling-01 (work in progress), August 1998. 1632 1794 </td> 1633 1795 </tr> 1634 1796 <tr> 1635 1797 <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1945">[RFC1945]</b></td> 1636 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="MIT, Laboratory for Computer Science">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, and <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="W3 Consortium, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">H. Nielsen</a>, “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0</a>”, RFC 1945, May 1996.1798 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="MIT, Laboratory for Computer Science">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, and <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="W3 Consortium, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">H. Nielsen</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0</a>”, RFC 1945, May 1996. 1637 1799 </td> 1638 1800 </tr> 1639 1801 <tr> 1640 1802 <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2068">[RFC2068]</b></td> 1641 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Digital Equipment Corporation, Western Research Laboratory">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Nielsen, H.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" 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 2068, January 1997.1803 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Digital Equipment Corporation, Western Research Laboratory">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Nielsen, H.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC 2068, January 1997. 1642 1804 </td> 1643 1805 </tr> 1644 1806 <tr> 1645 1807 <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2616">[RFC2616]</b></td> 1646 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="W3C">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Compaq Computer Corporation">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com" title="Xerox Corporation">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="W3C">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC 2616, June 1999.1808 <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="W3C">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Compaq Computer Corporation">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com" title="Xerox Corporation">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="W3C">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC 2616, June 1999. 1647 1809 </td> 1648 1810 </tr> 1649 1811 <tr> 1650 1812 <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2822">[RFC2822]</b></td> 1651 <td class="top">Resnick, P., “<a href="http ://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822">Internet Message Format</a>”, RFC 2822, April 2001.1813 <td class="top">Resnick, P., “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822">Internet Message Format</a>”, RFC 2822, April 2001. 1652 1814 </td> 1653 1815 </tr> 1654 1816 </table> 1655 <div class="avoidbreak"> 1656 <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1> 1657 <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Roy T. Fielding</span> 1658 (editor) 1659 <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> <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 href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com"><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> 1660 <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> <span class="postal-code">01741</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org"><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> 1661 <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> <span class="postal-code">94304</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org"><span class="email">JeffMogul@acm.org</span></a></span></address> 1662 <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> <span class="postal-code">98052</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com"><span class="email">henrikn@microsoft.com</span></a></span></address> 1663 <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> <span class="postal-code">95110</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org"><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> 1664 <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> <span class="postal-code">98052</span></span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com"><span class="email">paulle@microsoft.com</span></a></span></address> 1665 <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> <span class="postal-code">02139</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org"><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> 1666 <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Yves Lafon</span> 1667 (editor) 1668 <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> <span class="postal-code">06902</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">France</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org"><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> 1669 <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Julian F. Reschke</span> 1670 (editor) 1671 <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> <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 href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de"><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> 1817 <div id="compatibility"> 1818 <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a> <a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a></h1> 1819 <div id="changes.from.rfc.2068"> 1820 <h2 id="rfc.section.A.1"><a href="#rfc.section.A.1">A.1</a> <a href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></h2> 1821 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.1">Clarified which error code should be used for inbound server failures (e.g. DNS failures). (<a href="#status.504" id="rfc.xref.status.504.2" title="504 Gateway Timeout">Section 9.5.5</a>). 1822 </p> 1823 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.2">201 (Created) had a race that required an Etag be sent when a resource is first created. (<a href="#status.201" id="rfc.xref.status.201.2" title="201 Created">Section 9.2.2</a>). 1824 </p> 1825 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.3">Rewrite of message transmission requirements to make it much harder for implementors to get it wrong, as the consequences 1826 of errors here can have significant impact on the Internet, and to deal with the following problems: 1827 </p> 1828 <ol> 1829 <li>Changing "HTTP/1.1 or later" to "HTTP/1.1", in contexts where this was incorrectly placing a requirement on the behavior of 1830 an implementation of a future version of HTTP/1.x 1831 </li> 1832 <li>Made it clear that user-agents should retry requests, not "clients" in general.</li> 1833 <li>Converted requirements for clients to ignore unexpected 100 (Continue) responses, and for proxies to forward 100 responses, 1834 into a general requirement for 1xx responses. 1835 </li> 1836 <li>Modified some TCP-specific language, to make it clearer that non-TCP transports are possible for HTTP.</li> 1837 <li>Require that the origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> wait for the request body before it sends a required 100 (Continue) response. 1838 </li> 1839 <li>Allow, rather than require, a server to omit 100 (Continue) if it has already seen some of the request body.</li> 1840 <li>Allow servers to defend against denial-of-service attacks and broken clients.</li> 1841 </ol> 1842 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.4">This change adds the Expect header and 417 status code.</p> 1843 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.5">Clean up confusion between 403 and 404 responses. (Section <a href="#status.403" id="rfc.xref.status.403.2" title="403 Forbidden">9.4.4</a>, <a href="#status.404" id="rfc.xref.status.404.2" title="404 Not Found">9.4.5</a>, and <a href="#status.410" id="rfc.xref.status.410.2" title="410 Gone">9.4.11</a>) 1844 </p> 1845 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.6">The PATCH<span id="rfc.iref.p.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.m.10"></span>, LINK<span id="rfc.iref.l.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.m.11"></span>, UNLINK<span id="rfc.iref.u.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.m.12"></span> methods were defined but not commonly implemented in previous versions of this specification. See <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>. 1846 </p> 1847 </div> 1848 <div id="changes.from.rfc.2616"> 1849 <h2 id="rfc.section.A.2"><a href="#rfc.section.A.2">A.2</a> <a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h2> 1850 <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.1">Clarify definition of POST. (<a href="#POST" id="rfc.xref.POST.2" title="POST">Section 8.5</a>) 1851 </p> 1852 <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.2">Failed to consider that there are many other request methods that are safe to automatically redirect, and further that the 1853 user agent is able to make that determination based on the request method semantics. (Sections <a href="#status.301" id="rfc.xref.status.301.2" title="301 Moved Permanently">9.3.2</a>, <a href="#status.302" id="rfc.xref.status.302.2" title="302 Found">9.3.3</a> and <a href="#status.307" id="rfc.xref.status.307.2" title="307 Temporary Redirect">9.3.8</a> ) 1854 </p> 1855 <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.3">Correct syntax of Location header to allow fragment, as referred symbol wasn't what was expected, and add some clarifications 1856 as to when it would not be appropriate. (<a href="#header.location" id="rfc.xref.header.location.3" title="Location">Section 10.4</a>) 1857 </p> 1858 <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.4">In the description of the Server header, the Via field was described as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated correctly 1859 in the description of the Via header in <a href="p1-messaging.html#header.via" title="Via">Section 8.9</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.25"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. (<a href="#header.server" id="rfc.xref.header.server.3" title="Server">Section 10.8</a>) 1860 </p> 1861 </div> 1672 1862 </div> 1673 <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a> <a id="compatibility" href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a></h1> 1674 <h2 id="rfc.section.A.1"><a href="#rfc.section.A.1">A.1</a> <a id="changes.from.rfc.2068" href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></h2> 1675 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.1">Clarified which error code should be used for inbound server failures (e.g. DNS failures). (<a href="#status.504" id="rfc.xref.status.504.2" title="504 Gateway Timeout">Section 9.5.5</a>). 1676 </p> 1677 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.2">201 (Created) had a race that required an Etag be sent when a resource is first created. (<a href="#status.201" id="rfc.xref.status.201.2" title="201 Created">Section 9.2.2</a>). 1678 </p> 1679 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.3">Rewrite of message transmission requirements to make it much harder for implementors to get it wrong, as the consequences 1680 of errors here can have significant impact on the Internet, and to deal with the following problems: 1681 </p> 1682 <ol> 1683 <li>Changing "HTTP/1.1 or later" to "HTTP/1.1", in contexts where this was incorrectly placing a requirement on the behavior of 1684 an implementation of a future version of HTTP/1.x 1685 </li> 1686 <li>Made it clear that user-agents should retry requests, not "clients" in general.</li> 1687 <li>Converted requirements for clients to ignore unexpected 100 (Continue) responses, and for proxies to forward 100 responses, 1688 into a general requirement for 1xx responses. 1689 </li> 1690 <li>Modified some TCP-specific language, to make it clearer that non-TCP transports are possible for HTTP.</li> 1691 <li>Require that the origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> wait for the request body before it sends a required 100 (Continue) response. 1692 </li> 1693 <li>Allow, rather than require, a server to omit 100 (Continue) if it has already seen some of the request body.</li> 1694 <li>Allow servers to defend against denial-of-service attacks and broken clients.</li> 1695 </ol> 1696 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.4">This change adds the Expect header and 417 status code.</p> 1697 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.5">Clean up confusion between 403 and 404 responses. (Section <a href="#status.403" id="rfc.xref.status.403.2" title="403 Forbidden">9.4.4</a>, <a href="#status.404" id="rfc.xref.status.404.2" title="404 Not Found">9.4.5</a>, and <a href="#status.410" id="rfc.xref.status.410.2" title="410 Gone">9.4.11</a>) 1698 </p> 1699 <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.6">The PATCH<span id="rfc.iref.p.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.m.10"></span>, LINK<span id="rfc.iref.l.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.m.11"></span>, UNLINK<span id="rfc.iref.u.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.m.12"></span> methods were defined but not commonly implemented in previous versions of this specification. See <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>. 1700 </p> 1701 <h2 id="rfc.section.A.2"><a href="#rfc.section.A.2">A.2</a> <a id="changes.from.rfc.2616" href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h2> 1702 <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.1">Clarify definition of POST. (<a href="#POST" id="rfc.xref.POST.2" title="POST">Section 8.5</a>) 1703 </p> 1704 <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.2">Failed to consider that there are many other request methods that are safe to automatically redirect, and further that the 1705 user agent is able to make that determination based on the request method semantics. (Sections <a href="#status.301" id="rfc.xref.status.301.2" title="301 Moved Permanently">9.3.2</a>, <a href="#status.302" id="rfc.xref.status.302.2" title="302 Found">9.3.3</a> and <a href="#status.307" id="rfc.xref.status.307.2" title="307 Temporary Redirect">9.3.8</a> ) 1706 </p> 1707 <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.3">Correct syntax of Location header to allow fragment, as referred symbol wasn't what was expected, and add some clarifications 1708 as to when it would not be appropriate. (<a href="#header.location" id="rfc.xref.header.location.3" title="Location">Section 10.4</a>) 1709 </p> 1710 <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.4">In the description of the Server header, the Via field was described as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated correctly 1711 in the description of the Via header in <a href="p1-messaging.html#header.via" title="Via">Section 8.9</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.25"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. (<a href="#header.server" id="rfc.xref.header.server.3" title="Server">Section 10.8</a>) 1712 </p> 1713 <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a> Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 1714 </h1> 1715 <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a> Since RFC2616 1716 </h2> 1717 <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.1">Extracted relevant partitions from <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>. 1718 </p> 1719 <h2 id="rfc.section.B.2"><a href="#rfc.section.B.2">B.2</a> Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-00 1720 </h2> 1721 <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.1">Closed issues: </p> 1722 <ul> 1723 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/5">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/5</a>>: "Via is a MUST" (<<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#via-must">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#via-must</a>>) 1724 </li> 1725 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/6">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/6</a>>: "Fragments allowed in Location" (<<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#location-fragments">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#location-fragments</a>>) 1726 </li> 1727 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/10">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/10</a>>: "Safe Methods vs Redirection" (<<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#saferedirect">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#saferedirect</a>>) 1728 </li> 1729 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/17">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/17</a>>: "Revise description of the POST method" (<<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#post">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#post</a>>) 1730 </li> 1731 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35</a>>: "Normative and Informative references" 1732 </li> 1733 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/42">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/42</a>>: "RFC2606 Compliance" 1734 </li> 1735 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65</a>>: "Informative references" 1736 </li> 1737 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/84">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/84</a>>: "Redundant cross-references" 1738 </li> 1739 </ul> 1740 <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.2">Other changes: </p> 1741 <ul> 1742 <li>Move definitions of 304 and 412 condition codes to <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.14"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a> 1743 </li> 1744 </ul> 1745 <h2 id="rfc.section.B.3"><a href="#rfc.section.B.3">B.3</a> Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01 1746 </h2> 1747 <p id="rfc.section.B.3.p.1">Closed issues: </p> 1748 <ul> 1749 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/21">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/21</a>>: "PUT side effects" 1750 </li> 1751 <li> <<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/91">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/91</a>>: "Duplicate Host header requirements" 1752 </li> 1753 </ul> 1754 <p id="rfc.section.B.3.p.2">Ongoing work on ABNF conversion (<<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>>): 1755 </p> 1756 <ul> 1757 <li>Move "Product Tokens" section (back) into Part 1, as "token" is used in the definition of the Upgrade header.</li> 1758 <li>Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from other parts of the specification.</li> 1759 <li>Copy definition of delta-seconds from Part6 instead of referencing it.</li> 1760 </ul> 1863 <div> 1864 <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a> Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 1865 </h1> 1866 <div> 1867 <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a> Since RFC2616 1868 </h2> 1869 <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.1">Extracted relevant partitions from <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>. 1870 </p> 1871 </div> 1872 <div> 1873 <h2 id="rfc.section.B.2"><a href="#rfc.section.B.2">B.2</a> Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-00 1874 </h2> 1875 <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.1">Closed issues: </p> 1876 <ul> 1877 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/5">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/5</a>>: "Via is a MUST" (<<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#via-must">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#via-must</a>>) 1878 </li> 1879 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/6">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/6</a>>: "Fragments allowed in Location" (<<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#location-fragments">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#location-fragments</a>>) 1880 </li> 1881 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/10">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/10</a>>: "Safe Methods vs Redirection" (<<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#saferedirect">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#saferedirect</a>>) 1882 </li> 1883 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/17">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/17</a>>: "Revise description of the POST method" (<<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#post">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#post</a>>) 1884 </li> 1885 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35</a>>: "Normative and Informative references" 1886 </li> 1887 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/42">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/42</a>>: "RFC2606 Compliance" 1888 </li> 1889 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65</a>>: "Informative references" 1890 </li> 1891 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/84">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/84</a>>: "Redundant cross-references" 1892 </li> 1893 </ul> 1894 <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.2">Other changes: </p> 1895 <ul> 1896 <li>Move definitions of 304 and 412 condition codes to <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.14"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a> 1897 </li> 1898 </ul> 1899 </div> 1900 <div> 1901 <h2 id="rfc.section.B.3"><a href="#rfc.section.B.3">B.3</a> Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01 1902 </h2> 1903 <p id="rfc.section.B.3.p.1">Closed issues: </p> 1904 <ul> 1905 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/21">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/21</a>>: "PUT side effects" 1906 </li> 1907 <li><<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/91">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/91</a>>: "Duplicate Host header requirements" 1908 </li> 1909 </ul> 1910 <p id="rfc.section.B.3.p.2">Ongoing work on ABNF conversion (<<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>>): 1911 </p> 1912 <ul> 1913 <li>Move "Product Tokens" section (back) into Part 1, as "token" is used in the definition of the Upgrade header.</li> 1914 <li>Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from other parts of the specification.</li> 1915 <li>Copy definition of delta-seconds from Part6 instead of referencing it.</li> 1916 </ul> 1917 </div> 1918 </div> 1761 1919 <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1> 1762 1920 <p class="noprint"><a href="#rfc.index.1">1</a> <a href="#rfc.index.2">2</a> <a href="#rfc.index.3">3</a> <a href="#rfc.index.4">4</a> <a href="#rfc.index.5">5</a> <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.F">F</a> <a href="#rfc.index.G">G</a> <a href="#rfc.index.H">H</a> <a href="#rfc.index.L">L</a> <a href="#rfc.index.M">M</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> … … 1765 1923 <ul class="ind"> 1766 1924 <li><a id="rfc.index.1" href="#rfc.index.1"><b>1</b></a><ul> 1767 <li>100 Continue (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.100.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 23"><b>9.1.1</b></a></li>1768 <li>101 Switching Protocols (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.101.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 24"><b>9.1.2</b></a></li>1925 <li>100 Continue (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.100.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.1.1"><b>9.1.1</b></a></li> 1926 <li>101 Switching Protocols (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.101.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.1.2"><b>9.1.2</b></a></li> 1769 1927 </ul> 1770 1928 </li> 1771 1929 <li><a id="rfc.index.2" href="#rfc.index.2"><b>2</b></a><ul> 1772 <li>200 OK (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.200.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2 5"><b>9.2.1</b></a></li>1773 <li>201 Created (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.201.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2 6"><b>9.2.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.201.2">A.1</a></li>1774 <li>202 Accepted (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.202.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2 7"><b>9.2.3</b></a></li>1775 <li>203 Non-Authoritative Information (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.203.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2 8"><b>9.2.4</b></a></li>1776 <li>204 No Content (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.204.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2 9"><b>9.2.5</b></a></li>1777 <li>205 Reset Content (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.205.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 30"><b>9.2.6</b></a></li>1778 <li>206 Partial Content (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.206.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 31"><b>9.2.7</b></a></li>1930 <li>200 OK (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.200.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2.1"><b>9.2.1</b></a></li> 1931 <li>201 Created (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.201.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2.2"><b>9.2.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.201.2">A.1</a></li> 1932 <li>202 Accepted (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.202.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2.3"><b>9.2.3</b></a></li> 1933 <li>203 Non-Authoritative Information (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.203.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2.4"><b>9.2.4</b></a></li> 1934 <li>204 No Content (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.204.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2.5"><b>9.2.5</b></a></li> 1935 <li>205 Reset Content (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.205.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2.6"><b>9.2.6</b></a></li> 1936 <li>206 Partial Content (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.206.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.2.7"><b>9.2.7</b></a></li> 1779 1937 </ul> 1780 1938 </li> 1781 1939 <li><a id="rfc.index.3" href="#rfc.index.3"><b>3</b></a><ul> 1782 <li>300 Multiple Choices (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.300.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3 2"><b>9.3.1</b></a></li>1783 <li>301 Moved Permanently (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.301.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3 3"><b>9.3.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.301.2">A.2</a></li>1784 <li>302 Found (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.302.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3 4"><b>9.3.3</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.302.2">A.2</a></li>1785 <li>303 See Other (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.303.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3 5"><b>9.3.4</b></a></li>1786 <li>304 Not Modified (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.304.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3 6"><b>9.3.5</b></a></li>1787 <li>305 Use Proxy (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.305.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3 7"><b>9.3.6</b></a></li>1788 <li>306 (Unused) (status code) <a href="#rfc.iref.3 8"><b>9.3.7</b></a></li>1789 <li>307 Temporary Redirect (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.307.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3 9"><b>9.3.8</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.307.2">A.2</a></li>1940 <li>300 Multiple Choices (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.300.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3.1"><b>9.3.1</b></a></li> 1941 <li>301 Moved Permanently (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.301.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3.2"><b>9.3.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.301.2">A.2</a></li> 1942 <li>302 Found (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.302.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3.3"><b>9.3.3</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.302.2">A.2</a></li> 1943 <li>303 See Other (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.303.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3.4"><b>9.3.4</b></a></li> 1944 <li>304 Not Modified (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.304.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3.5"><b>9.3.5</b></a></li> 1945 <li>305 Use Proxy (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.305.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3.6"><b>9.3.6</b></a></li> 1946 <li>306 (Unused) (status code) <a href="#rfc.iref.3.7"><b>9.3.7</b></a></li> 1947 <li>307 Temporary Redirect (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.307.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.3.8"><b>9.3.8</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.307.2">A.2</a></li> 1790 1948 </ul> 1791 1949 </li> 1792 1950 <li><a id="rfc.index.4" href="#rfc.index.4"><b>4</b></a><ul> 1793 <li>400 Bad Request (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.400.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 0"><b>9.4.1</b></a></li>1794 <li>401 Unauthorized (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.401.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 1"><b>9.4.2</b></a></li>1795 <li>402 Payment Required (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.402.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 2"><b>9.4.3</b></a></li>1796 <li>403 Forbidden (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.403.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 3"><b>9.4.4</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.403.2">A.1</a></li>1797 <li>404 Not Found (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.404.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 4"><b>9.4.5</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.404.2">A.1</a></li>1798 <li>405 Method Not Allowed (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.405.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 5"><b>9.4.6</b></a></li>1799 <li>406 Not Acceptable (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.406.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 6"><b>9.4.7</b></a></li>1800 <li>407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.407.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 7"><b>9.4.8</b></a></li>1801 <li>408 Request Timeout (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.408.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 8"><b>9.4.9</b></a></li>1802 <li>409 Conflict (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.409.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4 9"><b>9.4.10</b></a></li>1803 <li>410 Gone (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.410.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 50"><b>9.4.11</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.410.2">A.1</a></li>1804 <li>411 Length Required (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.411.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 51"><b>9.4.12</b></a></li>1805 <li>412 Precondition Failed (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.412.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 52"><b>9.4.13</b></a></li>1806 <li>413 Request Entity Too Large (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.413.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 53"><b>9.4.14</b></a></li>1807 <li>414 Request-URI Too Long (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.414.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 54"><b>9.4.15</b></a></li>1808 <li>415 Unsupported Media Type (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.415.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 55"><b>9.4.16</b></a></li>1809 <li>416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.416.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 56"><b>9.4.17</b></a></li>1810 <li>417 Expectation Failed (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.417.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 57"><b>9.4.18</b></a></li>1951 <li>400 Bad Request (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.400.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.1"><b>9.4.1</b></a></li> 1952 <li>401 Unauthorized (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.401.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.2"><b>9.4.2</b></a></li> 1953 <li>402 Payment Required (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.402.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.3"><b>9.4.3</b></a></li> 1954 <li>403 Forbidden (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.403.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.4"><b>9.4.4</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.403.2">A.1</a></li> 1955 <li>404 Not Found (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.404.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.5"><b>9.4.5</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.404.2">A.1</a></li> 1956 <li>405 Method Not Allowed (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.405.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.6"><b>9.4.6</b></a></li> 1957 <li>406 Not Acceptable (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.406.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.7"><b>9.4.7</b></a></li> 1958 <li>407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.407.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.8"><b>9.4.8</b></a></li> 1959 <li>408 Request Timeout (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.408.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.9"><b>9.4.9</b></a></li> 1960 <li>409 Conflict (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.409.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.10"><b>9.4.10</b></a></li> 1961 <li>410 Gone (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.410.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.11"><b>9.4.11</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.410.2">A.1</a></li> 1962 <li>411 Length Required (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.411.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.12"><b>9.4.12</b></a></li> 1963 <li>412 Precondition Failed (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.412.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.13"><b>9.4.13</b></a></li> 1964 <li>413 Request Entity Too Large (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.413.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.14"><b>9.4.14</b></a></li> 1965 <li>414 Request-URI Too Long (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.414.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.15"><b>9.4.15</b></a></li> 1966 <li>415 Unsupported Media Type (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.415.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.16"><b>9.4.16</b></a></li> 1967 <li>416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.416.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.17"><b>9.4.17</b></a></li> 1968 <li>417 Expectation Failed (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.417.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.4.18"><b>9.4.18</b></a></li> 1811 1969 </ul> 1812 1970 </li> 1813 1971 <li><a id="rfc.index.5" href="#rfc.index.5"><b>5</b></a><ul> 1814 <li>500 Internal Server Error (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.500.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.5 8"><b>9.5.1</b></a></li>1815 <li>501 Not Implemented (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.501.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.5 9"><b>9.5.2</b></a></li>1816 <li>502 Bad Gateway (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.502.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 60"><b>9.5.3</b></a></li>1817 <li>503 Service Unavailable (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.503.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 61"><b>9.5.4</b></a></li>1818 <li>504 Gateway Timeout (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.504.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 62"><b>9.5.5</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.504.2">A.1</a></li>1819 <li>505 HTTP Version Not Supported (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.505.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref. 63"><b>9.5.6</b></a></li>1972 <li>500 Internal Server Error (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.500.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.5.1"><b>9.5.1</b></a></li> 1973 <li>501 Not Implemented (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.501.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.5.2"><b>9.5.2</b></a></li> 1974 <li>502 Bad Gateway (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.502.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.5.3"><b>9.5.3</b></a></li> 1975 <li>503 Service Unavailable (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.503.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.5.4"><b>9.5.4</b></a></li> 1976 <li>504 Gateway Timeout (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.504.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.5.5"><b>9.5.5</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.504.2">A.1</a></li> 1977 <li>505 HTTP Version Not Supported (status code) <a href="#rfc.xref.status.505.1">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.5.6"><b>9.5.6</b></a></li> 1820 1978 </ul> 1821 1979 </li> … … 2042 2200 </ul> 2043 2201 </div> 2044 <h1><a id="rfc.copyright" href="#rfc.copyright">Full Copyright Statement</a></h1> 2045 <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).</p> 2046 <p>This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the 2047 authors retain all their rights. 2048 </p> 2049 <p>This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION 2050 HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE 2051 DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN 2052 WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 2053 </p> 2054 <h1><a id="rfc.ipr" href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property</a></h1> 2055 <p>The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might 2056 be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any 2057 license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to 2058 identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and 2059 BCP 79. 2060 </p> 2061 <p>Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result 2062 of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users 2063 of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>. 2064 </p> 2065 <p>The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 2066 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF 2067 at <a href="mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org">ietf-ipr@ietf.org</a>. 2068 </p> 2202 <div class="avoidbreak"> 2203 <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1> 2204 <p><b>Roy T. Fielding</b> 2205 (editor) 2206 <br>Day Software<br>23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280<br>Newport Beach, CA 92660<br>USA<br>Phone: <a href="tel:+1-949-706-5300">+1-949-706-5300</a><br>Fax: <a href="fax:+1-949-706-5305">+1-949-706-5305</a><br>EMail: <a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com">fielding@gbiv.com</a><br>URI: <a href="http://roy.gbiv.com/">http://roy.gbiv.com/</a></p> 2207 <p><b>Jim Gettys</b><br>One Laptop per Child<br>21 Oak Knoll Road<br>Carlisle, MA 01741<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org">jg@laptop.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://www.laptop.org/">http://www.laptop.org/</a></p> 2208 <p><b>Jeffrey C. Mogul</b><br>Hewlett-Packard Company<br>HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group<br>1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177<br>Palo Alto, CA 94304<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org">JeffMogul@acm.org</a></p> 2209 <p><b>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen</b><br>Microsoft Corporation<br>1 Microsoft Way<br>Redmond, WA 98052<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com">henrikn@microsoft.com</a></p> 2210 <p><b>Larry Masinter</b><br>Adobe Systems, Incorporated<br>345 Park Ave<br>San Jose, CA 95110<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org">LMM@acm.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://larry.masinter.net/">http://larry.masinter.net/</a></p> 2211 <p><b>Paul J. Leach</b><br>Microsoft Corporation<br>1 Microsoft Way<br>Redmond, WA 98052<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com">paulle@microsoft.com</a></p> 2212 <p><b>Tim Berners-Lee</b><br>World Wide Web Consortium<br>MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory<br>The Stata Center, Building 32<br>32 Vassar Street<br>Cambridge, MA 02139<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">timbl@w3.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/">http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/</a></p> 2213 <p><b>Yves Lafon</b> 2214 (editor) 2215 <br>World Wide Web Consortium<br>W3C / ERCIM<br>2004, rte des Lucioles<br>Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902<br>France<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org">ylafon@w3.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/">http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/</a></p> 2216 <p><b>Julian F. Reschke</b> 2217 (editor) 2218 <br>greenbytes GmbH<br>Hafenweg 16<br>Muenster, NW 48155<br>Germany<br>Phone: <a href="tel:+492512807760">+49 251 2807760</a><br>Fax: <a href="fax:+492512807761">+49 251 2807761</a><br>EMail: <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de">julian.reschke@greenbytes.de</a><br>URI: <a href="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/">http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/</a></p> 2219 </div> 2220 <div id="rfc.copyright"> 2221 <h1><a href="#rfc.copyright">Full Copyright Statement</a></h1> 2222 <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).</p> 2223 <p>This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the 2224 authors retain all their rights. 2225 </p> 2226 <p>This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION 2227 HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE 2228 DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN 2229 WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 2230 </p> 2231 </div> 2232 <div id="rfc.ipr"> 2233 <h1><a href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property</a></h1> 2234 <p>The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might 2235 be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any 2236 license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to 2237 identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and 2238 BCP 79. 2239 </p> 2240 <p>Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result 2241 of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users 2242 of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>. 2243 </p> 2244 <p>The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 2245 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF 2246 at <a href="mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org">ietf-ipr@ietf.org</a>. 2247 </p> 2248 </div> 2069 2249 </body> 2070 2250 </html>
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.