![(please configure the [header_logo] section in trac.ini)](https://www.ietf.org/images/ietflogotrans.gif)
Changeset 861 for draft-ietf-httpbis
- Timestamp:
- Jul 21, 2010, 8:10:20 PM (9 years ago)
- Location:
- draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
- Files:
-
- 5 edited
-
p2-semantics.html (modified) (4 diffs)
-
p4-conditional.html (modified) (17 diffs)
-
p5-range.html (modified) (1 diff)
-
p6-cache.html (modified) (4 diffs)
-
p7-auth.html (modified) (4 diffs)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html
r858 r861 403 403 <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F."> 404 404 <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-latest"> 405 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07- 19">405 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07-21"> 406 406 <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616"> 407 407 <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 2 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 2 defines the semantics of HTTP messages as expressed by request methods, request-header fields, response status codes, and response-header fields."> … … 434 434 </tr> 435 435 <tr> 436 <td class="left">Expires: January 2 0, 2011</td>436 <td class="left">Expires: January 22, 2011</td> 437 437 <td class="right">HP</td> 438 438 </tr> … … 487 487 <tr> 488 488 <td class="left"></td> 489 <td class="right">July 19, 2010</td>489 <td class="right">July 21, 2010</td> 490 490 </tr> 491 491 </tbody> … … 514 514 in progress”. 515 515 </p> 516 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 2 0, 2011.</p>516 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 22, 2011.</p> 517 517 <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1> 518 518 <p>Copyright © 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html
r857 r861 400 400 <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F."> 401 401 <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-latest"> 402 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07- 19">402 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07-21"> 403 403 <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616"> 404 404 <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 4 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 4 defines request header fields for indicating conditional requests and the rules for constructing responses to those requests."> … … 426 426 </tr> 427 427 <tr> 428 <td class="left">Expires: January 2 0, 2011</td>428 <td class="left">Expires: January 22, 2011</td> 429 429 <td class="right">J. Mogul</td> 430 430 </tr> … … 483 483 <tr> 484 484 <td class="left"></td> 485 <td class="right">July 19, 2010</td>485 <td class="right">July 21, 2010</td> 486 486 </tr> 487 487 </tbody> … … 509 509 in progress”. 510 510 </p> 511 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 2 0, 2011.</p>511 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 22, 2011.</p> 512 512 <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1> 513 513 <p>Copyright © 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p> … … 652 652 Accept-Encoding: gzip 653 653 654 </pre><p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.3">In this case, the response may use the gzip Content Coding or not. If it does, it might look like that:</p>654 </pre><p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.3">In this case, the response may or may not use the gzip content coding. If it does not, the response might look like:</p> 655 655 <div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div> 656 656 <p>>> Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK … … 666 666 Hello World! 667 667 Hello World! 668 </span></pre><p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.5">A variant that does use gzip Content Coding would be:</p>668 </span></pre><p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.5">An alternative representation that does use gzip content coding would be:</p> 669 669 <div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div> 670 670 <p>>> Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK … … 677 677 678 678 <em>...binary data...</em></pre><div class="note" id="rfc.section.2.1.p.7"> 679 <p> <b>Note:</b> Content Codings are a property of the response entity, thus affect the Entity Tag. An alternative are Transfer Codings (<a href="p1-messaging.html#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section 6.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) which apply only to the transfer of the message, and thus do not require assigning distinct entity tags. 679 <p> <b>Note:</b> Content codings are a property of the representation, so therefore an entity tag of an encoded representation must be distinct 680 from an unencoded representation to prevent conflicts during cache updates and range requests. In contrast, transfer codings 681 (<a href="p1-messaging.html#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section 6.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) apply only during message transfer and do not require distinct entity tags. 680 682 </p> 681 683 </div> … … 686 688 <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">If the client has performed a conditional GET request and access is allowed, but the document has not been modified, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with this status code. The 304 response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> contain a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields. 687 689 </p> 688 <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">The response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include the following header fields: 689 </p> 690 <ul> 691 <li> 692 <p>Date, unless its omission is required by <a href="p1-messaging.html#clockless.origin.server.operation" title="Clockless Origin Server Operation">Section 9.3.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.7"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. 693 </p> 694 <p>If a clockless origin server obeys these rules, and proxies and clients add their own Date to any response received without 695 one (as already specified by <a href="p1-messaging.html#header.date" title="Date">Section 9.3</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, caches will operate correctly. 696 </p> 697 </li> 698 <li> 699 <p>ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200 response to the same request.</p> 700 </li> 701 <li> 702 <p>Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might differ from that sent in any previous response for the same 703 variant. 704 </p> 705 </li> 706 </ul> 707 <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.3">If the conditional GET used a strong cache validator (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section 4</a>), the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> include other entity-headers. Otherwise (i.e., the conditional GET used a weak validator), the response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include other entity-headers; this prevents inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies and updated headers. 708 </p> 709 <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.4">If a 304 response indicates an entity not currently cached, then the cache <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> disregard the response and repeat the request without the conditional. 690 <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">A 304 response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a Date header field (<a href="p1-messaging.html#header.date" title="Date">Section 9.3</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.7"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) unless its omission is required by <a href="p1-messaging.html#clockless.origin.server.operation" title="Clockless Origin Server Operation">Section 9.3.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. If a 200 response to the same request would have included any of the header fields Cache-Control, Content-Location, ETag, 691 Expires, Last-Modified, or Vary, then those same header fields <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be sent in a 304 response. 692 </p> 693 <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.3">Since the goal of a 304 response is to minimize information transfer when the recipient already has one or more cached representations, 694 the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> include representation metadata other than the above listed fields unless said metadata exists for the purpose of guiding 695 cache updates (e.g., future HTTP extensions). 696 </p> 697 <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.4">If a 304 response includes an entity-tag that indicates a representation not currently cached, then the recipient <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use the 304 to update its own cache. If that conditional request originated with an outbound client, such as a user agent 698 with its own cache sending a conditional GET to a shared proxy, then the 304 response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be forwarded to the outbound client. Otherwise, disregard the response and repeat the request without the conditional. 710 699 </p> 711 700 <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.5">If a cache uses a received 304 response to update a cache entry, the cache <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> update the entry to reflect any new field values given in the response. … … 908 897 <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div> 909 898 <h2 id="rfc.section.6.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a> <a id="header.etag" href="#header.etag">ETag</a></h2> 910 <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1">The "ETag" response-header field provides the current value of the entity tag (see <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section 2</a>) for the requested variant, which may be used for comparison with other entities from the same resource (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section 4</a>). 899 <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1">The "ETag" response-header field provides the current value of the entity tag (see <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section 2</a>) for one representation of the resource identified by the Effective Request URI. An entity tag is intended for use as a resource-local 900 identifier for differentiating between representations of the same resource that vary over time or via content negotiation 901 (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section 4</a>). 911 902 </p> 912 903 <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span> <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a> = "ETag" ":" <a href="#core.rules" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag-v</a> … … 916 907 ETag: W/"xyzzy" 917 908 ETag: "" 918 </pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.4">The ETag response-header field value, an entity tag, provides for an "opaque" cache validator. This might allow more reliable 919 validation in situations where it is inconvenient to store modification dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date 920 values is not sufficient, or where the origin server wishes to avoid certain paradoxes that might arise from the use of modification 921 dates. 909 </pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.4">An entity tag provides an "opaque" cache validator that allows for more reliable validation than modification dates in situations 910 where it is inconvenient to store modification dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date values is not sufficient, 911 or where the origin server wishes to avoid certain paradoxes that might arise from the use of modification dates. 922 912 </p> 923 913 <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.5">The principle behind entity tags is that only the service author knows the semantics of a resource well enough to select an … … 964 954 <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div> 965 955 <h2 id="rfc.section.6.3"><a href="#rfc.section.6.3">6.3</a> <a id="header.if-modified-since" href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></h2> 966 <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.1">The "If-Modified-Since" request-header field is used to make a request method conditional : if the requested variant has not967 been modified since the time specified in this field, the server will not return an entity; instead, a 304 (Not Modified)968 response will be returned.956 <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.1">The "If-Modified-Since" request-header field is used to make a request method conditional by date: if the representation that 957 would have been transferred in a 200 response to a GET request has not been modified since the time specified in this field, 958 then do not perform the method; instead, respond as detailed below. 969 959 </p> 970 960 <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span> <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> = "If-Modified-Since" ":" <a href="#core.rules" class="smpl">OWS</a> … … 973 963 </pre><p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.3">An example of the field is:</p> 974 964 <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="text"> If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT 975 </pre><p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.5">A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header and no Range header requests that the identified entity be transferred only976 i f it has been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header. The algorithm for determining this includes977 thefollowing cases:965 </pre><p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.5">A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header and no Range header requests that the representation be transferred only if 966 it has been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header. The algorithm for determining this includes the 967 following cases: 978 968 </p> 979 969 <ol> … … 981 971 invalid, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET. A date which is later than the server's current time is invalid. 982 972 </li> 983 <li>If the variant has been modified since the If-Modified-Since date, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET.</li> 984 <li>If the variant has not been modified since a valid If-Modified-Since date, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return a 304 (Not Modified) response. 973 <li>If the representation has been modified since the If-Modified-Since date, the response is exactly the same as for a normal 974 GET. 975 </li> 976 <li>If the representation has not been modified since a valid If-Modified-Since date, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return a 304 (Not Modified) response. 985 977 </li> 986 978 </ol> … … 1047 1039 <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div> 1048 1040 <h2 id="rfc.section.6.5"><a href="#rfc.section.6.5">6.5</a> <a id="header.if-unmodified-since" href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></h2> 1049 <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.1">The "If-Unmodified-Since" request-header field is used to make a request method conditional. If the requested resource has 1050 not been modified since the time specified in this field, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> perform the requested operation as if the If-Unmodified-Since header were not present. 1051 </p> 1052 <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.2">If the requested variant has been modified since the specified time, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested operation, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 412 (Precondition Failed). 1041 <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.1">The "If-Unmodified-Since" request-header field is used to make a request method conditional. If the representation that would 1042 have been transferred in a 200 response to a GET request on the same resource has not been modified since the time specified 1043 in this field, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> perform the requested operation as if the If-Unmodified-Since header were not present. 1044 </p> 1045 <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.2">If the representation has been modified since the specified time, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested operation, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 412 (Precondition Failed). 1053 1046 </p> 1054 1047 <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.12"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.13"></span> <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> = "If-Unmodified-Since" ":" <a href="#core.rules" class="smpl">OWS</a> … … 1067 1060 <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div> 1068 1061 <h2 id="rfc.section.6.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6.6">6.6</a> <a id="header.last-modified" href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></h2> 1069 <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.1">The "Last-Modified" entity-header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the variant was last1070 modified.1062 <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.1">The "Last-Modified" entity-header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the representation 1063 was last modified. 1071 1064 </p> 1072 1065 <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.14"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.15"></span> <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> = "Last-Modified" ":" <a href="#core.rules" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified-v</a> … … 1089 1082 </p> 1090 1083 <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.9">The Last-Modified entity-header field value is often used as a cache validator. In simple terms, a cache entry is considered 1091 to be valid if the entityhas not been modified since the Last-Modified value.1084 to be valid if the representation has not been modified since the Last-Modified value. 1092 1085 </p> 1093 1086 <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a> <a id="IANA.considerations" href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1> … … 1442 1435 <li class="indline1"><em>Section 6.1</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part1.5">1.2.2</a></li> 1443 1436 <li class="indline1"><em>Section 6.2</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part1.6">2.1</a></li> 1444 <li class="indline1"><em>Section 9.3 .1</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part1.7">3.1</a></li>1445 <li class="indline1"><em>Section 9.3 </em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part1.8">3.1</a></li>1437 <li class="indline1"><em>Section 9.3</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part1.7">3.1</a></li> 1438 <li class="indline1"><em>Section 9.3.1</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.Part1.8">3.1</a></li> 1446 1439 </ul> 1447 1440 </li> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.html
r859 r861 656 656 </li> 657 657 <li>Date</li> 658 <li>ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200 response to the same request</li> 659 <li>Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might differ from that sent in any previous response for the same 660 variant 658 <li>Cache-Control, ETag, Expires, Content-Location, Last-Modified, and/or Vary, if the header field would have been sent in a 659 200 response to the same request 661 660 </li> 662 661 </ul> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html
r857 r861 402 402 <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F."> 403 403 <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-latest"> 404 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07- 19">404 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07-21"> 405 405 <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616"> 406 406 <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. This document is Part 6 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 6 defines requirements on HTTP caches and the associated header fields that control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response messages."> … … 428 428 </tr> 429 429 <tr> 430 <td class="left">Expires: January 2 0, 2011</td>430 <td class="left">Expires: January 22, 2011</td> 431 431 <td class="right">J. Mogul</td> 432 432 </tr> … … 489 489 <tr> 490 490 <td class="left"></td> 491 <td class="right">July 19, 2010</td>491 <td class="right">July 21, 2010</td> 492 492 </tr> 493 493 </tbody> … … 515 515 in progress”. 516 516 </p> 517 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 2 0, 2011.</p>517 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 22, 2011.</p> 518 518 <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1> 519 519 <p>Copyright © 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.html
r857 r861 394 394 <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F."> 395 395 <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-latest"> 396 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07- 19">396 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-07-21"> 397 397 <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616"> 398 398 <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 7 defines HTTP Authentication."> … … 425 425 </tr> 426 426 <tr> 427 <td class="left">Expires: January 2 0, 2011</td>427 <td class="left">Expires: January 22, 2011</td> 428 428 <td class="right">HP</td> 429 429 </tr> … … 478 478 <tr> 479 479 <td class="left"></td> 480 <td class="right">July 19, 2010</td>480 <td class="right">July 21, 2010</td> 481 481 </tr> 482 482 </tbody> … … 504 504 in progress”. 505 505 </p> 506 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 2 0, 2011.</p>506 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire in January 22, 2011.</p> 507 507 <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1> 508 508 <p>Copyright © 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.
