Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Client-Initiated Content-Encoding
draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (httpbis WG)
Last updated 2015-09-03 (latest revision 2015-08-13)
Replaces draft-reschke-http-cice
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Mark Nottingham
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2015-07-21)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Needs a YES. Needs 5 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Barry Leiba
Send notices to "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@pobox.com>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state None
HTTP Working Group                                            J. Reschke
Internet-Draft                                                greenbytes
Intended status: Standards Track                         August 13, 2015
Expires: February 14, 2016

  Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Client-Initiated Content-Encoding
                       draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02

Abstract

   In HTTP, content codings allow for payload encodings such as for
   compression or integrity checks.  In particular, the "gzip" content
   coding is widely used for payload data sent in response messages.

   Content codings can be used in request messages as well, however
   discoverability is not on par with response messages.  This document
   extends the HTTP "Accept-Encoding" header field for use in responses,
   to indicate the content codings that are supported in requests.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)

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

   Working Group information can be found at
   <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/> and <http://httpwg.github.io/>;
   source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
   <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions>.

   The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix A.5.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

Reschke                 Expires February 14, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  HTTP CICE                    August 2015

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 14, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Using the 'Accept-Encoding' Header Field in Responses . . . . . 3
   4.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.1.  Header Field Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.2.  Status Code Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Appendix A.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
                publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     A.1.  Since draft-reschke-http-cice-00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     A.2.  Since draft-reschke-http-cice-01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     A.3.  Since draft-reschke-http-cice-02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     A.4.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     A.5.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Reschke                 Expires February 14, 2016               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                  HTTP CICE                    August 2015

1.  Introduction

   In HTTP, content codings allow for payload encodings such as for
   compression or integrity checks ([RFC7231], Section 3.1.2).  In
   particular, the "gzip" content coding is widely used for payload data
   sent in response messages.

   Content codings can be used in request messages as well, however
   discoverability is not on par with response messages.  This document
Show full document text