Skip to main content

Resumable Uploads for HTTP
draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (httpbis WG)
Authors Marius Kleidl , Guoye Zhang , Lucas Pardue
Last updated 2024-07-08
Replaces draft-tus-httpbis-resumable-uploads-protocol
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Additional resources Related Implementations
Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Associated WG milestone
Submit Resumable Uploads
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-04
HTTP                                                      M. Kleidl, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               Transloadit
Intended status: Standards Track                           G. Zhang, Ed.
Expires: 9 January 2025                                       Apple Inc.
                                                          L. Pardue, Ed.
                                                              Cloudflare
                                                             8 July 2024

                       Resumable Uploads for HTTP
                 draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-04

Abstract

   HTTP clients often encounter interrupted data transfers as a result
   of canceled requests or dropped connections.  Prior to interruption,
   part of a representation may have been exchanged.  To complete the
   data transfer of the entire representation, it is often desirable to
   issue subsequent requests that transfer only the remainder of the
   representation.  HTTP range requests support this concept of
   resumable downloads from server to client.  This document describes a
   mechanism that supports resumable uploads from client to server using
   HTTP.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-
   upload/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the HTTP Working Group
   mailing list (mailto: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://httpwg.org/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/resumable-upload.

Status of This Memo

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

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   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 https://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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 January 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Example 1: Complete upload of file with known size  . . .   5
     3.2.  Example 2: Upload as a series of parts  . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Upload Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Feature Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  Draft Version Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Offset Retrieval  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Upload Append . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Upload Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.1.  Upload-Offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  Upload-Limit  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.3.  Upload-Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Media Type application/partial-upload . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. Problem Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  Mismatching Offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.2.  Completed Upload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   11. Offset values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   12. Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   13. Transfer and Content Codings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   14. Integrity Digests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   15. Subsequent Resources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   17. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   18. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     18.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     18.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Appendix A.  Informational Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix B.  Feature Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix C.  Upload Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Appendix D.  FAQ  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     Since draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-03  . . . . . . . . .  28
     Since draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-02  . . . . . . . . .  29
     Since draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-01  . . . . . . . . .  29
     Since draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-00  . . . . . . . . .  29
     Since draft-tus-httpbis-resumable-uploads-protocol-02 . . . . .  29
     Since draft-tus-httpbis-resumable-uploads-protocol-01 . . . . .  29
     Since draft-tus-httpbis-resumable-uploads-protocol-00 . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

1.  Introduction

   HTTP clients often encounter interrupted data transfers as a result
   of canceled requests or dropped connections.  Prior to interruption,
   part of a representation (see Section 3.2 of [HTTP]) might have been
   exchanged.  To complete the data transfer of the entire
   representation, it is often desirable to issue subsequent requests
   that transfer only the remainder of the representation.  HTTP range
   requests (see Section 14 of [HTTP]) support this concept of resumable
   downloads from server to client.

   HTTP methods such as POST or PUT can be used by clients to request
   processing of representation data enclosed in the request message.
   The transfer of representation data from client to server is often
   referred to as an upload.  Uploads are just as likely as downloads to
   suffer from the effects of data transfer interruption.  Humans can
   play a role in upload interruptions through manual actions such as
   pausing an upload.  Regardless of the cause of an interruption,
   servers may have received part of the representation before its
   occurrence and it is desirable if clients can complete the data
   transfer by sending only the remainder of the representation.  The
   process of sending additional parts of a representation using
   subsequent HTTP requests from client to server is herein referred to
   as a resumable upload.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   Connection interruptions are common and the absence of a standard
   mechanism for resumable uploads has lead to a proliferation of custom
   solutions.  Some of those use HTTP, while others rely on other
   transfer mechanisms entirely.  An HTTP-based standard solution is
   desirable for such a common class of problem.

   This document defines an optional mechanism for HTTP that enables
   resumable uploads in a way that is backwards-compatible with
   conventional HTTP uploads.  When an upload is interrupted, clients
   can send subsequent requests to query the server state and use this
   information to send the remaining data.  Alternatively, they can
   cancel the upload entirely.  Different from ranged downloads, this
   protocol does not support transferring different parts of the same
   representation in parallel.

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   The terms Byte Sequence, Item, String, Token, Integer, and Boolean
   are imported from [STRUCTURED-FIELDS].

   The terms client and server are from [HTTP].

3.  Overview

   Resumable uploads are supported in HTTP through use of a temporary
   resource, an _upload resource_, that is separate from the resource
   being uploaded to (hereafter, the _target resource_) and specific to
   that upload.  By interacting with the upload resource, a client can
   retrieve the current offset of the upload (Section 5), append to the
   upload (Section 6), and cancel the upload (Section 7).

   The remainder of this section uses an example of a file upload to
   illustrate different interactions with the upload resource.  Note,
   however, that HTTP message exchanges use representation data (see
   Section 8.1 of [HTTP]), which means that resumable uploads can be
   used with many forms of content -- not just static files.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

3.1.  Example 1: Complete upload of file with known size

   In this example, the client first attempts to upload a file with a
   known size in a single HTTP request to the target resource.  An
   interruption occurs and the client then attempts to resume the upload
   using subsequent HTTP requests to the upload resource.

   1) The client notifies the server that it wants to begin an upload
   (Section 4).  The server reserves the required resources to accept
   the upload from the client, and the client begins transferring the
   entire file in the request content.

   An informational response can be sent to the client, which signals
   the server's support of resumable upload as well as the upload
   resource URL via the Location header field (Section 10.2.2 of
   [HTTP]).

   Client                                  Server
   |                                            |
   | POST                                       |
   |------------------------------------------->|
   |                                            |
   |                                            | Reserve resources
   |                                            | for upload
   |                                            |-----------------.
   |                                            |                 |
   |                                            |<----------------'
   |                                            |
   |            104 Upload Resumption Supported |
   |            with upload resource URL        |
   |<-------------------------------------------|
   |                                            |
   | Flow Interrupted                           |
   |------------------------------------------->|
   |                                            |

                         Figure 1: Upload Creation

   2) If the connection to the server is interrupted, the client might
   want to resume the upload.  However, before this is possible the
   client needs to know the amount of data that the server received
   before the interruption.  It does so by retrieving the offset
   (Section 5) from the upload resource.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   Client                                       Server
   |                                                 |
   | HEAD to upload resource URL                     |
   |------------------------------------------------>|
   |                                                 |
   |               204 No Content with Upload-Offset |
   |<------------------------------------------------|
   |                                                 |

                         Figure 2: Offset Retrieval

   3) The client can resume the upload by sending the remaining file
   content to the upload resource (Section 6), appending to the already
   stored data in the upload.  The Upload-Offset value is included to
   ensure that the client and server agree on the offset that the upload
   resumes from.

   Client                                       Server
   |                                                 |
   | PATCH to upload resource URL with Upload-Offset |
   |------------------------------------------------>|
   |                                                 |
   |                      201 Created on completion  |
   |<------------------------------------------------|
   |                                                 |

                          Figure 3: Upload Append

   4) If the client is not interested in completing the upload, it can
   instruct the upload resource to delete the upload and free all
   related resources (Section 7).

   Client                                       Server
   |                                                 |
   | DELETE to upload resource URL                   |
   |------------------------------------------------>|
   |                                                 |
   |                    204 No Content on completion |
   |<------------------------------------------------|
   |                                                 |

                       Figure 4: Upload Cancellation

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

3.2.  Example 2: Upload as a series of parts

   In some cases, clients might prefer to upload a file as a series of
   parts sent serially across multiple HTTP messages.  One use case is
   to overcome server limits on HTTP message content size.  Another use
   case is where the client does not know the final size, such as when
   file data originates from a streaming source.

   This example shows how the client, with prior knowledge about the
   server's resumable upload support, can upload parts of a file
   incrementally.

   1) If the client is aware that the server supports resumable upload,
   it can start an upload with the Upload-Complete field value set to
   false and the first part of the file.

   Client                                       Server
   |                                                 |
   | POST with Upload-Complete: ?0                   |
   |------------------------------------------------>|
   |                                                 |
   |            201 Created with Upload-Complete: ?0 |
   |            and Location on completion           |
   |<------------------------------------------------|
   |                                                 |

                    Figure 5: Incomplete Upload Creation

   2) Subsequently, parts are appended (Section 6).  The last part of
   the upload has a Upload-Complete field value set to true to indicate
   the complete transfer.

   Client                                       Server
   |                                                 |
   | PATCH to upload resource URL with               |
   | Upload-Offset and Upload-Complete: ?1           |
   |------------------------------------------------>|
   |                                                 |
   |                       201 Created on completion |
   |<------------------------------------------------|
   |                                                 |

                     Figure 6: Upload Append Last Chunk

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

4.  Upload Creation

   When a resource supports resumable uploads, the first step is
   creating the upload resource.  To be compatible with the widest range
   of resources, this is accomplished by including the Upload-Complete
   header field in the request that initiates the upload.

   As a consequence, resumable uploads support all HTTP request methods
   that can carry content, such as POST, PUT, and PATCH.  Similarly, the
   response to the upload request can have any status code.  Both the
   method(s) and status code(s) supported are determined by the
   resource.

   Upload-Complete MUST be set to false if the end of the request
   content is not the end of the upload.  Otherwise, it MUST be set to
   true.  This header field can be used for request identification by a
   server.  The request MUST NOT include the Upload-Offset header field.

   If the request is valid, the server SHOULD create an upload resource.
   Then, the server MUST include the Location header field in the
   response and set its value to the URL of the upload resource.  The
   client MAY use this URL for offset retrieval (Section 5), upload
   append (Section 6), and upload cancellation (Section 7).

   Once the upload resource is available and while the request content
   is being uploaded, the target resource MAY send one or more
   informational responses with a 104 (Upload Resumption Supported)
   status code to the client.  In the first informational response, the
   Location header field MUST be set to the URL pointing to the upload
   resource.  In subsequent informational responses, the Location header
   field MUST NOT be set.  An informational response MAY contain the
   Upload-Offset header field with the current upload offset as the
   value to inform the client about the upload progress.

   The server MUST send the Upload-Offset header field in the response
   if it considers the upload active, either when the response is a
   success (e.g. 201 (Created)), or when the response is a failure (e.g.
   409 (Conflict)).  The Upload-Offset field value MUST be equal to the
   end offset of the entire upload, or the begin offset of the next
   chunk if the upload is still incomplete.  The client SHOULD consider
   the upload failed if the response has a status code that indicates a
   success but the offset indicated in the Upload-Offset field value
   does not equal the total of begin offset plus the number of bytes
   uploaded in the request.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   If the request completes successfully and the entire upload is
   complete, the server MUST acknowledge it by responding with a 2xx
   (Successful) status code.  Servers are RECOMMENDED to use 201
   (Created) unless otherwise specified.  The response MUST NOT include
   the Upload-Complete header field with the value of false.

   If the request completes successfully but the entire upload is not
   yet complete, as indicated by an Upload-Complete field value of false
   in the request, the server MUST acknowledge it by responding with the
   201 (Created) status code and an Upload-Complete header value set to
   false.

   If the request includes an Upload-Complete field value set to true
   and a valid Content-Length header field, the client attempts to
   upload a fixed-length resource in one request.  In this case, the
   upload's final size is the Content-Length field value and the server
   MUST record it to ensure its consistency.

   The server MAY enforce a maximum size of an upload resource.  This
   limit MAY be equal to the upload's final size, if Upload-Complete: ?1
   and Content-Length are present in the upload creation request, or an
   arbitrary value.  The limit's value or its existence MUST NOT change
   throughout the lifetime of the upload resource.  The server MAY
   indicate such a limit to the client by including the Upload-Limit
   header field in the informational or final response to upload
   creation.  If the client receives an Upload-Limit header field
   indicating that the maximum size is less than the amount of bytes it
   intends to upload to a resource, it SHOULD stop the current upload
   transfer immediately and cancel the upload (Section 7).

   The request content MAY be empty.  If the Upload-Complete header
   field is then set to true, the client intends to upload an empty
   resource representation.  An Upload-Complete header field is set to
   false is also valid.  This can be used to create an upload resource
   URL before transferring data, which can save client or server
   resources.  Since informational responses are optional, this
   technique provides another mechanism to learn the URL, at the cost of
   an additional round-trip before data upload can commence.

   If the server does not receive the entire request content, for
   example because of canceled requests or dropped connections, it
   SHOULD append as much of the request content starting at its
   beginning and without discontinuities as possible.  If the server did
   not append the entire request content, the upload MUST NOT be
   considered complete.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   POST /upload HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Upload-Draft-Interop-Version: 6
   Upload-Complete: ?1
   Content-Length: 100

   [content (100 bytes)]

   HTTP/1.1 104 Upload Resumption Supported
   Upload-Draft-Interop-Version: 6
   Location: https://example.com/upload/b530ce8ff

   HTTP/1.1 104 Upload Resumption Supported
   Upload-Draft-Interop-Version: 6
   Upload-Offset: 50

   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Location: https://example.com/upload/b530ce8ff
   Upload-Offset: 100

   The next example shows an upload creation, where only the first 25
   bytes are transferred.  The server acknowledges the received data and
   that the upload is not complete yet:

   POST /upload HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Upload-Draft-Interop-Version: 6
   Upload-Complete: ?0
   Content-Length: 25

   [partial content (25 bytes)]

   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Location: https://example.com/upload/b530ce8ff
   Upload-Complete: ?0
   Upload-Offset: 25
   Upload-Limit: max-size=1000000000

   If the client received an informational response with the upload URL
   in the Location field value, it MAY automatically attempt upload
   resumption when the connection is terminated unexpectedly, or if a
   5xx status is received.  The client SHOULD NOT automatically retry if
   it receives a 4xx status code.

   File metadata can affect how servers might act on the uploaded file.
   Clients can send representation metadata (see Section 8.3 of [HTTP])
   in the request that starts an upload.  Servers MAY interpret this
   metadata or MAY ignore it.  The Content-Type header field

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   (Section 8.3 of [HTTP]) can be used to indicate the media type of the
   file.  The content coding of the representation is specified using
   the Content-Encoding header field and is retained throughout the
   entire upload.  When resuming an interrupted upload, the same content
   coding is used for appending to the upload, producing a
   representation of the upload resource with one consistent content
   coding.  The Content-Disposition header field ([RFC6266]) can be used
   to transmit a filename; if included, the parameters SHOULD be either
   filename, filename* or boundary.

4.1.  Feature Detection

   If the client has no knowledge of whether the resource supports
   resumable uploads, a resumable request can be used with some
   additional constraints.  In particular, the Upload-Complete field
   value (Section 8.3) MUST NOT be false if the server support is
   unclear.  This allows the upload to function as if it is a regular
   upload.

   Servers SHOULD use the 104 (Upload Resumption Supported)
   informational response to indicate their support for a resumable
   upload request.

   Clients MUST NOT attempt to resume an upload unless they receive 104
   (Upload Resumption Supported) informational response, or have other
   out-of-band methods to determine server support for resumable
   uploads.

4.2.  Draft Version Identification

      *RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section and Upload-Draft-
      Interop-Version from all examples prior to publication of a final
      version of this document.

   The current interop version is 6.

   Client implementations of draft versions of the protocol MUST send a
   header field Upload-Draft-Interop-Version with the interop version as
   its value to its requests.  The Upload-Draft-Interop-Version field
   value is an Integer.

   Server implementations of draft versions of the protocol MUST NOT
   send a 104 (Upload Resumption Supported) informational response when
   the interop version indicated by the Upload-Draft-Interop-Version
   header field in the request is missing or mismatching.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   Server implementations of draft versions of the protocol MUST also
   send a header field Upload-Draft-Interop-Version with the interop
   version as its value to the 104 (Upload Resumption Supported)
   informational response.

   Client implementations of draft versions of the protocol MUST ignore
   a 104 (Upload Resumption Supported) informational response with
   missing or mismatching interop version indicated by the Upload-Draft-
   Interop-Version header field.

   The reason both the client and the server are sending and checking
   the draft version is to ensure that implementations of the final RFC
   will not accidentally interop with draft implementations, as they
   will not check the existence of the Upload-Draft-Interop-Version
   header field.

5.  Offset Retrieval

   If an upload is interrupted, the client MAY attempt to fetch the
   offset of the incomplete upload by sending a HEAD request to the
   upload resource.

   The request MUST NOT include an Upload-Offset or Upload-Complete
   header field.  The server MUST reject requests with either of these
   fields by responding with a 400 (Bad Request) status code.

   If the server considers the upload resource to be active, it MUST
   respond with a 204 (No Content) or 200 (OK) status code.  The
   response MUST include the Upload-Offset header field, with the value
   set to the current resumption offset for the target resource.  The
   response MUST include the Upload-Complete header field; the value is
   set to true only if the upload is complete.  The response MAY include
   the Upload-Limit header field if corresponding limits on the upload
   resource exist.

   An upload is considered complete only if the server completely and
   successfully received a corresponding creation request (Section 4) or
   append request (Section 6) with the Upload-Complete header value set
   to true.

   The client MUST NOT perform offset retrieval while creation
   (Section 4) or append (Section 6) is in progress.

   The offset MUST be accepted by a subsequent append (Section 6).  Due
   to network delay and reordering, the server might still be receiving
   data from an ongoing transfer for the same upload resource, which in
   the client's perspective has failed.  The server MAY terminate any
   transfers for the same upload resource before sending the response by

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   abruptly terminating the HTTP connection or stream.  Alternatively,
   the server MAY keep the ongoing transfer alive but ignore further
   bytes received past the offset.

   The client MUST NOT start more than one append (Section 6) based on
   the resumption offset from a single offset retrieving request.

   In order to prevent HTTP caching, the response SHOULD include a
   Cache-Control header field with the value no-store.

   If the server does not consider the upload resource to be active, it
   MUST respond with a 404 (Not Found) status code.

   The resumption offset can be less than or equal to the number of
   bytes the client has already sent.  The client MAY reject an offset
   which is greater than the number of bytes it has already sent during
   this upload.  The client is expected to handle backtracking of a
   reasonable length.  If the offset is invalid for this upload, or if
   the client cannot backtrack to the offset and reproduce the same
   content it has already sent, the upload MUST be considered a failure.
   The client MAY cancel the upload (Section 7) after rejecting the
   offset.

   The following example shows an offset retrieval request.  The server
   indicates the new offset and that the upload is not complete yet:

   HEAD /upload/b530ce8ff HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Upload-Draft-Interop-Version: 6

   HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
   Upload-Offset: 100
   Upload-Complete: ?0
   Cache-Control: no-store

   The client SHOULD NOT automatically retry if a 4xx (Client Error)
   status code is received.

6.  Upload Append

   Upload appending is used for resuming an existing upload.

   The request MUST use the PATCH method with the application/partial-
   upload media type and MUST be sent to the upload resource.  The
   Upload-Offset field value (Section 8.1) MUST be set to the resumption
   offset.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   If the end of the request content is not the end of the upload, the
   Upload-Complete field value (Section 8.3) MUST be set to false.

   The server SHOULD respect representation metadata received during
   creation (Section 4).  An upload append request continues uploading
   the same representation as used in the upload creation (Section 4)
   and thus uses the same content coding, if one was applied.  For
   example, if the initial upload creation included the Content-
   Encoding: gzip header field, the upload append request resumes the
   transfer of the gzipped data without indicating again that the gzip
   coding is applied.

   If the server does not consider the upload associated with the upload
   resource active, it MUST respond with a 404 (Not Found) status code.

   The client MUST NOT perform multiple upload transfers for the same
   upload resource in parallel.  This helps avoid race conditions, and
   data loss or corruption.  The server is RECOMMENDED to take measures
   to avoid parallel upload transfers: The server MAY terminate any
   creation (Section 4) or append for the same upload URL.  Since the
   client is not allowed to perform multiple transfers in parallel, the
   server can assume that the previous attempt has already failed.
   Therefore, the server MAY abruptly terminate the previous HTTP
   connection or stream.

   If the offset indicated by the Upload-Offset field value does not
   match the offset provided by the immediate previous offset retrieval
   (Section 5), or the end offset of the immediate previous incomplete
   successful transfer, the server MUST respond with a 409 (Conflict)
   status code.  The server MAY use the problem type [PROBLEM] of
   "https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#mismatching-upload-
   offset" in the response; see Section 10.1.

   The server applies the patch document of the application/partial-
   upload media type by appending the request content to the targeted
   upload resource.  If the server does not receive the entire patch
   document, for example because of canceled requests or dropped
   connections, it SHOULD append as much of the patch document starting
   at its beginning and without discontinuities as possible.  Appending
   a continuous section starting at the patch document's beginning
   constitutes a successful PATCH as defined in Section 2 of [RFC5789].
   If the server did not receive and apply the entire patch document,
   the upload MUST NOT be considered complete.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   While the request content is being uploaded, the target resource MAY
   send one or more informational responses with a 104 (Upload
   Resumption Supported) status code to the client.  These informational
   responses MUST NOT contain the Location header field.  They MAY
   include the Upload-Offset header field with the current upload offset
   as the value to inform the client about the upload progress.

   The server MUST send the Upload-Offset header field in the response
   if it considers the upload active, either when the response is a
   success (e.g. 201 (Created)), or when the response is a failure (e.g.
   409 (Conflict)).  The value MUST be equal to the end offset of the
   entire upload, or the begin offset of the next chunk if the upload is
   still incomplete.  The client SHOULD consider the upload failed if
   the status code indicates a success but the offset indicated by the
   Upload-Offset field value does not equal the total of begin offset
   plus the number of bytes uploaded in the request.

   If the upload is already complete, the server MUST NOT modify the
   upload resource and MUST respond with a 400 (Bad Request) status
   code.  The server MAY use the problem type [PROBLEM] of
   "https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#completed-upload" in
   the response; see Section 10.2.

   If the request completes successfully and the entire upload is
   complete, the server MUST acknowledge it by responding with a 2xx
   (Successful) status code.  Servers are RECOMMENDED to use a 201
   (Created) response if not otherwise specified.  The response MUST NOT
   include the Upload-Complete header field with the value set to false.

   If the request completes successfully but the entire upload is not
   yet complete indicated by the Upload-Complete field value set to
   false, the server MUST acknowledge it by responding with a 201
   (Created) status code and the Upload-Complete field value set to
   true.

   If the request includes the Upload-Complete field value set to true
   and a valid Content-Length header field, the client attempts to
   upload the remaining resource in one request.  In this case, the
   upload's final size is the sum of the upload's offset and the
   Content-Length header field.  If the server does not have a record of
   the upload's final size from creation or the previous append, the
   server MUST record the upload's final size to ensure its consistency.
   If the server does have a previous record, that value MUST match the
   upload's final size.  If they do not match, the server MUST reject
   the request with a 400 (Bad Request) status code.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   The request content MAY be empty.  If the Upload-Complete field is
   then set to true, the client wants to complete the upload without
   appending additional data.

   The following example shows an upload append.  The client transfers
   the next 100 bytes at an offset of 100 and does not indicate that the
   upload is then completed.  The server acknowledges the new offset:

   PATCH /upload/b530ce8ff HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Upload-Offset: 100
   Upload-Draft-Interop-Version: 6
   Content-Length: 100
   Content-Type: application/partial-upload

   [content (100 bytes)]

   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Upload-Offset: 200

   The client MAY automatically attempt upload resumption when the
   connection is terminated unexpectedly, or if a 5xx (Server Error)
   status code is received.  The client SHOULD NOT automatically retry
   if a 4xx (Client Error) status code is received.

7.  Upload Cancellation

   If the client wants to terminate the transfer without the ability to
   resume, it can send a DELETE request to the upload resource.  Doing
   so is an indication that the client is no longer interested in
   continuing the upload, and that the server can release any resources
   associated with it.

   The client MUST NOT initiate cancellation without the knowledge of
   server support.

   The request MUST use the DELETE method.  The request MUST NOT include
   an Upload-Offset or Upload-Complete header field.  The server MUST
   reject the request with a Upload-Offset or Upload-Complete header
   field with a 400 (Bad Request) status code.

   If the server successfully deactivates the upload resource, it MUST
   respond with a 204 (No Content) status code.

   The server MAY terminate any in-flight requests to the upload
   resource before sending the response by abruptly terminating their
   HTTP connection(s) or stream(s).

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   If the server does not consider the upload resource to be active, it
   MUST respond with a 404 (Not Found) status code.

   If the server does not support cancellation, it MUST respond with a
   405 (Method Not Allowed) status code.

   The following example shows an upload cancellation:

   DELETE /upload/b530ce8ff HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Upload-Draft-Interop-Version: 6

   HTTP/1.1 204 No Content

8.  Header Fields

8.1.  Upload-Offset

   The Upload-Offset request and response header field indicates the
   resumption offset of corresponding upload, counted in bytes.  The
   Upload-Offset field value is an Integer.

8.2.  Upload-Limit

   The Upload-Limit response header field indicates limits applying the
   upload resource.  The Upload-Limit field value is a Dictionary.  The
   following limits are defined:

   *  The max-size key specifies a maximum size that an upload resource
      is allowed to reach, counted in bytes.  The value is an Integer.

   *  The min-size key specifies a minimum size for a resumable upload,
      counted in bytes.  The server will not create an upload resource
      if the client indicates that the uploaded data is smaller than the
      minimum size.  The value is an Integer.

   *  The max-append-size key specifies a maximum size counted in bytes
      for the request content in a single upload append request
      (Section 6).  The server MAY reject requests exceeding this limit
      and a client SHOULD NOT send larger upload append requests.  The
      value is an Integer.

   *  The min-append-size key specifies a minimum size counted in bytes
      for the request content in a single upload append request
      (Section 6).  The server MAY reject requests below this limit and
      a client SHOULD NOT send smaller upload append requests.  The
      value is an Integer.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   *  The expires key specifies the remaining lifetime of the upload
      resource in seconds counted from the generation of the response by
      the server.  After the resource's lifetime is reached, the server
      MAY make the upload resource inaccessible and a client SHOULD NOT
      attempt to access the upload resource.  The lifetime MAY be
      extended but SHOULD NOT be reduced once the upload resource is
      created.  The value is an Integer.

   When parsing this header field, unrecognized keys MUST be ignored and
   MUST NOT fail the parsing to facilitate the addition of new limits in
   the future.

8.3.  Upload-Complete

   The Upload-Complete request and response header field indicates
   whether the corresponding upload is considered complete.  The Upload-
   Complete field value is a Boolean.

   The Upload-Complete header field MUST only be used if support by the
   resource is known to the client (Section 4.1).

9.  Media Type application/partial-upload

   The application/partial-upload media type describes a contiguous
   block of data that should be uploaded to a resource.  There is no
   minimum block size and the block might be empty.  The start and end
   of the block might align with the start and end of the file that
   should be uploaded, but they are not required to be aligned.

10.  Problem Types

10.1.  Mismatching Offset

   This section defines the "https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-
   types#mismatching-upload-offset" problem type [PROBLEM].  A server
   MAY use this problem type when responding to an upload append request
   (Section 6) to indicate that the Upload-Offset header field in the
   request does not match the upload resource's offset.

   Two problem type extension members are defined: the expected-offset
   and provided-offset members.  A response using this problem type
   SHOULD populate both members, with the value of expected-offset taken
   from the upload resource and the value of provided-offset taken from
   the upload append request.

   The following example shows an example response, where the resource's
   offset was 100, but the client attempted to append at offset 200:

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   HTTP/1.1 409 Conflict
   Content-Type: application/problem+json

   {
     "type":"https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#mismatching-upload-offset",
     "title": "offset from request does not match offset of resource",
     "expected-offset": 100,
     "provided-offset": 200
   }

10.2.  Completed Upload

   This section defines the "https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-
   types#completed-upload" problem type [PROBLEM].  A server MAY use
   this problem type when responding to an upload append request
   (Section 6) to indicate that the upload has already been completed
   and cannot be modified.

   The following example shows an example response:

   HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
   Content-Type: application/problem+json

   {
     "type":"https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#completed-upload",
     "title": "upload is already completed"
   }

11.  Offset values

   The offset of an upload resource is the number of bytes that have
   been appended to the upload resource.  Appended data cannot be
   removed from an upload and, therefore, the upload offset MUST NOT
   decrease.  A server MUST NOT generate responses containing an Upload-
   Offset header field with a value that is smaller than was included in
   previous responses for the same upload resource.  This includes
   informational and final responses for upload creation (Section 4),
   upload appending (Section 6), and offset retrieval (Section 5).

   If a server loses data that has been appended to an upload, it MUST
   consider the upload resource invalid and reject further use of the
   upload resource.  The Upload-Offset header field in responses serves
   as an acknowledgement of the append operation and as a guarantee that
   no retransmission of the data will be necessary.  Client can use this
   guarantee to free resources associated to already uploaded data while
   the upload is still ongoing.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

12.  Redirection

   The 301 (Moved Permanently) and 302 (Found) status codes MUST NOT be
   used in offset retrieval (Section 5) and upload cancellation
   (Section 7) responses.  For other responses, the upload resource MAY
   return a 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code and clients SHOULD use
   new permanent URI for subsequent requests.  If the client receives a
   307 (Temporary Redirect) response to an offset retrieval (Section 5)
   request, it MAY apply the redirection directly in an immediate
   subsequent upload append (Section 6).

13.  Transfer and Content Codings

   A message might have a content coding, indicated by the Content-
   Encoding header field, and/or a transfer coding, indicated by the
   Transfer-Encoding header field (Section 6.1 of [HTTP/1.1]), applied,
   which modify the representation of uploaded data in a message.  For
   correct interoperability, the client and server must share the same
   logic when counting bytes for the upload offset.  From the client's
   perspective, the offset is counted after content coding but before
   transfer coding is applied.  From the server's perspective, the
   offset is counted after the content's transfer coding is reversed but
   before the content coding is reversed.

14.  Integrity Digests

   The integrity of an entire upload or individual upload requests can
   be verifying using digests from [DIGEST-FIELDS].

   If the client knows the integrity digest of the entire data before
   creating an upload resource, it MAY include the Repr-Digest header
   field when creating an upload (Section 4).  Once the upload is
   completed, the server can compute the integrity digest of the
   received upload representation and compare it to the provided digest.
   If the digests don't match the server SHOULD consider the transfer
   failed and not process the uploaded data further.  This way, the
   integrity of the entire uploaded data can be protected.

   If the client knows the integrity digest of the content from an
   upload creation (Section 4) or upload appending (Section 6) request,
   it MAY include the Content-Digest header field in the request.  Once
   the content has been received, the server can compute the integrity
   digest of the received content and compare it to the provided digest.
   If the digests don't match the server SHOULD consider the transfer
   failed and not append the content to the upload resource.  This way,
   the integrity of an individual request can be protected.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

15.  Subsequent Resources

   The server might process the uploaded data and make its results
   available in another resource during or after the upload.  This
   subsequent resource is different from the upload resource created by
   the upload creation request (Section 4).  The subsequent resource
   does not handle the upload process itself, but instead facilitates
   further interaction with the uploaded data.  The server MAY indicate
   the location of this subsequent resource by including the Content-
   Location header field in informational or final responses generated
   while creating (Section 4), appending to (Section 6), or retrieving
   the offset (Section 5) of an upload.  For example, a subsequent
   resource could allow the client to fetch information extracted from
   the uploaded data.

16.  Security Considerations

   The upload resource URL is the identifier used for modifying the
   upload.  Without further protection of this URL, an attacker may
   obtain information about an upload, append data to it, or cancel it.
   To prevent this, the server SHOULD ensure that only authorized
   clients can access the upload resource.  In addition, the upload
   resource URL SHOULD be generated in such a way that makes it hard to
   be guessed by unauthorized clients.

   Some servers or intermediaries provide scanning of content uploaded
   by clients.  Any scanning mechanism that relies on receiving a
   complete file in a single request message can be defeated by
   resumable uploads because content can be split across multiple
   messages.  Servers or intermediaries wishing to perform content
   scanning SHOULD consider how resumable uploads can circumvent
   scanning and take appropriate measures.  Possible strategies include
   waiting for the upload to complete before scanning a full file, or
   disabling resumable uploads.

   Resumable uploads are vulnerable to Slowloris-style attacks
   [SLOWLORIS].  A malicious client may create upload resources and keep
   them alive by regularly sending PATCH requests with no or small
   content to the upload resources.  This could be abused to exhaust
   server resources by creating and holding open uploads indefinitely
   with minimal work.

   Servers SHOULD provide mitigations for Slowloris attacks, such as
   increasing the maximum number of clients the server will allow,
   limiting the number of uploads a single client is allowed to make,
   imposing restrictions on the minimum transfer speed an upload is
   allowed to have, and restricting the length of time an upload
   resource can exist.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

17.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is asked to register the following entries in the "Hypertext
   Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry":

      +=================+===========+==============================+
      | Field Name      | Status    | Reference                    |
      +=================+===========+==============================+
      | Upload-Complete | permanent | Section 8.3 of this document |
      +-----------------+-----------+------------------------------+
      | Upload-Offset   | permanent | Section 8.1 of this document |
      +-----------------+-----------+------------------------------+
      | Upload-Limit    | permanent | Section 8.2 of this document |
      +-----------------+-----------+------------------------------+

                                 Table 1

   IANA is asked to register the following entry in the "HTTP Status
   Codes" registry:

   Value:  104 (suggested value)

   Description:  Upload Resumption Supported

   Specification:  This document

   IANA is asked to register the following entry in the "Media Types"
   registry:

   Type name:  application

   Subtype name:  partial-upload

   Required parameters:  N/A

   Optional parameters:  N/A

   Encoding considerations:  binary

   Security considerations:  see Section 16 of this document

   Interoperability considerations:  N/A

   Published specification:  This document

   Applications that use this media type:  Applications that transfer
      files over unreliable networks or want pause- and resumable
      uploads.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   Fragment identifier considerations:  N/A

   Additional information:

   *  Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A

   *  Magic number(s): N/A

   *  File extension(s): N/A

   *  Macintosh file type code(s): N/A

   *  Windows Clipboard Name: N/A

   Person and email address to contact for further information:  See the
      Authors' Addresses section of this document.

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Restrictions on usage:  N/A

   Author:  See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.

   Change controller:  IETF

   IANA is asked to register the following entry in the "HTTP Problem
   Types" registry:

   Type URI:  https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-
      types#mismatching-upload-offset Title:

      Mismatching Upload Offset Recommended HTTP status code:

      409 Reference:

      This document

   IANA is asked to register the following entry in the "HTTP Problem
   Types" registry:

   Type URI:  https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#completed-
      upload Title:

      Upload Is Completed Recommended HTTP status code:

      400 Reference:

      This document

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

18.  References

18.1.  Normative References

   [DIGEST-FIELDS]
              Polli, R. and L. Pardue, "Digest Fields", RFC 9530,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9530, February 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9530>.

   [HTTP]     Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

   [HTTP/1.1] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP/1.1", STD 99, RFC 9112, DOI 10.17487/RFC9112,
              June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112>.

   [PROBLEM]  Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details
              for HTTP APIs", RFC 9457, DOI 10.17487/RFC9457, July 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5789]  Dusseault, L. and J. Snell, "PATCH Method for HTTP",
              RFC 5789, DOI 10.17487/RFC5789, March 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5789>.

   [RFC6266]  Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field
              in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)", RFC 6266,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6266, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6266>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]
              Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
              HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941>.

18.2.  Informative References

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   [SLOWLORIS]
              "RSnake" Hansen, R., "Welcome to Slowloris - the low
              bandwidth, yet greedy and poisonous HTTP client!", June
              2009, <https://web.archive.org/web/20150315054838/
              http://ha.ckers.org/slowloris/>.

Appendix A.  Informational Response

   The server is allowed to respond to upload creation (Section 4)
   requests with a 104 (Upload Resumption Supported) intermediate
   response as soon as the server has validated the request.  This way,
   the client knows that the server supports resumable uploads before
   the complete response is received.  The benefit is the clients can
   defer starting the actual data transfer until the server indicates
   full support (i.e. resumable are supported, the provided upload URL
   is active etc).

   On the contrary, support for intermediate responses (the 1XX range)
   in existing software is limited or not at all present.  Such software
   includes proxies, firewalls, browsers, and HTTP libraries for clients
   and server.  Therefore, the 104 (Upload Resumption Supported) status
   code is optional and not mandatory for the successful completion of
   an upload.  Otherwise, it might be impossible in some cases to
   implement resumable upload servers using existing software packages.
   Furthermore, as parts of the current internet infrastructure
   currently have limited support for intermediate responses, a
   successful delivery of a 104 (Upload Resumption Supported) from the
   server to the client should be assumed.

   We hope that support for intermediate responses increases in the near
   future, to allow a wider usage of 104 (Upload Resumption Supported).

Appendix B.  Feature Detection

   This specification includes a section about feature detection (it was
   called service discovery in earlier discussions, but this name is
   probably ill-suited).  The idea is to allow resumable uploads to be
   transparently implemented by HTTP clients.  This means that
   application developers just keep using the same API of their HTTP
   library as they have done in the past with traditional, non-resumable
   uploads.  Once the HTTP library gets updated (e.g. because mobile OS
   or browsers start implementing resumable uploads), the HTTP library
   can transparently decide to use resumable uploads without explicit
   configuration by the application developer.  Of course, in order to
   use resumable uploads, the HTTP library needs to know whether the
   server supports resumable uploads.  If no support is detected, the
   HTTP library should use the traditional, non-resumable upload
   technique.  We call this process feature detection.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 25]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   Ideally, the technique used for feature detection meets following
   *criteria* (there might not be one approach which fits all
   requirements, so we have to prioritize them):

   1.  Avoid additional roundtrips by the client, if possible (i.e. an
       additional HTTP request by the client should be avoided).

   2.  Be backwards compatible to HTTP/1.1 and existing network
       infrastructure: This means to avoid using new features in HTTP/2,
       or features which might require changes to existing network
       infrastructure (e.g. nginx or HTTP libraries)

   3.  Conserve the user's privacy (i.e. the feature detection should
       not leak information to other third-parties about which URLs have
       been connected to)

   Following *approaches* have already been considered in the past.  All
   except the last approaches have not been deemed acceptable and are
   therefore not included in the specification.  This follow list is a
   reference for the advantages and disadvantages of some approaches:

   *Include a support statement in the SETTINGS frame.* The SETTINGS
   frame is a HTTP/2 feature and is sent by the server to the client to
   exchange information about the current connection.  The idea was to
   include an additional statement in this frame, so the client can
   detect support for resumable uploads without an additional roundtrip.
   The problem is that this is not compatible with HTTP/1.1.
   Furthermore, the SETTINGS frame is intended for information about the
   current connection (not bound to a request/response) and might not be
   persisted when transmitted through a proxy.

   *Include a support statement in the DNS record.* The client can
   detect support when resolving a domain name.  Of course, DNS is not
   semantically the correct layer.  Also, DNS might not be involved if
   the record is cached or retrieved from a hosts files.

   *Send a HTTP request to ask for support.* This is the easiest
   approach where the client sends an OPTIONS request and uses the
   response to determine if the server indicates support for resumable
   uploads.  An alternative is that the client sends the request to a
   well-known URL to obtain this response, e.g. /.well-known/resumable-
   uploads.  Of course, while being fully backwards-compatible, it
   requires an additional roundtrip.

   *Include a support statement in previous responses.* In many cases,
   the file upload is not the first time that the client connects to the
   server.  Often additional requests are sent beforehand for
   authentication, data retrieval etc.  The responses for those requests

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 26]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

   can also include a header field which indicates support for resumable
   uploads.  There are two options: - Use the standardized Alt-Svc
   response header field.  However, it has been indicated to us that
   this header field might be reworked in the future and could also be
   semantically different from our intended usage. - Use a new response
   header field Resumable-Uploads: https://example.org/files/* to
   indicate under which endpoints support for resumable uploads is
   available.

   *Send a 104 intermediate response to indicate support.* The clients
   normally starts a traditional upload and includes a header field
   indicate that it supports resumable uploads (e.g.  Upload-Offset: 0).
   If the server also supports resumable uploads, it will immediately
   respond with a 104 intermediate response to indicate its support,
   before further processing the request.  This way the client is
   informed during the upload whether it can resume from possible
   connection errors or not.  While an additional roundtrip is avoided,
   the problem with that solution is that many HTTP server libraries do
   not support sending custom 1XX responses and that some proxies may
   not be able to handle new 1XX status codes correctly.

   *Send a 103 Early Hint response to indicate support.* This approach
   is the similar to the above one, with one exception: Instead of a new
   104 (Upload Resumption Supported) status code, the existing 103
   (Early Hint) status code is used in the intermediate response.  The
   103 code would then be accompanied by a header field indicating
   support for resumable uploads (e.g.  Resumable-Uploads: 1).  It is
   unclear whether the Early Hints code is appropriate for that, as it
   is currently only used to indicate resources for prefetching them.

Appendix C.  Upload Metadata

   When an upload is created (Section 4), the Content-Type and Content-
   Disposition header fields are allowed to be included.  They are
   intended to be a standardized way of communicating the file name and
   file type, if available.  However, this is not without controversy.
   Some argue that since these header fields are already defined in
   other specifications, it is not necessary to include them here again.
   Furthermore, the Content-Disposition header field's format is not
   clearly enough defined.  For example, it is left open which
   disposition value should be used in the header field.  There needs to
   be more discussion whether this approach is suited or not.

   However, from experience with the tus project, users are often asking
   for a way to communicate the file name and file type.  Therefore, we
   believe it is help to explicitly include an approach for doing so.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 27]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

Appendix D.  FAQ

   *  *Are multipart requests supported?* Yes, requests whose content is
      encoded using the multipart/form-data are implicitly supported.
      The entire encoded content can be considered as a single file,
      which is then uploaded using the resumable protocol.  The server,
      of course, must store the delimiter ("boundary") separating each
      part and must be able to parse the multipart format once the
      upload is completed.

Acknowledgments

   This document is based on an Internet-Draft specification written by
   Jiten Mehta, Stefan Matsson, and the authors of this document.

   The tus v1 protocol (https://tus.io/) is a specification for a
   resumable file upload protocol over HTTP.  It inspired the early
   design of this protocol.  Members of the tus community helped
   significantly in the process of bringing this work to the IETF.

   The authors would like to thank Mark Nottingham for substantive
   contributions to the text.

Changes

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Since draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-03

   *  Add note about Content-Location for referring to subsequent
      resources.

   *  Require application/partial-upload for appending to uploads.

   *  Explain handling of content and transfer codings.

   *  Add problem types for mismatching offsets and completed uploads.

   *  Clarify that completed uploads must not be appended to.

   *  Describe interaction with Digest Fields from RFC9530.

   *  Require that upload offset does not decrease over time.

   *  Add Upload-Limit header field.

   *  Increase the draft interop version.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 28]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

Since draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-02

   *  Add upload progress notifications via informational responses.

   *  Add security consideration regarding request filtering.

   *  Explain the use of empty requests for creation uploads and
      appending.

   *  Extend security consideration to include resource exhaustion
      attacks.

   *  Allow 200 status codes for offset retrieval.

   *  Increase the draft interop version.

Since draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-01

   *  Replace Upload-Incomplete header with Upload-Complete.

   *  Replace terminology about procedures with HTTP resources.

   *  Increase the draft interop version.

Since draft-ietf-httpbis-resumable-upload-00

   *  Remove Upload-Token and instead use Server-generated upload URL
      for upload identification.

   *  Require the Upload-Incomplete header field in Upload Creation
      Procedure.

   *  Increase the draft interop version.

Since draft-tus-httpbis-resumable-uploads-protocol-02

   None

Since draft-tus-httpbis-resumable-uploads-protocol-01

   *  Clarifying backtracking and preventing skipping ahead during the
      Offset Receiving Procedure.

   *  Clients auto-retry 404 is no longer allowed.

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 29]
Internet-Draft              Resumable Uploads                  July 2024

Since draft-tus-httpbis-resumable-uploads-protocol-00

   *  Split the Upload Transfer Procedure into the Upload Creation
      Procedure and the Upload Appending Procedure.

Authors' Addresses

   Marius Kleidl (editor)
   Transloadit
   Email: marius@transloadit.com

   Guoye Zhang (editor)
   Apple Inc.
   Email: guoye_zhang@apple.com

   Lucas Pardue (editor)
   Cloudflare
   Email: lucas@lucaspardue.com

Kleidl, et al.           Expires 9 January 2025                [Page 30]