A Registry for HTTP Header Fields
draft-nottingham-httpbis-header-registry-00

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00

Network Working Group                                      M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft                                          November 5, 2018
Updates: 3864, 7231 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 9, 2019

                   A Registry for HTTP Header Fields
              draft-nottingham-httpbis-header-registry-00

Abstract

   This document defines a separate IANA registry for HTTP header
   fields, and establishes the procedures for its operation.

Note to Readers

   The issues list for this draft can be found at
   https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/httpbis-header-registry [1].

   The most recent (often, unpublished) draft is at
   https://mnot.github.io/I-D/httpbis-header-registry/ [2].

   Recent changes are listed at https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-
   pages/httpbis-header-registry [3].

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 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 May 9, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Nottingham                 Expires May 9, 2019                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            HTTP Header Registry             November 2018

   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 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  The HTTP Header Field Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requesting Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Registry Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   [RFC3864] established common IANA registries for header fields from a
   variety of protocols.  Experience has shown that having a combined
   registry has few benefits, and creates a number of issues, including:

   o  Difficulty in evolving the registration process (without
      coordination with other protocols),

   o  Registry user confusion, due to the large number of header fields
      registered,

   o  Using one expert to review all header field registrations is
      onerous to that individual,

   o  Lack of HTTP community involvement / oversight in reviews.

   While these issues could be mitigated by a RFC3864bis, it is more
   straightforward to separate the HTTP registrations out into a
   separate registry; since there is only slight syntactic similarity
   between header fields between protocols (and often, the mismatches
   create confusion), and little semantic overlap, this seems like the
   best path forward.

Nottingham                 Expires May 9, 2019                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            HTTP Header Registry             November 2018

   Therefore, this document establishes a new HTTP Header Field
   Registry, defines its procedures, and guides the transition of
   existing values to it.  Doing so effectively removes HTTP header
   fields from the scope of [RFC3864] and the registries it defines, and
   updates [RFC7231] Section 8.3 with a new process for managing them.

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].