Prefer Header for HTTP
draft-snell-http-prefer-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-05-27
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-05-23
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-04-16
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2014-03-28
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2014-02-12
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2013-01-22
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2013-01-22
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2013-01-15
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2013-01-09
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-01-09
|
18 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-01-08
|
18 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-01-08
|
18 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-01-08
|
18 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-01-08
|
18 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-01-07
|
18 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2013-01-07
|
18 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-01-07
|
18 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-01-07
|
18 | James Snell | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-18.txt |
2013-01-03
|
17 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised ID Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-11-05
|
17 | James Snell | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-17.txt |
2012-11-01
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2012-10-26
|
16 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2012-10-25
|
16 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-10-25
|
16 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-10-25
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2012-10-25
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2012-10-25
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-10-25
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection by Cindy Morgan |
2012-10-25
|
16 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-10-24
|
16 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-10-24
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-10-24
|
16 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-10-24
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] -16 addressed my other comments, (thanks), not sure if these were missed or not but don't think I saw any response - Is … [Ballot comment] -16 addressed my other comments, (thanks), not sure if these were missed or not but don't think I saw any response - Is "relation types" correct in section 4, 1st para? - 4.3, where is delta-seconds defined? |
2012-10-24
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot comment text updated for Stephen Farrell |
2012-10-24
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-16.txt |
2012-10-24
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-10-23
|
15 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot comment] Given that the document points to the similarity between Prefer and Expect, consider being explicit about not using tokens defined for Prefer in … [Ballot comment] Given that the document points to the similarity between Prefer and Expect, consider being explicit about not using tokens defined for Prefer in Expect header fields and vice-versa. You might also provide guidance about whether to use the same token in both if you are defining a behavior that would make sense to use in both places. Did you consider whether a client would ever need to say "I prefer thing X most, Y if you won't do that, and Z if you wont't do that"? Does anything here prevent adding something later that would capture that semantic? (I don't think so, parameters could be added to group preferences and give them weights for instance). Why isn't the SHOULD in "The Prefer header field is end-to-end and SHOULD be forwarded unless" not a MUST? Do you want to say anything about the order of parameters on a given header field value being significant or not? (Do you inherit a not from the base spec?) |
2012-10-23
|
15 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-10-23
|
15 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-10-23
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - Is "relation types" correct in section 4, 1st para? - 4.3, where is delta-seconds defined? - 4.3, I'm surprised that the smallest … [Ballot comment] - Is "relation types" correct in section 4, 1st para? - 4.3, where is delta-seconds defined? - 4.3, I'm surprised that the smallest wait time is 1s. - 4.4, if strict and lenient are mutually-exclusive then is there a missing statement that a request MUST NOT contain both, or do you fall back to the earlier rule that the server assumes the client meant the first one seen? - section 6 implies (but doesn't quite require) that newly registered preferences ought say something about security, but you don't give the expert any guidance on that, (e.g. to say that there should be security considerations - there will be in an RFC but who knows about other specifications) and you don't say anything about the initial registrations. I'm not sure what's right here but would you expect the expert to say "no" if someone wanted to register a preference called "cc" with a URI parameter and meaning "please send there"? If so, wouldn't it be good to give some guidance to the expert that it'd be ok to say no if the registration would open up serious new vulnerabilities? |
2012-10-23
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-10-22
|
15 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-10-22
|
15 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-10-22
|
15 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-10-21
|
15 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] 2 Implementations MUST support multiple instances of the Prefer header field in a single message, as well as multiple preference tokens … [Ballot discuss] 2 Implementations MUST support multiple instances of the Prefer header field in a single message, as well as multiple preference tokens separated by commas in a single Prefer header field. The following examples are equivalent: I think this is worded a bit oddly. The requirement is that the multiple instances be treated as identical to a single instance with multiple comma-separated token/value pairs. That's defining the semantics, not a particular behavior requiring a MUST. Now, maybe the intention was to say that receiving implementations MUST *honor* multiple instances of the Prefer header field, but that's incompatible with the earlier comment that a server is allowed to ignore any preference it feels like. So my recommendation is simply to rewrite this as: A client MAY use multiple instances of the Prefer header field in a single message, or it MAY use a single Prefer header field with multiple comma-separated preference tokens. If multiple Prefer header fields are used, it is equivalent to a single Prefer header filed with the comma-separated concatentation of all of the tokens. For example, the following are equivalent: 4 Registered preference names MUST conform to the token rule, and MUST be compared character-by-character in a case-insensitive fashion. This is not a restriction for *registered* preference names; this is a restriction for *any* preference name. I think this belongs in section 2 (and probably would be fine without the MUSTs). If you are putting it here to give guidelines to the Expert Reviewer, put a back pointer to section 2 by saying, "The Expert Reviewer shall ensure that the registered preference name conforms to the token rule in section 2 and that it is not identical to any other registered preference name (as compared in a case-insensitive fashion). They SHOULD be appropriate to the specificity of the preference; i.e., if the semantics are highly specific to a particular application, the name should reflect that, so that more general names remain available for less specific use. That SHOULD is a noop, unless as above this is simply instructions for the Expert Reviewer, in which case the SHOULD is unnecessary. Registered preferences MUST NOT constrain servers, clients or any intermediaries involved in the exchange and processing of a request to any behavior required for successful processing. The use and application of a preference within a given request MUST be optional on the part of all participants. I don't really understand what the first sentence means, certainly not in the context of the MUST NOT. Is this simply saying, "Choose a name such that generic names are reserved for generic operations"? The second sentence belongs in section 2. 4.2 The "return-minimal" and "return-representation" preferences are mutually exclusive directives. A request that contains both preferences can be treated as though neither were specified. This worries me a bit. There are clear instructions for what a server is supposed to do if it sees duplicate preferences: Choose the first one. But here, both occurring means to honor neither of them. I don't get that. If you have mutually exclusive preferences, it seems to me they should simply be values of a single preference. In this case, why not have the preference be: Prefer: return-amount=representation Prefer: return-amount=minimal Then you don't get into questions of anybody having to figure out what are mutually exclusive semantics. 4.4 The "strict" and "lenient" preferences are mutually-exclusive directives Same as above. How about: Prefer: handling=strict Prefer: handling=lenient |
2012-10-21
|
15 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-10-21
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-10-19
|
15 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-10-18
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2012-10-16
|
15 | Martin Thomson | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Martin Thomson. |
2012-10-16
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-10-16
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-10-12
|
15 | Barry Leiba | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-10-12
|
15 | Barry Leiba | Ballot has been issued |
2012-10-12
|
15 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-10-12
|
15 | Barry Leiba | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-10-12
|
15 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-10-12
|
15 | James Snell | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-15.txt |
2012-10-12
|
14 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-10-04
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-10-25 |
2012-10-02
|
14 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-snell-http-prefer-14 and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the IANA actions requested in this document. IANA understands that, upon … IANA has reviewed draft-snell-http-prefer-14 and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the IANA actions requested in this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Permanent Message Header Field Names registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html a new header is to be registered as follows: Header Field Name: Prefer Protocol: http Status: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Currently the Permanent Message Header Field Names registry is maintained through expert review as defined in RFC 5226. IANA Question -> has the document been reviewed by the Permanent Message Header Field Names registry expert? Second, IANA is to create a new sub-registry in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Parameters registry at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-parameters.xml The new registry is to be called "HTTP Preferences" New registrations will use the Specification Required and Expert Review policies as defined in RFC 5226. Registration requests consist of the completed registration template in [ RFC-to-be], typically published in an RFC or Open Standard as defined by RFC 2026. The Designated Expert can approve registration once they are satisfied that a specification will be published. There are initial registrations in the new HTTP Preferences sub-registry as follows: Preference: return-asynch Description: Indicates that the client prefers the server to respond asynchronously to a request. Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Preference: return-minimal Description: Indicates that the client prefers the server return a minimal response to a request. Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Preference: return-representation Description: Indicates that the client prefers the server to include a representation of the current state of the resource in response to a request. Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Preference: wait Description: Indicates an upper bound to the lenght of time the client is willing to wait for a response, after which the request can be aborted. Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Preference: strict Description: Indicates that the client wishes the server to apply strict validation and error handling to the processing of a request. Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Preference: lenient Description: Indicates that the client wishes the server to apply lenient validation and error handling to the processing of a request. Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed by IANA upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. |
2012-09-21
|
14 | Martin Thomson | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Martin Thomson. |
2012-09-20
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-09-20
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-09-20
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2012-09-20
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Prefer Header for HTTP) to Proposed Standard … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Prefer Header for HTTP) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Prefer Header for HTTP' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-10-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification defines an HTTP header field that can be used by a client to request that certain behaviors be implemented by a server while processing a request. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snell-http-prefer/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snell-http-prefer/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Last call was requested |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Barry Leiba | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Publication Requested from Dead |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-09-14
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Document shepherd writeup (Mark Nottingham): (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this … Document shepherd writeup (Mark Nottingham): (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. This is appropriate for this document, although Informational would also be workable. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This specification defines an HTTP header field that can be used by a client to request that certain behaviors be implemented by a server while processing a request. Working Group Summary: This is not a Working Group document, but it has been discussed extensively on the HTTPbis WG mailing list, and has had an informal Last Call there. There seems to be broad consensus to publish it, and no significant issues remain. Document Quality: Implementation is forthcoming in Apache Abdera, and this specification is referenced by Microsoft's OData protocol. Other non-public implementations have been discussed but not disclosed. It has gone under substantial review and change based upon that review. It is expected that this mechanism will be used mostly by "API" applications of HTTP, rather than in Web browsers, so HTTP implementations per se don't need to support it specifically. Personnel: Mark Nottingham is the Document Shepherd. Barry Leiba is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I went through this form, and rolled my eyes a bit when I read this question. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The most relevant review would probably be security; it hasn't been done specifically, but the Security Considerations seems adequate to this reviewer. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? It's been discussed by a number of active Working Group members (on the order of 13 people, not including the author). (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDNits identified minor issues which were discussed with the responsible AD and disposed of. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are references to the HTTPbis documents, which should be entering LC soon. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document registers a new HTTP header, as per RFC3864, using the RFC publication process; therefore, it will be reviewed as the document moves forward. It also creates a new registry of "HTTP Preferences". (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The "HTTP Preferences" registry requires Expert Review, through its use of Specification Required. The designated experts should be familiar with the HTTP protocol and its use. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The Shepherd has hand-checked the (minimal) BNF in the document. |
2012-08-23
|
14 | James Snell | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-14.txt |
2012-08-23
|
14 | James Snell | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-14.txt |
2012-08-23
|
14 | James Snell | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-14.txt |
2012-08-23
|
14 | James Snell | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-14.txt |
2012-08-20
|
13 | James Snell | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-13.txt |
2012-08-11
|
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
2012-08-11
|
12 | (System) | State changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2012-06-08
|
12 | Barry Leiba | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba from Peter Saint-Andre |
2012-03-13
|
12 | Peter Saint-Andre | Assigned to Applications Area |
2012-03-13
|
12 | Peter Saint-Andre | Note added 'Mark Nottingham is the document shepherd.' |
2012-03-13
|
12 | Peter Saint-Andre | State Change Notice email list changed to jasnell@gmail.com, mnot@mnot.net, draft-snell-http-prefer@tools.ietf.org |
2012-03-13
|
12 | Peter Saint-Andre | Stream changed to IETF |
2012-03-13
|
12 | Peter Saint-Andre | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2012-03-13
|
12 | Peter Saint-Andre | IESG process started in state AD is watching |
2012-02-08
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-12.txt |
2012-01-31
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-11.txt |
2011-12-19
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-10.txt |
2011-12-19
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-09.txt |
2011-12-19
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-08.txt |
2011-12-08
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-07.txt |
2011-12-07
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-06.txt |
2011-12-06
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-05.txt |
2011-10-25
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-04.txt |
2011-09-29
|
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-03-28
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-03.txt |
2008-02-15
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-02.txt |
2007-12-08
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-01.txt |
2007-09-18
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-snell-http-prefer-00.txt |