Individual Submission L. Dusseault
Internet-Draft OSAF
Expires: October 22, 2004 April 23, 2004
Partial Document Changes (PATCH Method) for HTTP
draft-dusseault-http-patch-01
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Several applications extending HTTP require a feature to do partial
resource modification. Existing HTTP functionality only allows a
complete replacement of a document. This proposal adds a new HTTP
method, PATCH, to modify an existing HTTP resource.
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
1. Introduction
Three use cases initially motivated this proposal
1. WebDAV [2] is used by authoring applications to store and share
files on the internet. For example, Adobe Photoshop has a
Workgroup feature allowing the user to browse a repository and
save the file. Currently, Photoshop only publishes the file to
the repository rarely, because Photoshop files are typically
large and upload is slow. Worse, large uploads are more likely
to be interrupted. Although HTTP [3] provides byte range
downloads, it cannot provide this simple a mechanism for uploads.
2. DeltaV extends WebDAV to do versioning. In versioning
environments, a large number of files may be updated with very
small changes. For example, a programmer may change the name of
a function used in a hundred source files. Versioning
applications typically send deltas or 'diffs' to the server to
modify these files, however DetaV does not yet have this
functionality.
3. The SIMPLE WG is devising a way to store and modify configuration
information. The biggest feature missing from HTTP is the ability
to modify information in a very lightweight manner, so that the
client that decides to change its presence state from "free" to
"busy" doesn't have to upload a large document. This can be
accomplished through changes to a HTTP resource as well.
Other working groups (like netconf) are also considering manipulating
large files using HTTP GET and PUT. Sometimes the files aren't that
large but the device is small or bandwidth is limited, as when phones
need to add a new contact to an address book file. This feature would
allow much more efficient changes to files.
This specification defines a new HTTP 1.1 method for patches. A new
method is necessary to improve interoperability and prevent errors.
The PUT method is already defined to overwrite a resource with a
complete new body, and MUST NOT be reused to do partial changes.
Otherwise, proxies and caches and even clients and servers may get
confused as to the result of the operation.
Note that byte ranges are already used in HTTP to do partial
downloads (GET method). However, they are not defined for uploads,
and there are some missing pieces for uploads. For example, the HTTP
specification has no way for the server to send errors if the byte
range in a PUT is invalid. Byte ranges (or some other kind of range)
could be made to work in this specification but a more flexible
mechanism (one that could also encompass XML diffs) was desired, as
well as a method that would not confuse caching proxies. Reliable
and tested patch algorithms already exist as defined MIME [1]
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
document types, and this specification takes advantage of that
existing work.
Other delta encodings are defined for HTTP in RFC 3229 [4]. That
standard defines delta encodings for cache updates, not for user
write operations. It does mean that servers can reuse delta format
algorithms to support both that standard and this proposal. That
standard does not use MIME types to identify the delta algorithm, but
the mapping is trivial.
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
2. Mechanisms
2.1 PATCH Method
The PATCH method requests that the request body (a patch document) be
applied to the resource named in the Request-URI. The resource named
in the Request-URI MUST already exist (the server MUST NOT create a
new resource with the body of the PATCH method). The target
resource's content type MUST be one to which the patch format
applies. See error handling section for details on status codes and
possible error conditions.
PATCH request bodies MUST NOT be cached. A cache MAY mark the
resource identified in the Request-URI as stale if it sees a
successful response to the PATCH request.
The PATCH request MUST have a body. It MUST include the Content-Type
header with a value indicating what the body type is. It MUST be a
format that has the semantics of defining a change to an existing
document (such as gdiff).
The PATCH request is subject to access control, which in turn may
require authentication. The PATCH request SHOULD be subject to the
same access control permissions as the PUT request.
The PATCH request MUST only be used in a context which ensures that
only one user may apply a patch at a time. There are two reliable
ways to do this. The first way is to find out the resource ETag at
the time the body is downloaded, and use that Etag in the PATCH
request to make sure the resource is still unchanged. The second way
to use WebDAV LOCK/UNLOCK to reserve the file (first LOCK, then GET,
then PATCH, then UNLOCK). PATCH collisions from multiple users are
more dangerous than PUT collisions, because a PATCH that is not
operating from a known base point may corrupt the resource.
Therefore, if neither strong ETags nor LOCKS are available from the
server, the client MUST use If-Last-Modified as a less-reliable
safeguard.
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
Simple PATCH example
PATCH /file.txt HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
Content-Type: application/gdiff
If-Match: "e0023aa4e"
Content-Length: 100
0xd1, 0xff, 0xd1, 0xff
4
249,0,0,2
2,'X','Y
249,0,2,2
249,0,1,4
0
Figure 1
This example illustrates use of the platform-portable 'gdiff'
algorithm as one possible patch format. In this case the resource is
a text file.
2.2 PATCH Response
2.2.1 Success Response
The basic success response code for PATCH is 204 No Content. For this
new method, 200 OK is not used because 200 OK implies a body in the
response, and 201 Created is not used because the resource must
already exist.
The server SHOULD provide a MD5 hash of the content after the delta
was applied. This allows the client to verify the success of the
operation. The PATCH method obviously MUST cause the ETag to change.
So, if the server supports ETags, the server MUST return a strong
ETag for use in future client operations. If the server does not
support strong ETags, then the server MUST return the Last-Modified
header instead.
Successful PATCH response
HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
Content-MD5: Q2hlY2sgSW50ZWdyaXR5IQ==
ETag: "e0023aa4e"
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
2.2.2 Error handling
This proposal uses the same mechanism as DeltaV to add much-needed
info to base HTTP error responses. Existing HTTP status codes are
not infinitely extensible but XML elements and namespaces are more
so, and it's simple to treat the HTTP error code as a rough category
and put detailed error codes in the body.
The PATCH method can return the following errors. Please note that
the notation "DAV:foobar" is merely short form for expressing "the
'foobar' element in the 'DAV:' namespace". It has meaning only in
English, not on the wire. Also note that the string error codes are
not meant to be displayed but instead as machine parsable known error
codes (thus there is no language code).
DAV:delta-format-unsupported: Used with 501 Not Supported status
code. Returned by the server when it doesn't support the delta
format chosen by the client.
DAV:delta-format-forbidden-on-resource: Used with 403 Forbidden when
the delta format chosen by the client is supported by the server
but not allowed on this kind of resource.
DAV:delta-format-badly-formatted: Used with 400 Bad Request when the
server finds that the delta document provided by the client was
badly formatted and non-compliant.
DAV:delta-empty-resource: Used with 409 Conflict when the resource
addressed in the Request-URI exists but is empty, and the delta
format cannot be applied to an empty document. Note that some
delta formats may be applied to an empty document, in which case
this error wouldn't be used.
DAV:patch-result-invalid: Used with 409 Conflict when the resource
could be patched but the result of the patch would be a resource
which is invalid. This could mean, for example, that a XML
resource would become an invalid XML file if the patch specified
that a close element text line should be deleted.
"404 Not Found" is used with no body/error element when the URL in by
the Request-URI does not map to a resource.
2.3 Delta Formats
A set of changes for a resource is itself a document, called a change
document or delta. Every change document format must be a registered
MIME type. Servers advertise supported delta mechanisms by
advertising these MIME types, and clients specify which one they're
using by including the MIME type in the Content-Type header.
This table outlines the delta format support requirements for a
server supporting this proposal.
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
Set of defined delta formats
Format Standard MIME type/ Requirements
GDIFF [5] application/gdiff
- MUST support for all document types except XML.
- MAY support for XML documents.
XCAP [6] text/xcap+xml
- MAY support for XML documents.
Note that support for all of XCAP is not required in order to do XML
diffs. However, XCAP is the only group defining an XML diff MIME
document type at this time. A more generic XML diff format could
easily be used as long as it had a unique MIME type.
2.4 Advertising Support in OPTIONS
The server advertises its support for the features described here
with OPTIONS response headers. The "Allow" OPTIONS header is already
defined in HTTP 1.1 to contain all the allowable methods on the
addressed resource, so it's natural to add PATCH.
Clients also need to know whether the server supports special diff
formats, so this document introduces a new OPTIONS response header
"Accept-Patch". "Accept-Patch" MUST appear in the OPTIONS response
for any resource where the PATCH method is shown as an allowed
method.
OPTIONS * presents a bit of a special case, as it does not address a
resource, and does not always show all the server's features. In
responses to OPTIONS *, a server supporting this specification SHOULD
include the PATCH method in the "Allow" header and SHOULD show the
union of all supported diff methods in the "Accept-Patch" header.
Accept-Patch = "Accept-Patch" ":" #media-type
Example: OPTIONS * request and response indicating Patch support
[request]
OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
[response]
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, POST, OPTIONS, HEAD, TRACE, DELETE, PATCH
Accept-Patch: application/gdiff, text/xcap+xml
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
Example: OPTIONS request and response for specific resource
[request]
OPTIONS /example/buddies.xml HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
[response]
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, POST, OPTIONS, HEAD, TRACE, DELETE, PATCH
Accept-Patch: text/xcap+xml
3 References
[1] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November
1996.
[2] Goland, Y., Whitehead, E., Faizi, A., Carter, S. and D. Jensen,
"HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring -- WEBDAV", RFC 2518,
February 1999.
[3] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[4] Mogul, J., Krishnamurthy, B., Douglis, F., Feldmann, A., Goland,
Y., van Hoff, A. and D. Hellerstein, "Delta encoding in HTTP",
RFC 3229, January 2002.
[5] van Hoff, A. and J. Payne, "Generic Diff Format Specification",
August 1997.
[6] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", October 2003.
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
Author's Address
Lisa Dusseault
Open Source Application Foundation
2064 Edgewood Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
US
EMail: lisa@osafoundation.org
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Adam Roach, Chris Sharp, Julian Reschke, Geoff Clemm and
Scott Lawrence for review and advice.
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
Appendix B. Changes
B.1 Changes from -00
OPTIONS support: removed "Patch" header definition and used Allow and
new "Accept-Patch" headers instead.
Supported delta formats: removed vcdiff and diffe as these do not
have defined MIME types and did not seem to be strongly desired.
PATCH method definition: Clarified cache behavior.
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HTTP PATCH April 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Dusseault Expires October 22, 2004 [Page 13]
