HTTP M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft October 31, 2019
Obsoletes: 3205 (if approved)
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: May 3, 2020
Building Protocols with HTTP
draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-09
Abstract
HTTP is often used as a substrate for other application protocols
(a.k.a. HTTP-based APIs). This document specifies best practices
for writing specifications that use HTTP to define new application
protocols, especially when they are defined for diverse
implementation and broad deployment (e.g., in standards efforts).
Note to Readers
Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group
mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ [1].
Working Group information can be found at http://httpwg.github.io/
[2]; source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/bcp56bis [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 3, 2020.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Is HTTP Being Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Non-HTTP Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. What's Important About HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Generic Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Rich Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Best Practices for Specifying the Use of HTTP . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Specifying the Use of HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Specifying Server Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Specifying Client Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Specifying URLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.1. Discovering an Application's URLs . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.2. Considering URI Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.3. Transport Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Using HTTP Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5.1. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5.2. OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.6. Using HTTP Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.6.1. Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.7. Specifying HTTP Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.8. Defining Message Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.9. Leveraging HTTP Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.9.1. Freshness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.9.2. Stale Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.9.3. Caching and Application Semantics . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.9.4. Varying Content Based Upon the Request . . . . . . . 21
4.10. Handling Application State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.11. Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.12. Co-Existing with Web Browsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
4.13. Maintaining Application Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.14. Using Server Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.15. Allowing Versioning and Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 3205 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction
HTTP [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] is often used as a substrate for
applications other than Web browsing; this is sometimes referred to
as creating "HTTP-based APIs", "REST APIs" or just "HTTP APIs". This
is done for a variety of reasons, including:
o familiarity by implementers, specifiers, administrators,
developers and users,
o availability of a variety of client, server and proxy
implementations,
o ease of use,
o availability of Web browsers,
o reuse of existing mechanisms like authentication and encryption,
o presence of HTTP servers and clients in target deployments, and
o its ability to traverse firewalls.
These protocols are often ad hoc; they are intended for only
deployment by one or a few servers, and consumption by a limited set
of clients. As a result, a body of practices and tools has arisen
around defining HTTP-based APIs that favours these conditions.
However, when such an application has multiple, separate
implementations, is deployed on multiple uncoordinated servers, and
is consumed by diverse clients - as is often the case for HTTP APIs
defined by standards efforts - tools and practices intended for
limited deployment can become unsuitable.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
This is largely because implementations (both client and server) will
implement and evolve at different paces. As a result, such an HTTP-
based API will need to more carefully consider how extensibility of
the service will be handled and how different deployment requirements
will be accommodated.
More generally, application protocols using HTTP face a number of
design decisions, including:
o Should it define a new URI scheme? Use new ports?
o Should it use standard HTTP methods and status codes, or define
new ones?
o How can the maximum value be extracted from the use of HTTP?
o How does it coexist with other uses of HTTP - especially Web
browsing?
o How can interoperability problems and "protocol dead ends" be
avoided?
This document contains best current practices for the specification
of such applications. Section 2 defines when it applies; Section 3
surveys the properties of HTTP that are important to preserve, and
Section 4 conveys best practices for the specifying them.
It is written primarily to guide IETF efforts to define application
protocols using HTTP for deployment on the Internet, but might be
applicable in other situations. Note that the requirements herein do
not necessarily apply to the development of generic HTTP extensions.
1.1. Notational Conventions
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.
2. Is HTTP Being Used?
Different applications have different goals when using HTTP. The
requirements in this document apply when a specification defines an
application that:
o uses the transport port 80 or 443, or
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
o uses the URI scheme "http" or "https", or
o uses an ALPN protocol ID [RFC7301] that generically identifies
HTTP (e.g., "http/1.1", "h2", "h2c"), or
o updates or modifies the IANA registries defined for HTTP.
Additionally, when a specification is using HTTP, all of the
requirements of the HTTP protocol suite are in force (including but
not limited to [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics],
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache], [I-D.ietf-httpbis-messaging], and
[RFC7540]).
Note that this document is intended to apply to applications, not
generic extensions to HTTP, which follow the requirements in the
relevant specification. Furthermore, it is intended for applications
defined by IETF specifications, although other standards
organisations are encouraged to adhere to its requirements.
2.1. Non-HTTP Protocols
A specification might not use HTTP according to the criteria above
and still define an application that relies upon HTTP in some manner.
For example, an application might wish to avoid re-specifying parts
of the message format, but change other aspects of the protocol's
operation; or, it might want to use a different set of methods.
Doing so brings more freedom to modify protocol operations, but loses
at least a portion of the benefits outlined above, as most HTTP
implementations won't be easily adaptable to these changes, and as
the protocol diverges from HTTP, the benefit of mindshare will be
lost.
Such specifications MUST NOT use HTTP's URI schemes, transport ports,
ALPN protocol IDs or IANA registries; rather, they are encouraged to
establish their own.
3. What's Important About HTTP
This section examines the facets of the protocol that are important
to consider when using HTTP to define an application protocol.
3.1. Generic Semantics
Much of the value of HTTP is in its generic semantics - that is, the
protocol elements defined by HTTP are potentially applicable to every
resource, not specific to a particular context. Application-specific
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
semantics are best expressed in the payload; often in the body, but
also in header fields.
This generic/application-specific split allows a HTTP message to be
handled by software (e.g., HTTP servers, intermediaries, client
implementations, and caches) without understanding the specific
application. It also allows people to leverage their knowledge of
HTTP semantics without special-casing them for a particular
application.
Therefore, applications that use HTTP MUST NOT re-define, refine or
overlay the semantics of generic protocol elements such as methods,
status codes or existing header fields. Instead, they should focus
their specifications on protocol elements that are specific to that
application; namely their HTTP resources.
For example, when writing a specification, it's often tempting to
specify exactly how HTTP is to be implemented, supported and used.
However, this can easily lead to an unintended profile of HTTP's
behaviour. For example, it's common to see specifications with
language like this:
A `POST` request MUST result in a `201 Created` response.
This forms an expectation in the client that the response will always
be "201 Created", when in fact there are a number of reasons why the
status code might differ in a real deployment; for example, there
might be a proxy that requires authentication, or a server-side
error, or a redirection. If the client does not anticipate this, the
application's deployment is brittle.
See Section 4.2 for more details.
3.2. Links
Another common practice is assuming that the HTTP server's name space
(or a portion thereof) is exclusively for the use of a single
application. This effectively overlays special, application-specific
semantics onto that space, precludes other applications from using
it.
As explained in [RFC7320], such "squatting" on a part of the URL
space by a standard usurps the server's authority over its own
resources, can cause deployment issues, and is therefore bad practice
in standards.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
Instead of statically defining URI components like paths, it is
RECOMMENDED that applications using HTTP define links in payloads, to
allow flexibility in deployment.
Using runtime links in this fashion has a number of other benefits -
especially when an application is to have multiple implementations
and/or deployments (as is often the case for those that are
standardised).
For example, navigating with a link allows a request to be routed to
a different server without the overhead of a redirection, thereby
supporting deployment across machines well.
It also becomes possible to "mix and match" different applications on
the same server, and offers a natural mechanism for extensibility,
versioning and capability management, since the document containing
the links can also contain information about their targets.
Using links also offers a form of cache invalidation that's seen on
the Web; when a resource's state changes, the application can change
its link to it so that a fresh copy is always fetched.
3.3. Rich Functionality
HTTP offers a number of features to applications, such as:
o Message framing
o Multiplexing (in HTTP/2)
o Integration with TLS
o Support for intermediaries (proxies, gateways, Content Delivery
Networks)
o Client authentication
o Content negotiation for format, language, and other features
o Caching for server scalability, latency and bandwidth reduction,
and reliability
o Granularity of access control (through use of a rich space of
URLs)
o Partial content to selectively request part of a response
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
o The ability to interact with the application easily using a Web
browser
Applications that use HTTP are encouraged to utilise the various
features that the protocol offers, so that their users receive the
maximum benefit from it, and to allow it to be deployed in a variety
of situations. This document does not require specific features to
be used, since the appropriate design tradeoffs are highly specific
to a given situation. However, following the practices in Section 4
is a good starting point.
4. Best Practices for Specifying the Use of HTTP
This section contains best practices for specifying the use of HTTP
by applications, including practices for specific HTTP protocol
elements.
4.1. Specifying the Use of HTTP
When specifying the use of HTTP, an application should use
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] as the primary reference; it is not
necessary to reference all of the specifications in the HTTP suite
unless there are specific reasons to do so (e.g., a particular
feature is called out).
Because it is a hop-by-hop protocol, a HTTP connection can be handled
by implementations that are not controlled by the application; for
example, proxies, CDNs, firewalls and so on. Requiring a particular
version of HTTP makes it difficult to use in these situations, and
harms interoperability for little reason (since HTTP's semantics are
stable between protocol versions). Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that
applications using HTTP not specify a minimum version of HTTP to be
used.
However, if an application's deployment would benefit from the use of
a particular version of HTTP (for example, HTTP/2's multiplexing),
this ought be noted.
Applications using HTTP MUST NOT specify a maximum version, to
preserve the protocol's ability to evolve.
When specifying examples of protocol interactions, applications
should document both the request and response messages, with full
headers, preferably in HTTP/1.1 format. For example:
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
GET /thing HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Accept: application/things+json
User-Agent: Foo/1.0
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/things+json
Content-Length: 500
Server: Bar/2.2
[payload here]
4.2. Specifying Server Behaviour
The most effective way to specify an application's server-side HTTP
behaviours is in terms of the following protocol elements:
o Media types [RFC6838], often based upon a format convention such
as JSON [RFC8259],
o HTTP header fields, as per Section 4.7, and
o The behaviour of resources, as identified by link relations
[RFC8288].
By composing these protocol elements, an application can define a set
of resources, identified by link relations, that implement specified
behaviours, including:
o retrieval of their state using GET, in one or more formats
identified by media type;
o resource creation or update using POST or PUT, with an
appropriately identified request body format;
o data processing using POST and identified request and response
body format(s); and
o Resource deletion using DELETE.
For example, an application might specify:
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
Resources linked to with the "example-widget" link relation type are
Widgets. The state of a Widget can be fetched in the
"application/example-widget+json" format, and can be updated by PUT
to the same link. Widget resources can be deleted.
The "Example-Count" response header field on Widget representations
indicates how many Widgets are held by the sender.
The "application/example-widget+json" format is a JSON [RFC8259]
format representing the state of a Widget. It contains links to
related information in the link indicated by the Link header field
value with the "example-other-info" link relation type.
Applications can also specify the use of URI Templates [RFC6570] to
allow clients to generate URLs based upon runtime data.
4.3. Specifying Client Behaviour
In general, applications using HTTP ought to align their expectations
for client behaviour as closely as possible with that of Web
browsers, to avoid interoperability issues when they are used.
One way to do this is to define it in terms of [FETCH], since that is
the abstraction that browsers use for HTTP.
Some client behaviours (e.g., automatic redirect handling) and
extensions (e.g., Cookies) are not required by HTTP, but nevertheless
have become very common. If their use is not explicitly specified by
applications using HTTP, there may be confusion and interoperability
problems. In particular:
o Redirect handling - Applications need to specify how redirects are
expected to be handled; see Section 4.6.1.
o Cookies - Applications using HTTP should explicitly reference the
Cookie specification [I-D.ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis] if they are
required.
o Certificates - Applications using HTTP should specify that TLS
certificates are to be checked according to [RFC2818] when HTTPS
is used.
Applications using HTTP MUST NOT require HTTP features that are
usually negotiated to be supported by clients. For example,
requiring that clients support responses with a certain content-
coding ([I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], Section 6.2.2) instead of
negotiating for it ([I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], Section 8.4.4)
means that otherwise conformant clients cannot interoperate with the
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
application. Applications can encourage the implementation of such
features, though.
4.4. Specifying URLs
In HTTP, the server resources that clients interact with are
identified with URLs [RFC3986]. As [RFC7320] explains, parts of the
URL are designed to be under the control of the owner (also known as
the "authority") of that server, to give them the flexibility in
deployment.
This means that in most cases, specifications for applications that
use HTTP won't contain its URLs; while it is common practice for a
specification of a single-deployment API to specify the path prefix
"/app/v1" (for example), doing so in an IETF specification is
inappropriate.
Therefore, the specification writer needs some mechanism to allow
clients to discovery an application's URLs. Additionally, they need
to specify what URL scheme(s) the application should be used with,
and whether to use a dedicated port, or reuse HTTP's port(s).
4.4.1. Discovering an Application's URLs
Generally, a client will begin interacting with a given application
server by requesting an initial document that contains information
about that particular deployment, potentially including links to
other relevant resources. Doing so assures that the deployment is as
flexible as possible (potentially spanning multiple servers), allows
evolution, and also gives the application the opportunity to tailor
the 'discovery document' to the client.
There are a few common patterns for discovering that initial URL.
The most straightforward mechanism for URL discovery is to configure
the client with (or otherwise convey to it) a full URL. This might
be done in a configuration document, in DNS or mDNS, or through
another discovery mechanism.
However, if the client only knows the server's hostname and the
identity of the application, there needs to be some way to derive the
initial URL from that information.
Applications MUST NOT define a fixed prefix for its URL paths; for
reasons explained in [RFC7320], this is bad practice.
Instead, a specification for such an application can use one of the
following strategies:
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
o Register a Well-Known URI [I-D.nottingham-rfc5785bis] as an entry
point for that application. This provides a fixed path on every
potential server that will not collide with other applications.
o Enable the server authority to convey a URL Template [RFC6570] or
similar mechanism for generating a URL for an entry point. For
example, this might be done in a DNS RR, a configuration document,
or other artefact.
Once the discovery document is located, it can be fetched, cached for
later reuse (if allowed by its metadata), and used to locate other
resources that are relevant to the application, using full URIs or
URL Templates.
In some cases, an application may not wish to use such a discovery
document; for example, when communication is very brief, or when the
latency concerns of doing so precludes the use of a discovery
document. These situations can be addressed by placing all of the
application's resources under a well-known location.
4.4.2. Considering URI Schemes
Applications that use HTTP will typically employ the "http" and/or
"https" URI schemes. "https" is RECOMMENDED to provide
authentication, integrity and confidentiality, as well as mitigate
pervasive monitoring attacks [RFC7258].
However, application-specific schemes can also be defined. When
defining an URI scheme for an application using HTTP, there are a
number of tradeoffs and caveats to keep in mind:
o Unmodified Web browsers will not support the new scheme. While it
is possible to register new URI schemes with Web browsers (e.g.
registerProtocolHandler() in [HTML], as well as several
proprietary approaches), support for these mechanisms is not
shared by all browsers, and their capabilities vary.
o Existing non-browser clients, intermediaries, servers and
associated software will not recognise the new scheme. For
example, a client library might fail to dispatch the request; a
cache might refuse to store the response, and a proxy might fail
to forward the request.
o Because URLs occur in HTTP artefacts commonly, often being
generated automatically (e.g., in the "Location" response header),
it can be difficult to assure that the new scheme is used
consistently.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
o The resources identified by the new scheme will still be available
using "http" and/or "https" URLs. Those URLs can "leak" into use,
which can present security and operability issues. For example,
using a new scheme to assure that requests don't get sent to a
"normal" Web site is likely to fail.
o Features that rely upon the URL's origin [RFC6454], such as the
Web's same-origin policy, will be impacted by a change of scheme.
o HTTP-specific features such as cookies
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis], authentication
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], caching [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache],
HSTS [RFC6797], and CORS [FETCH] might or might not work
correctly, depending on how they are defined and implemented.
Generally, they are designed and implemented with an assumption
that the URL will always be "http" or "https".
o Web features that require a secure context [SECCTXT] will likely
treat a new scheme as insecure.
See [RFC7595] for more information about minting new URI schemes.
4.4.3. Transport Ports
Applications can use the applicable default port (80 for HTTP, 443
for HTTPS), or they can be deployed upon other ports. This decision
can be made at deployment time, or might be encouraged by the
application's specification (e.g., by registering a port for that
application).
If a non-default port is used, it needs to be reflected in the
authority of all URLs for that resource; the only mechanism for
changing a default port is changing the scheme (see Section 4.4.2).
Using a port other than the default has privacy implications (i.e.,
the protocol can now be distinguished from other traffic), as well as
operability concerns (as some networks might block or otherwise
interfere with it). Privacy implications should be documented in
Security Considerations.
See [RFC7605] for further guidance.
4.5. Using HTTP Methods
Applications that use HTTP MUST confine themselves to using
registered HTTP methods such as GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, and PATCH.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
New HTTP methods are rare; they are required to be registered in the
HTTP Method Registry with IETF Review (see
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics]), and are also required to be generic.
That means that they need to be potentially applicable to all
resources, not just those of one application.
While historically some applications (e.g., [RFC4791]) have defined
non-generic methods, [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] now forbids this.
When authors believe that a new method is required, they are
encouraged to engage with the HTTP community early, and document
their proposal as a separate HTTP extension, rather than as part of
an application's specification.
4.5.1. GET
GET is the most common and useful HTTP method; its retrieval
semantics allow caching, side-effect free linking and underlies many
of the benefits of using HTTP.
A common use of GET is to perform queries, often using the query
component of the URL; this is a familiar pattern from Web browsing,
and the results can be cached, improving efficiency of an often
expensive process.
In some cases, however, GET might be unwieldy for expressing queries,
because of the limited syntax of the URI; in particular, if binary
data forms part of the query terms, it needs to be encoded to conform
to URI syntax.
While this is not an issue for short queries, it can become one for
larger query terms, or ones which need to sustain a high rate of
requests. Additionally, some HTTP implementations limit the size of
URLs they support - although modern HTTP software has much more
generous limits than previously (typically, considerably more than
8000 octets, as required by [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics].
In these cases, an application using HTTP might consider using POST
to express queries in the request body; doing so avoids encoding
overhead and URL length limits in implementations. However, in doing
so it should be noted that the benefits of GET such as caching and
linking to query results are lost. Therefore, applications using
HTTP that feel a need to allow POST queries ought consider allowing
both methods.
Applications should not change their state or have other side effects
that might be significant to the client, since implementations can
and do retry HTTP GET requests that fail. Note that this does not
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
include logging and similar functions; see
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], Section 7.2.1.
Finally, note that while HTTP allows GET requests to have a body
syntactically, this is done only to allow parsers to be generic; as
per [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], Section 7.3.1, a body on a GET has
no meaning, and will be either ignored or rejected by generic HTTP
software.
4.5.2. OPTIONS
The OPTIONS method was defined for metadata retrieval, and is used
both by WebDAV [RFC4918] and CORS [FETCH]. Because HTTP-based APIs
often need to retrieve metadata about resources, it is often
considered for their use.
However, OPTIONS does have significant limitations:
o It isn't possible to link to the metadata with a simple URL,
because OPTIONS is not the default GET method.
o OPTIONS responses are not cacheable, because HTTP caches operate
on representations of the resource (i.e., GET and HEAD). If
OPTIONS responses are cached separately, their interaction with
HTTP cache expiry, secondary keys and other mechanisms needs to be
considered.
o OPTIONS is "chatty" - always separating metadata out into a
separate request increases the number of requests needed to
interact with the application.
o Implementation support for OPTIONS is not universal; some servers
do not expose the ability to respond to OPTIONS requests without
significant effort.
Instead of OPTIONS, one of these alternative approaches might be more
appropriate:
o For server-wide metadata, create a well-known URI
[I-D.nottingham-rfc5785bis], or using an already existing one if
it's appropriate (e.g., HostMeta [RFC6415]).
o For metadata about a specific resource, create a separate resource
and link to it using a Link response header or a link serialised
into the representation's body. See [RFC8288]. Note that the
Link header is available on HEAD responses, which is useful if the
client wants to discover a resource's capabilities before they
interact with it.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
4.6. Using HTTP Status Codes
HTTP status codes convey semantics both for the benefit of generic
HTTP components - such as caches, intermediaries, and clients - and
applications themselves. However, applications can encounter a
number of pitfalls in their use.
First, status codes are often generated by intermediaries, as well as
server and client implementations. This can happen, for example,
when network errors are encountered, a captive portal is present,
when an implementation is overloaded, or it thinks it is under
attack. As a result, if an application assigns specific semantics to
one of these status codes, a client can be misled about its state,
because the status code was generated by a generic component, not the
application itself.
Furthermore, mapping application errors to individual HTTP status
codes one-to-one often leads to a situation where the finite space of
applicable HTTP status codes is exhausted. This, in turn, leads to a
number of bad practices - including minting new, application-specific
status codes, or using existing status codes even though the link
between their semantics and the application's is tenuous at best.
Instead, applications using HTTP should define their errors to use
the most applicable status code, making generous use of the general
status codes (200, 400 and 500) when in doubt. Importantly, they
should not specify a one-to-one relationship between status codes and
application errors, thereby avoiding the exhaustion issue outlined
above.
To distinguish between multiple error conditions that are mapped to
the same status code, and to avoid the misattribution issue outlined
above, applications using HTTP should convey finer-grained error
information in the response's message body and/or header fields.
[RFC7807] provides one way to do so.
Because the set of registered HTTP status codes can expand,
applications using HTTP should explicitly point out that clients
ought to be able to handle all applicable status codes gracefully
(i.e., falling back to the generic "n00" semantics of a given status
code; e.g., "499" can be safely handled as "400" by clients that
don't recognise it). This is preferable to creating a "laundry list"
of potential status codes, since such a list won't be complete in the
foreseeable future.
Applications using HTTP MUST NOT re-specify the semantics of HTTP
status codes, even if it is only by copying their definition. It is
RECOMMENDED they require specific reason phrases to be used; the
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
reason phrase has no function in HTTP, is not guaranteed to be
preserved by implementations, and is not carried at all in the HTTP/2
[RFC7540] message format.
Applications MUST only use registered HTTP status codes. As with
methods, new HTTP status codes are rare, and required (by
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics]) to be registered with IETF Review.
Similarly, HTTP status codes are generic; they are required (by
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics]) to be potentially applicable to all
resources, not just to those of one application.
When authors believe that a new status code is required, they are
encouraged to engage with the HTTP community early, and document
their proposal as a separate HTTP extension, rather than as part of
an application's specification.
4.6.1. Redirection
The 3xx series of status codes specified in Section 9.4
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] direct the user agent to another
resource to satisfy the request. The most common of these are 301,
302, 307 and 308, all of which use the Location response header field
to indicate where the client should send the request to.
There are two ways that this group of status codes differ:
o Whether they are permanent or temporary. Permanent redirects can
be used to update links stored in the client (e.g., bookmarks),
whereas temporary ones can not. Note that this has no effect on
HTTP caching; it is completely separate.
o Whether they allow the redirected request to change the request
method from POST to GET. Web browsers generally do change POST to
GET for 301 and 302; therefore, 308 and 307 were created to allow
redirection without changing the method.
This table summarises their relationships:
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| | Permanent | Temporary |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| Allows changing the request method from | 301 | 302 |
| POST to GET | | |
| Does not allow changing the request | 308 | 307 |
| method | | |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
As noted in [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], a user agent is allowed to
automatically follow a 3xx redirect that has a Location response
header field, even if they don't understand the semantics of the
specific status code. However, they aren't required to do so;
therefore, if an application using HTTP desires redirects to be
automatically followed, it needs to explicitly specify the
circumstances when this is required.
Applications using HTTP are encouraged to specify that 301 and 302
responses change the subsequent request method from POST (but no
other method) to GET, to be compatible with browsers.
Generally, when a redirected request is made, its header fields are
copied from the original request's. However, they can be modified by
various mechanisms; e.g., sent Authorization
([I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics]) and Cookie
([I-D.ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis]) headers will change if the origin
(and sometimes path) of the request changes. An application using
HTTP should specify if any request headers that it defines need to be
modified or removed upon a redirect; however, this behaviour cannot
be relied upon, since a generic client (like a browser) will be
unaware of such requirements.
4.7. Specifying HTTP Header Fields
Applications often define new HTTP header fields. Typically, using
HTTP header fields is appropriate in a few different situations:
o Their content is useful to intermediaries (who often wish to avoid
parsing the body), and/or
o Their content is useful to generic HTTP software (e.g., clients,
servers), and/or
o It is not possible to include their content in the message body
(usually because a format does not allow it).
When the conditions above are not met, it is usually better to convey
application-specific information in other places; e.g., the message
body or the URL query string.
New header fields MUST be registered, as per
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics].
See [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], Section 4.1.3 for guidelines to
consider when minting new header fields.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure] provides a common structure for
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
new header fields, and avoids many issues in their parsing and
handling; it is RECOMMENDED that new header fields use it.
It is RECOMMENDED that header field names be short (even when HTTP/2
header compression is in effect, there is an overhead) but
appropriately specific. In particular, if a header field is specific
to an application, an identifier for that application can form a
prefix to the header field name, separated by a "-".
For example, if the "example" application needs to create three
headers, they might be called "example-foo", "example-bar" and
"example-baz". Note that the primary motivation here is to avoid
consuming more generic header names, not to reserve a portion of the
namespace for the application; see [RFC6648] for related
considerations.
The semantics of existing HTTP header fields MUST NOT be re-defined
without updating their registration or defining an extension to them
(if allowed). For example, an application using HTTP cannot specify
that the "Location" header has a special meaning in a certain
context.
See Section 4.9 for the interaction between headers and HTTP caching;
in particular, request headers that are used to "select" a response
have impact there, and need to be carefully considered.
See Section 4.10 for considerations regarding header fields that
carry application state (e.g., Cookie).
4.8. Defining Message Payloads
There are many potential formats for payloads; for example, JSON
[RFC8259], XML [XML], and CBOR [RFC7049]. Best practices for their
use are out of scope for this document.
Applications should register distinct media types for each format
they define; this makes it possible to identify them unambiguously
and negotiate for their use. See [RFC6838] for more information.
4.9. Leveraging HTTP Caching
HTTP caching [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache] is one of the primary benefits
of using HTTP for applications; it provides scalability, reduces
latency and improves reliability. Furthermore, HTTP caches are
readily available in browsers and other clients, networks as forward
and reverse proxies, Content Delivery Networks and as part of server
software.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
Even when an application using HTTP isn't designed to take advantage
of caching, it needs to consider how caches will handle its
responses, to preserve correct behaviour when one is interposed
(whether in the network, server, client, or intervening
infrastructure).
4.9.1. Freshness
Assigning even a short freshness lifetime (Section 4.2 of
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache]) - e.g., 5 seconds - allows a response to be
reused to satisfy multiple clients, and/or a single client making the
same request repeatedly. In general, if it is safe to reuse
something, consider assigning a freshness lifetime.
The most common method for specifying freshness is the max-age
response directive (Section 5.2.2.8 of [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache]).
The Expires header (Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache]) can also
be used, but it is not necessary; all modern cache implementations
support Cache-Control, and specifying freshness as a delta is usually
more convenient and less error-prone.
In some situations, responses without explicit cache freshness
directives will be stored and served using a heuristic freshness
lifetime; see [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache], Section 4.2.2. As the
heuristic is not under control of the application, it is generally
preferable to set an explicit freshness lifetime, or make the
response explicitly uncacheable.
If caching of a response is not desired, the appropriate response
directive is "Cache-Control: no-store". This only need be sent in
situations where the response might be cached; see
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache], Section 3. Note that "Cache-Control: no-
cache" allows a response to be stored, just not reused by a cache
without validation; it does not prevent caching (despite its name).
For example, this response cannot be stored or reused by a cache:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/example+xml
Cache-Control: no-store
[content]
4.9.2. Stale Responses
Authors should understand that stale responses (e.g., with "Cache-
Control: max-age=0") can be reused by caches when disconnected from
the origin server; this can be useful for handling network issues.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
If doing so is not suitable for a given response, the origin should
use "Cache-Control: must-revalidate". See [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache],
Section 4.2.4, and also [RFC5861] for additional controls over stale
content.
Stale responses can be refreshed by assigning a validator, saving
both transfer bandwidth and latency for large responses; see
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics].
4.9.3. Caching and Application Semantics
When an application has a need to express a lifetime that's separate
from the freshness lifetime, this should be conveyed separately,
either in the response's body or in a separate header field. When
this happens, the relationship between HTTP caching and that lifetime
need to be carefully considered, since the response will be used as
long as it is considered fresh.
In particular, application authors need to consider how responses
that are not freshly obtained from the origin server should be
handled; if they have a concept like a validity period, this will
need to be calculated considering the age of the response (see
Section 4.2.3 of [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache]).
One way to address this is to explicitly specify that all responses
be fresh upon use.
4.9.4. Varying Content Based Upon the Request
If an application uses a request header field to change the
response's headers or body, authors should point out that this has
implications for caching; in general, such resources need to either
make their responses uncacheable (e.g., with the "no-store" cache-
control directive defined in [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache],
Section 5.2.2.3) or send the Vary response header
([I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], Section 10.1.4) on all responses from
that resource (including the "default" response).
For example, this response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/example+xml
Cache-Control: max-age=60
ETag: "sa0f8wf20fs0f"
Vary: Accept-Encoding
[content]
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
can be stored for 60 seconds by both private and shared caches, can
be revalidated with If-None-Match, and varies on the Accept-Encoding
request header field.
4.10. Handling Application State
Applications can use stateful cookies [I-D.ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis]
to identify a client and/or store client-specific data to
contextualise requests.
When used, it is important to carefully specify the scoping and use
of cookies; if the application exposes sensitive data or capabilities
(e.g., by acting as an ambient authority), exploits are possible.
Mitigations include using a request-specific token to assure the
intent of the client.
Applications MUST NOT make assumptions about the relationship between
separate requests on a single transport connection; doing so breaks
many of the assumptions of HTTP as a stateless protocol, and will
cause problems in interoperability, security, operability and
evolution.
4.11. Client Authentication
Applications can use HTTP authentication [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics]
to identify clients. The Basic authentication scheme [RFC7617] MUST
NOT be used unless the underlying transport is authenticated,
integrity-protected and confidential (e.g., as provided the "HTTPS"
URI scheme, or another using TLS). The Digest scheme [RFC7616] MUST
NOT be used unless the underlying transport is similarly secure, or
the chosen hash algorithm is not "MD5".
With HTTPS, clients might also be authenticated using certificates
[RFC5246].
When used, it is important to carefully specify the scoping and use
of authentication; if the application exposes sensitive data or
capabilities (e.g., by acting as an ambient authority), exploits are
possible. Mitigations include using a request-specific token to
assure the intent of the client.
4.12. Co-Existing with Web Browsing
Even if there is not an intent for an application to be used with a
Web browser, its resources will remain available to browsers and
other HTTP clients.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
This means that all such applications that use HTTP need to consider
how browsers will interact with them, particularly regarding
security.
For example, if an application's state can be changed using a POST
request, a Web browser can easily be coaxed into cross-site request
forgery (CSRF) from arbitrary Web sites.
Or, if content returned from the application's resources is under
control of an attacker (for example, part of the request is reflected
in the response, or the response contains external information that
might be under the control of the attacker), a cross-site scripting
(XSS) attack is possible, whereby an attacker can inject code into
the browser and access data and capabilities on that origin.
This is only a small sample of the kinds of issues that applications
using HTTP must consider. Generally, the best approach is to
consider the application actually as a Web application, and to follow
best practices for their secure development.
A complete enumeration of such practices is out of scope for this
document, but some considerations include:
o Using an application-specific media type in the Content-Type
header, and requiring clients to fail if it is not used.
o Using X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff [FETCH] to assure that
content under attacker control can't be coaxed into a form that is
interpreted as active content by a Web browser.
o Using Content-Security-Policy [CSP] to constrain the capabilities
of active content (such as HTML [HTML]), thereby mitigating Cross-
Site Scripting attacks.
o Using Referrer-Policy [REFERRER-POLICY] to prevent sensitive data
in URLs from being leaked in the Referer request header.
o Using the 'HttpOnly' flag on Cookies to assure that cookies are
not exposed to browser scripting languages
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis].
o Avoiding use of compression on any sensitive information (e.g.,
authentication tokens, passwords), as the scripting environment
offered by Web browsers allows an attacker to repeatedly probe the
compression space; if the attacker has access to the path of the
communication, they can use this capability to recover that
information.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
Depending on how they are intended to be deployed, specifications for
applications using HTTP might require the use of these mechanisms in
specific ways, or might merely point them out in Security
Considerations.
An example of a HTTP response from an application that does not
intend for its content to be treated as active by browsers might look
like this:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/example+json
X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'none'
Cache-Control: max-age=3600
Referrer-Policy: no-referrer
[content]
If an application has browser compatibility as a goal, client
interaction ought to be defined in terms of [FETCH], since that is
the abstraction that browsers use for HTTP; it enforces many of these
best practices.
4.13. Maintaining Application Boundaries
Because the origin [RFC6454] is how many HTTP capabilities are
scoped, applications also need to consider how deployments might
interact with other applications (including Web browsing) on the same
origin.
For example, if Cookies [I-D.ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis] are used to
carry application state, they will be sent with all requests to the
origin by default, unless scoped by path, and the application might
receive cookies from other applications on the origin. This can lead
to security issues, as well as collision in cookie names.
One solution to these issues is to require a dedicated hostname for
the application, so that it has a unique origin. However, it is
often desirable to allow multiple applications to be deployed on a
single hostname; doing so provides the most deployment flexibility
and enables them to be "mixed" together (See [RFC7320] for details).
Therefore, applications using HTTP should strive to allow multiple
applications on an origin.
To enable this, when specifying the use of Cookies, HTTP
authentication realms [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics], or other origin-
wide HTTP mechanisms, applications using HTTP should not mandate the
use of a particular name, but instead let deployments configure them.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
Consideration should be given to scoping them to part of the origin,
using their specified mechanisms for doing so.
Modern Web browsers constrain the ability of content from one origin
to access resources from another, to avoid leaking private
information. As a result, applications that wish to expose cross-
origin data to browsers will need to implement the CORS protocol; see
[FETCH].
4.14. Using Server Push
HTTP/2 adds the ability for servers to "push" request/response pairs
to clients in [RFC7540], Section 8.2. While server push seems like a
natural fit for many common application semantics (e.g., "fanout" and
publish/subscribe), a few caveats should be noted:
o Server push is hop-by-hop; that is, it is not automatically
forwarded by intermediaries. As a result, it might not work
easily (or at all) with proxies, reverse proxies, and Content
Delivery Networks.
o Server push can have negative performance impact on HTTP when used
incorrectly; in particular, if there is contention with resources
that have actually been requested by the client.
o Server push is implemented differently in different clients,
especially regarding interaction with HTTP caching, and
capabilities might vary.
o APIs for server push are currently unavailable in some
implementations, and vary widely in others. In particular, there
is no current browser API for it.
o Server push is not supported in HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/1.0.
o Server push does not form part of the "core" semantics of HTTP,
and therefore might not be supported by future versions of the
protocol.
Applications wishing to optimise cases where the client can perform
work related to requests before the full response is available (e.g.,
fetching links for things likely to be contained within) might
benefit from using the 103 (Early Hints) status code; see [RFC8297].
Applications using server push directly need to enforce the
requirements regarding authority in [RFC7540], Section 8.2, to avoid
cross-origin push attacks.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
4.15. Allowing Versioning and Evolution
It's often necessary to introduce new features into application
protocols, and change existing ones.
In HTTP, backwards-incompatible changes are possible using a number
of mechanisms:
o Using a distinct link relation type [RFC8288] to identify a URL
for a resource that implements the new functionality.
o Using a distinct media type [RFC6838] to identify formats that
enable the new functionality.
o Using a distinct HTTP header field to implement new functionality
outside the message body.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no requirements for IANA.
6. Security Considerations
Section 4.10 discusses the impact of using stateful mechanisms in the
protocol as ambient authority, and suggests a mitigation.
Section 4.4.2 requires support for 'https' URLs, and discourages the
use of 'http' URLs, to provide authentication, integrity and
confidentiality, as well as mitigate pervasive monitoring attacks.
Section 4.12 highlights the implications of Web browsers'
capabilities on applications that use HTTP.
Section 4.13 discusses the issues that arise when applications are
deployed on the same origin as Web sites (and other applications).
Section 4.14 highlights risks of using HTTP/2 server push in a manner
other than specified.
Applications that use HTTP in a manner that involves modification of
implementations - for example, requiring support for a new URI
scheme, or a non-standard method - risk having those implementations
"fork" from their parent HTTP implementations, with the possible
result that they do not benefit from patches and other security
improvements incorporated upstream.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
6.1. Privacy Considerations
HTTP clients can expose a variety of information to servers. Besides
information that's explicitly sent as part of an application's
operation (for example, names and other user-entered data), and "on
the wire" (which is one of the reasons https is recommended in
Section 4.4.2), other information can be gathered through less
obvious means - often by connecting activities of a user over time.
This includes session information, tracking the client through
fingerprinting, and mobile code.
Session information includes things like the IP address of the
client, TLS session tickets, Cookies, ETags stored in the client's
cache, and other stateful mechanisms. Applications are advised to
avoid using session mechanisms unless they are unavoidable or
necessary for operation, in which case these risks needs to be
documented. When they are used, implementations should be encouraged
to allow clearing such state.
Fingerprinting uses unique aspects of a client's messages and
behaviours to connect disparate requests and connections. For
example, the User-Agent request header conveys specific information
about the implementation; the Accept-Language request header conveys
the users' preferred language. In combination, a number of these
markers can be used to uniquely identify a client, impacting its
control over its data. As a result, applications are advised to
specify that clients should only emit the information they need to
function in requests.
Finally, if an application exposes the ability to run mobile code,
great care needs to be taken, since any ability to observe its
environment can be used as an opportunity to both fingerprint the
client and to obtain and manipulate private data (including session
information). For example, access to high-resolution timers (even
indirectly) can be used to profile the underlying hardware, creating
a unique identifier for the system. Applications are advised to
avoid allowing the use of mobile code where possible; when it cannot
be avoided, the resulting system's security properties need be
carefully scrutinised.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache]
Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-05 (work in progress),
July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-messaging]
Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1
Messaging", draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-05 (work in
progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics]
Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Semantics", draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-05 (work in
progress), July 2019.
[I-D.nottingham-rfc5785bis]
Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URIs)", draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-11 (work in
progress), April 2019.
[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/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC6454] Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6454>.
[RFC6648] Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham,
"Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in
Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6648, June 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6648>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
[RFC7320] Nottingham, M., "URI Design and Ownership", BCP 190,
RFC 7320, DOI 10.17487/RFC7320, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7320>.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
[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/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
7.2. Informative References
[CSP] West, M., "Content Security Policy Level 3", World Wide
Web Consortium WD WD-CSP3-20160913, September 2016,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-CSP3-20160913>.
[FETCH] WHATWG, "Fetch - Living Standard", n.d.,
<https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org>.
[HTML] WHATWG, "HTML - Living Standard", n.d.,
<https://html.spec.whatwg.org>.
[]
Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Headers for HTTP",
draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-13 (work in progress),
August 2019.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis]
Barth, A. and M. West, "Cookies: HTTP State Management
Mechanism", draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-03 (work in
progress), April 2019.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
[REFERRER-POLICY]
Eisinger, J. and E. Stark, "Referrer Policy", World Wide
Web Consortium CR CR-referrer-policy-20170126, January
2017,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-referrer-policy-20170126>.
[RFC3205] Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", BCP 56,
RFC 3205, DOI 10.17487/RFC3205, February 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3205>.
[RFC4791] Daboo, C., Desruisseaux, B., and L. Dusseault,
"Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV)", RFC 4791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4791, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4791>.
[RFC4918] Dusseault, L., Ed., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed
Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4918, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4918>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5861] Nottingham, M., "HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale
Content", RFC 5861, DOI 10.17487/RFC5861, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5861>.
[RFC6415] Hammer-Lahav, E., Ed. and B. Cook, "Web Host Metadata",
RFC 6415, DOI 10.17487/RFC6415, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6415>.
[RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.
[RFC6797] Hodges, J., Jackson, C., and A. Barth, "HTTP Strict
Transport Security (HSTS)", RFC 6797,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6797, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
[RFC7595] Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines
and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35,
RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
[RFC7605] Touch, J., "Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport
Port Numbers", BCP 165, RFC 7605, DOI 10.17487/RFC7605,
August 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7605>.
[RFC7616] Shekh-Yusef, R., Ed., Ahrens, D., and S. Bremer, "HTTP
Digest Access Authentication", RFC 7616,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7616, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7616>.
[RFC7617] Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme",
RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7617>.
[RFC7807] Nottingham, M. and E. Wilde, "Problem Details for HTTP
APIs", RFC 7807, DOI 10.17487/RFC7807, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7807>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8297] Oku, K., "An HTTP Status Code for Indicating Hints",
RFC 8297, DOI 10.17487/RFC8297, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8297>.
[SECCTXT] West, M., "Secure Contexts", World Wide Web Consortium CR
CR-secure-contexts-20160915, September 2016,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-secure-contexts-20160915>.
[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xml-20081126, November 2008,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Building Protocols with HTTP October 2019
7.3. URIs
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
[2] http://httpwg.github.io/
[3] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/bcp56bis
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 3205
[RFC3205] captured the Best Current Practice in the early 2000's,
based on the concerns facing protocol designers at the time. Use of
HTTP has changed considerably since then, and as a result this
document is substantially different. As a result, the changes are
too numerous to list individually.
Author's Address
Mark Nottingham
Email: mnot@mnot.net
URI: https://www.mnot.net/
Nottingham Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 32]
