HTTP M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft Fastly
Intended status: Standards Track P-H. Kamp
Expires: February 25, 2020 The Varnish Cache Project
August 24, 2019
Structured Headers for HTTP
draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-13
Abstract
This document describes a set of data types and associated algorithms
that are intended to make it easier and safer to define and handle
HTTP header fields. It is intended for use by specifications of new
HTTP header fields that wish to use a common syntax that is more
restrictive than traditional HTTP field values.
Note to Readers
_RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_
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 https://httpwg.github.io/
[2]; source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/header-structure
[3].
Tests for implementations are collected at https://github.com/httpwg/
structured-header-tests [4].
Implementations are tracked at https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki/
Structured-Headers [5].
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/.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
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 February 25, 2020.
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. Intentionally Strict Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Defining New Structured Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Structured Header Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Floats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.7. Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8. Byte Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.9. Booleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Working With Structured Headers in Textual HTTP Headers . . . 12
4.1. Serializing Structured Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Parsing Header Fields into Structured Headers . . . . . . 18
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
Appendix B. Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B.1. Why not JSON? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B.2. Structured Headers don't "fit" my data. . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix C. Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix D. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
D.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-12 . . . . . . 31
D.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-11 . . . . . . 31
D.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-10 . . . . . . 31
D.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-09 . . . . . . 32
D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-08 . . . . . . 32
D.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-07 . . . . . . 33
D.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-06 . . . . . . 33
D.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-05 . . . . . . 33
D.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-04 . . . . . . 33
D.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-03 . . . . . . 34
D.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-02 . . . . . . 34
D.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-01 . . . . . . 34
D.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00 . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction
Specifying the syntax of new HTTP header fields is an onerous task;
even with the guidance in Section 8.3.1 of [RFC7231], there are many
decisions - and pitfalls - for a prospective HTTP header field
author.
Once a header field is defined, bespoke parsers and serializers often
need to be written, because each header has slightly different
handling of what looks like common syntax.
This document introduces a set of common data structures for use in
definitions of new HTTP header field values to address these
problems. In particular, it defines a generic, abstract model for
header field values, along with a concrete serialisation for
expressing that model in textual HTTP [RFC7230] header fields.
HTTP headers that are defined as "Structured Headers" use the types
defined in this specification to define their syntax and basic
handling rules, thereby simplifying both their definition by
specification writers and handling by implementations.
Additionally, future versions of HTTP can define alternative
serialisations of the abstract model of these structures, allowing
headers that use it to be transmitted more efficiently without being
redefined.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
Note that it is not a goal of this document to redefine the syntax of
existing HTTP headers; the mechanisms described herein are only
intended to be used with headers that explicitly opt into them.
Section 2 describes how to specify a Structured Header.
Section 3 defines a number of abstract data types that can be used in
Structured Headers. Those abstract types can be serialized into and
parsed from textual HTTP headers using the algorithms described in
Section 4.
1.1. Intentionally Strict Processing
This specification intentionally defines strict parsing and
serialisation behaviours using step-by-step algorithms; the only
error handling defined is to fail the operation altogether.
It is designed to encourage faithful implementation and therefore
good interoperability. Therefore, an implementation that tried to be
"helpful" by being more tolerant of input would make interoperability
worse, since that would create pressure on other implementations to
implement similar (but likely subtly different) workarounds.
In other words, strict processing is an intentional feature of this
specification; it allows non-conformant input to be discovered and
corrected by the producer early, and avoids both interoperability and
security issues that might otherwise result.
Note that as a result of this strictness, if a header field is
appended to by multiple parties (e.g., intermediaries, or different
components in the sender), an error in one party's value is likely to
cause the entire header field to fail parsing.
1.2. 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.
This document uses algorithms to specify parsing and serialisation
behaviours, and the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of
[RFC5234] to illustrate expected syntax in textual HTTP header
fields. In doing so, uses the VCHAR, SP, DIGIT, ALPHA and DQUOTE
rules from [RFC5234]. It also includes the OWS rule from [RFC7230].
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
When parsing from textual HTTP header fields, implementations MUST
follow the algorithms, but MAY vary in implementation so as the
behaviours are indistinguishable from specified behaviour. If there
is disagreement between the parsing algorithms and ABNF, the
specified algorithms take precedence. In some places, the algorithms
are "greedy" with whitespace, but this should not affect conformance.
For serialisation to textual header fields, the ABNF illustrates the
range of acceptable wire representations with as much fidelity as
possible, and the algorithms define the recommended way to produce
them. Implementations MAY vary from the specified behaviour so long
as the output still matches the ABNF.
2. Defining New Structured Headers
To define a HTTP header as a structured header, its specification
needs to:
o Reference this specification. Recipients and generators of the
header need to know that the requirements of this document are in
effect.
o Specify the header field's allowed syntax for values, in terms of
the types described in Section 3, along with their associated
semantics. Syntax definitions are encouraged to use the ABNF
rules beginning with "sh-" defined in this specification; other
rules in this specification are not intended for use outside it.
o Specify any additional constraints upon the syntax of the
structures used, as well as the consequences when those
constraints are violated. When Structured Headers parsing fails,
the header is ignored (see Section 4.2); in most situations,
header-specific constraints should do likewise.
Note that a header field definition cannot relax the requirements of
this specification because doing so would preclude handling by
generic software; they can only add additional constraints (for
example, on the numeric range of integers and floats, the format of
strings and tokens, the types allowed in a dictionary's values, or
the number of items in a list). Likewise, header field definitions
can only use Structured Headers for the entire header field value,
not a portion thereof.
This specification defines minimums for the length or number of
various structures supported by Structured Headers implementations.
It does not specify maximum sizes in most cases, but header authors
should be aware that HTTP implementations do impose various limits on
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
the size of individual header fields, the total number of fields,
and/or the size of the entire header block.
For example, a fictitious Foo-Example header field might be specified
as:
42. Foo-Example Header
The Foo-Example HTTP header field conveys information about how
much Foo the message has.
Foo-Example is a Structured Header [RFCxxxx]. Its value MUST be a
dictionary (Section Y.Y of [RFCxxxx]). Its ABNF is:
Foo-Example = sh-dictionary
The dictionary MUST contain:
* Exactly one member whose name is "foo", and whose value is an
integer (Section Y.Y of [RFCxxxx]), indicating the number of foos
in the message.
* Exactly one member whose name is "barUrl", and whose value is a
list of strings (Section Y.Y of [RFCxxxx]), conveying the Bar URLs
for the message. See below for processing requirements.
If the parsed header field does not contain both, it MUST be
ignored.
"foo" MUST be between 0 and 10, inclusive; other values MUST cause
the header to be ignored.
"barUrl" contains one or more URI-references (Section 4.1 of
[RFC3986], Section 4.1). If barURL is not a valid URI-reference,
it MUST be ignored. If barURL is a relative reference (Section 4.2
of [RFC3986]), it MUST be resolved (Section 5 of [RFC3986]) before
being used.
For example:
Foo-Example: foo=2, barUrl=("https://bar.example.com/")
3. Structured Header Data Types
This section defines the abstract value types that can be composed
into Structured Headers. The ABNF provided represents the on-wire
format in textual HTTP headers.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
3.1. Lists
Lists are arrays of zero or more members, each of which can be an
item (Section 3.3) or an inner list (an array of zero or more items).
Each member of the top-level list can also have associated parameters
- an ordered map of key-value pairs where the keys are short, textual
strings and the values are items (Section 3.3). There can be zero or
more parameters on a member, and their keys are required to be unique
within that scope.
The ABNF for lists is:
sh-list = list-member *( OWS "," OWS list-member )
list-member = ( sh-item / inner-list ) *parameter
inner-list = "(" OWS [ sh-item *( SP sh-item ) OWS ] ")"
parameter = OWS ";" OWS param-name [ "=" param-value ]
param-name = key
key = lcalpha *( lcalpha / DIGIT / "_" / "-" / "*" )
lcalpha = %x61-7A ; a-z
param-value = sh-item
In textual HTTP headers, each member is separated by a comma and
optional whitespace. For example, a header field whose value is
defined as a list of strings could look like:
Example-StrListHeader: "foo", "bar", "It was the best of times."
In textual HTTP headers, inner lists are denoted by surrounding
parenthesis, and have their values delimited by a single space. A
header field whose value is defined as a list of lists of strings
could look like:
Example-StrListListHeader: ("foo" "bar"), ("baz"), ("bat" "one"), ()
Note that the last member in this example is an empty inner list.
In textual HTTP headers, members' parameters are separated from the
member and each other by semicolons. For example:
Example-ParamListHeader: abc;a=1;b=2; cde_456, (ghi jkl);q="9";r=w
In textual HTTP headers, an empty list is denoted by not serialising
the header at all.
Parsers MUST support lists containing at least 1024 members, support
members with at least 256 parameters, support inner-lists containing
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
at least 256 members, and support parameter keys with at least 64
characters.
Header specifications can constrain the types of individual list
values (including that of individual inner-list members and
parameters) if necessary.
3.2. Dictionaries
Dictionaries are ordered maps of name-value pairs, where the names
are short, textual strings and the values are items (Section 3.3) or
arrays of items. There can be zero or more members, and their names
are required to be unique within the scope of the dictionary they
occur within.
Each member of the dictionary can also have associated parameters -
an ordered map of key-value pairs where the keys are short, textual
strings and the values are items (Section 3.3). There can be zero or
more parameters on a member, and their keys are required to be unique
within that scope.
Implementations MUST provide access to dictionaries both by index and
by name. Specifications MAY use either means of accessing the
members.
The ABNF for dictionaries in textual HTTP headers is:
sh-dictionary = dict-member *( OWS "," OWS dict-member )
dict-member = member-name "=" member-value *parameter
member-name = key
member-value = sh-item / inner-list
In textual HTTP headers, members are separated by a comma with
optional whitespace, while names and values are separated by "="
(without whitespace). For example:
Example-DictHeader: en="Applepie", da=*w4ZibGV0w6ZydGU=*
A dictionary with a member whose value is an inner-list of tokens:
Example-DictListHeader: rating=1.5, feelings=(joy sadness)
A dictionary with a mix of singular and list values, some with
parameters:
Example-MixDict: a=(1,2), b=3, c=4;aa=bb, d=(5,6);valid=?T
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
As with lists, an empty dictionary is represented in textual HTTP
headers by omitting the entire header field.
Typically, a header field specification will define the semantics
using individual member names, as well as whether their presence is
required or optional. Recipients MUST ignore names that are
undefined or unknown, unless the header field's specification
specifically disallows them.
Parsers MUST support dictionaries containing at least 1024 name/value
pairs, and names with at least 64 characters.
3.3. Items
An item is can be a integer (Section 3.4), float (Section 3.5),
string (Section 3.6), token (Section 3.7), byte sequence
(Section 3.8), or Boolean (Section 3.9).
The ABNF for items in textual HTTP headers is:
sh-item = sh-integer / sh-float / sh-string / sh-token / sh-binary
/ sh-boolean
3.4. Integers
Integers have a range of -999,999,999,999,999 to 999,999,999,999,999
inclusive (i.e., up to fifteen digits, signed), for IEEE 754
compatibility ([IEEE754]).
The ABNF for integers in textual HTTP headers is:
sh-integer = ["-"] 1*15DIGIT
For example:
Example-IntegerHeader: 42
Note that commas in integers are used in this section's prose only
for readability; they are not valid in the wire format.
3.5. Floats
Floats are decimal numbers with an integer and a fractional
component. The fractional component has at most six digits of
precision. Additionally, like integers, it can have no more than
fifteen digits in total, which in some cases further constrains its
precision.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
The ABNF for floats in textual HTTP headers is:
sh-float = ["-"] (1*9DIGIT "." 1*6DIGIT /
10DIGIT "." 1*5DIGIT /
11DIGIT "." 1*4DIGIT /
12DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT /
13DIGIT "." 1*2DIGIT /
14DIGIT "." 1DIGIT )
For example, a header whose value is defined as a float could look
like:
Example-FloatHeader: 4.5
3.6. Strings
Strings are zero or more printable ASCII [RFC0020] characters (i.e.,
the range 0x20 to 0x7E). Note that this excludes tabs, newlines,
carriage returns, etc.
The ABNF for strings in textual HTTP headers is:
sh-string = DQUOTE *(chr) DQUOTE
chr = unescaped / escaped
unescaped = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E
escaped = "\" ( DQUOTE / "\" )
In textual HTTP headers, strings are delimited with double quotes,
using a backslash ("\") to escape double quotes and backslashes. For
example:
Example-StringHeader: "hello world"
Note that strings only use DQUOTE as a delimiter; single quotes do
not delimit strings. Furthermore, only DQUOTE and "\" can be
escaped; other sequences MUST cause parsing to fail.
Unicode is not directly supported in this document, because it causes
a number of interoperability issues, and - with few exceptions -
header values do not require it.
When it is necessary for a field value to convey non-ASCII string
content, a byte sequence (Section 3.8) SHOULD be specified, along
with a character encoding (preferably UTF-8).
Parsers MUST support strings with at least 1024 characters.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
3.7. Tokens
Tokens are short textual words; their abstract model is identical to
their expression in the textual HTTP serialisation.
The ABNF for tokens in textual HTTP headers is:
sh-token = ALPHA
*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / "-" / "." / ":" / "%"
/ "*" / "/" )
Parsers MUST support tokens with at least 512 characters.
Note that a Structured Header token is not the same as the "token"
ABNF rule defined in [RFC7230].
3.8. Byte Sequences
Byte sequences can be conveyed in Structured Headers.
The ABNF for a byte sequence in textual HTTP headers is:
sh-binary = "*" *(base64) "*"
base64 = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/" / "="
In textual HTTP headers, a byte sequence is delimited with asterisks
and encoded using base64 ([RFC4648], Section 4). For example:
Example-BinaryHdr: *cHJldGVuZCB0aGlzIGlzIGJpbmFyeSBjb250ZW50Lg==*
Parsers MUST support byte sequences with at least 16384 octets after
decoding.
3.9. Booleans
Boolean values can be conveyed in Structured Headers.
The ABNF for a Boolean in textual HTTP headers is:
sh-boolean = "?" boolean
boolean = "0" / "1"
In textual HTTP headers, a boolean is indicated with a leading "?"
character. For example:
Example-BoolHdr: ?1
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
4. Working With Structured Headers in Textual HTTP Headers
This section defines how to serialize and parse Structured Headers in
textual header fields, and protocols compatible with them (e.g., in
HTTP/2 [RFC7540] before HPACK [RFC7541] is applied).
4.1. Serializing Structured Headers
Given a structure defined in this specification, return an ASCII
string suitable for use in a textual HTTP header value.
1. If the structure is a dictionary or list and its value is empty
(i.e., it has no members), do not send the serialize field at all
(i.e., omit both the field-name and field-value).
2. If the structure is a dictionary, let output_string be the result
of Serializing a Dictionary (Section 4.1.2).
3. Else if the structure is a list, let output_string be the result
of Serializing a List (Section 4.1.1).
4. Else if the structure is an item, let output_string be the result
of Serializing an Item (Section 4.1.3).
5. Else, fail serialisation.
6. Return output_string converted into an array of bytes, using
ASCII encoding [RFC0020].
4.1.1. Serializing a List
Given a list of (member-value, parameters) as input_list, return an
ASCII string suitable for use in a textual HTTP header value.
1. Let output be an empty string.
2. For each (member-value, parameters) of input_list:
1. If member-value is an array, append the result of applying
Serialising an Inner List (Section 4.1.1.1) with member-value
to output.
2. Otherwise, append the result of applying Serializing an Item
(Section 4.1.3) with member-value to output.
3. Append the result of Serializing Parameters Section 4.1.1.2
with parameters to output.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
4. If more member-values remain in input_plist:
1. Append a COMMA to output.
2. Append a single WS to output.
3. Return output.
4.1.1.1. Serialising an Inner List
Given an array as inner_list, return an ASCII string suitable for use
in a textual HTTP header value.
1. Let output be the string "(".
2. For each member-value of inner_list:
1. Append the result of applying Serializing an Item
(Section 4.1.3) with member-value to output.
2. If inner_list is not empty, append a single WS to output.
3. Append ")" to output.
4. Return output.
4.1.1.2. Serializing Parameters
Given an ordered dictionary as input_parameters (each member having a
param-name and a param-value), return an ASCII string suitable for
use in a textual HTTP header value.
1. Let output be an empty string.
2. For each parameter-name with a value of param-value in
input_parameters:
1. Append ";" to output.
2. Append the result of applying Serializing a Key
(Section 4.1.1.3) with param-name to output.
3. If param-value is not null:
1. Append "=" to output.
2. Append the result of applying Serializing an Item
(Section 4.1.3) with param-value to output.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
3. Return output.
4.1.1.3. Serializing a Key
Given a key as input_key, return an ASCII string suitable for use in
a textual HTTP header value.
1. If input_key is not a sequence of characters, or contains
characters not in lcalpha, DIGIT, "*", "_", or "-", fail
serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append input_key to output.
4. Return output.
4.1.2. Serializing a Dictionary
Given an ordered dictionary as input_dictionary (each member having a
member-name and a tuple value of (member-value, parameters)), return
an ASCII string suitable for use in a textual HTTP header value.
1. Let output be an empty string.
2. For each member-name with a value of (member-value, parameters)
in input_dictionary:
1. Append the result of applying Serializing a Key
(Section 4.1.1.3) with member's member-name to output.
2. Append "=" to output.
3. If member-value is an array, append the result of applying
Serialising an Inner List (Section 4.1.1.1) with member-value
to output.
4. Otherwise, append the result of applying Serializing an Item
(Section 4.1.3) with member-value to output.
5. Append the result of Serializing Parameters Section 4.1.1.2
with parameters to output.
6. If more members remain in input_dictionary:
1. Append a COMMA to output.
2. Append a single WS to output.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
3. Return output.
4.1.3. Serializing an Item
Given an item as input_item, return an ASCII string suitable for use
in a textual HTTP header value.
1. If input_item is an integer, return the result of applying
Serializing an Integer (Section 4.1.4) to input_item.
2. If input_item is a float, return the result of applying
Serializing a Float (Section 4.1.5) to input_item.
3. If input_item is a string, return the result of applying
Serializing a String (Section 4.1.6) to input_item.
4. If input_item is a token, return the result of Serializing a
Token (Section 4.1.7) to input_item.
5. If input_item is a Boolean, return the result of applying
Serializing a Boolean (Section 4.1.9) to input_item.
6. If input_item is a byte sequence, return the result of applying
Serializing a Byte Sequence (Section 4.1.8) to input_item.
7. Otherwise, fail serialisation.
4.1.4. Serializing an Integer
Given an integer as input_integer, return an ASCII string suitable
for use in a textual HTTP header value.
1. If input_integer is not an integer in the range of
-999,999,999,999,999 to 999,999,999,999,999 inclusive, fail
serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. If input_integer is less than (but not equal to) 0, append "-" to
output.
4. Append input_integer's numeric value represented in base 10 using
only decimal digits to output.
5. Return output.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
4.1.5. Serializing a Float
Given a float as input_float, return an ASCII string suitable for use
in a textual HTTP header value.
1. Let output be an empty string.
2. If input_float is less than (but not equal to) 0, append "-" to
output.
3. Append input_float's integer component represented in base 10
(using only decimal digits) to output; if it is zero, append
"0".
4. Let integer_digits be the number of characters appended in the
previous step.
5. If integer_digits is greater than 14, fail serialisation.
6. Let digits_avail be 15 minus integer_digits.
7. Let fractional_digits_avail be the minimum of digits_avail and
6.
8. Append "." to output.
9. Append at most fractional_digits_avail digits of input_float's
fractional component represented in base 10 to output (using
only decimal digits, and truncating any remaining digits); if it
is zero, append "0".
10. Return output.
4.1.6. Serializing a String
Given a string as input_string, return an ASCII string suitable for
use in a textual HTTP header value.
1. If input_string is not a sequence of characters, or contains
characters outside the range %x00-1f or %x7f (i.e., is not in
VCHAR or SP), fail serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append DQUOTE to output.
4. For each character char in input_string:
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
1. If char is "\" or DQUOTE:
1. Append "\" to output.
2. Append char to output.
5. Append DQUOTE to output.
6. Return output.
4.1.7. Serializing a Token
Given a token as input_token, return an ASCII string suitable for use
in a textual HTTP header value.
1. If input_token is not a sequence of characters, or contains
characters not in ALPHA, DIGIT, "_", "-", ".", ":", "%", "*" or
"/", fail serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append input_token to output.
4. Return output.
4.1.8. Serializing a Byte Sequence
Given a byte sequence as input_bytes, return an ASCII string suitable
for use in a textual HTTP header value.
1. If input_bytes is not a sequence of bytes, fail serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append "*" to output.
4. Append the result of base64-encoding input_bytes as per
[RFC4648], Section 4, taking account of the requirements below.
5. Append "*" to output.
6. Return output.
The encoded data is required to be padded with "=", as per [RFC4648],
Section 3.2.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
Likewise, encoded data SHOULD have pad bits set to zero, as per
[RFC4648], Section 3.5, unless it is not possible to do so due to
implementation constraints.
4.1.9. Serializing a Boolean
Given a Boolean as input_boolean, return an ASCII string suitable for
use in a textual HTTP header value.
1. If input_boolean is not a boolean, fail serialisation.
2. Let output be an empty string.
3. Append "?" to output.
4. If input_boolean is true, append "1" to output.
5. If input_boolean is false, append "0" to output.
6. Return output.
4.2. Parsing Header Fields into Structured Headers
When a receiving implementation parses textual HTTP header fields
that are known to be Structured Headers, it is important that care be
taken, as there are a number of edge cases that can cause
interoperability or even security problems. This section specifies
the algorithm for doing so.
Given an array of bytes input_bytes that represents the chosen
header's field-value (which is an empty string if that header is not
present), and header_type (one of "dictionary", "list", or "item"),
return the parsed header value.
1. Convert input_bytes into an ASCII string input_string; if
conversion fails, fail parsing.
2. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
3. If header_type is "list", let output be the result of Parsing a
List from Text (Section 4.2.1).
4. If header_type is "dictionary", let output be the result of
Parsing a Dictionary from Text (Section 4.2.2).
5. If header_type is "item", let output be the result of Parsing an
Item from Text (Section 4.2.3).
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
6. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
7. If input_string is not empty, fail parsing.
8. Otherwise, return output.
When generating input_bytes, parsers MUST combine all instances of
the target header field into one comma-separated field-value, as per
[RFC7230], Section 3.2.2; this assures that the header is processed
correctly.
For Lists and Dictionaries, this has the effect of correctly
concatenating all instances of the header field, as long as
individual individual members of the top-level data structure are not
split across multiple header instances.
Strings split across multiple header instances will have
unpredictable results, because comma(s) and whitespace inserted upon
combination will become part of the string output by the parser.
Since concatenation might be done by an upstream intermediary, the
results are not under the control of the serializer or the parser.
Tokens, Integers, Floats and Byte Sequences cannot be split across
multiple headers because the inserted commas will cause parsing to
fail.
If parsing fails - including when calling another algorithm - the
entire header field's value MUST be ignored (i.e., treated as if the
header field were not present in the message). This is intentionally
strict, to improve interoperability and safety, and specifications
referencing this document are not allowed to loosen this requirement.
Note that this requirement does not apply to an implementation that
is not parsing the header field; for example, an intermediary is not
required to strip a failing header field from a message before
forwarding it.
4.2.1. Parsing a List from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return an array of (member,
parameters). input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. Let members be an empty array.
2. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let member be the result of running Parsing a Parameterized
Member from Text (Section 4.2.1.1) with input_string.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
2. Append member to members.
3. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
4. If input_string is empty, return members.
5. Consume the first character of input_string; if it is not
COMMA, fail parsing.
6. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
7. If input_string is empty, there is a trailing comma; fail
parsing.
3. No structured data has been found; return members (which is
empty).
4.2.1.1. Parsing a Parameterized Member from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return a member (either a list
of items, or a single item) with an ordered map of parameters.
input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is "(", let member be the
result of running Parsing an Inner List (Section 4.2.1.2) with
input_string.
2. Else, let member be the result of running Parsing an Item
(Section 4.2.3) with input_string.
3. Let parameters be an empty, ordered map.
4. While input_string is not empty:
1. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
2. If the first character of input_string is not ";", exit the
loop.
3. Consume a ";" character from the beginning of input_string.
4. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
5. let param_name be the result of Parsing a key from Text
(Section 4.2.1.3) from input_string.
6. If param_name is already present in parameters, there is a
duplicate; fail parsing.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
7. Let param_value be a null value.
8. If the first character of input_string is "=":
1. Consume the "=" character at the beginning of
input_string.
2. Let param_value be the result of Parsing an Item from
Text (Section 4.2.3) from input_string.
9. Append key param_name with value param_value to parameters.
5. Return the tuple (member, parameters).
4.2.1.2. Parsing an Inner List
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return an array of items.
input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. Consume the first character of input_string; if it is not "(",
fail parsing.
2. Let inner_list be an empty array.
3. While input_string is not empty:
1. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
2. If the first character of input_string is ")":
1. Consume the first character of input_string.
2. Return inner_list.
3. Let item be the result of running Parsing an Item from Text
(Section 4.2.3) with input_string.
4. Append item to inner_list.
5. If the first character of input_string is not SP or ")", fail
parsing.
4. The end of the inner list was not found; fail parsing.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
4.2.1.3. Parsing a Key from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return a key. input_string is
modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is not lcalpha, fail
parsing.
2. Let output_string be an empty string.
3. While input_string is not empty:
1. If the first character of input_string is not one of lcalpha,
DIGIT, "*", "_", or "-", return output_string.
2. Let char be the result of removing the first character of
input_string.
3. Append char to output_string.
4. Return output_string.
4.2.2. Parsing a Dictionary from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return an ordered map of (key,
item). input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. Let dictionary be an empty, ordered map.
2. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let this_key be the result of running Parsing a Key from
Text (Section 4.2.1.3) with input_string.
2. If dictionary already contains the name this_key, there is a
duplicate; fail parsing.
3. Consume the first character of input_string; if it is not
"=", fail parsing.
4. Let member be the result of running Parsing a Parameterized
Member from Text (Section 4.2.1.1) with input_string.
5. Add name this_key with value member to dictionary.
6. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
7. If input_string is empty, return dictionary.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
8. Consume the first character of input_string; if it is not
COMMA, fail parsing.
9. Discard any leading OWS from input_string.
10. If input_string is empty, there is a trailing comma; fail
parsing.
3. No structured data has been found; return dictionary (which is
empty).
4.2.3. Parsing an Item from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return an item. input_string
is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is a "-" or a DIGIT,
process input_string as a number (Section 4.2.4) and return the
result.
2. If the first character of input_string is a DQUOTE, process
input_string as a string (Section 4.2.5) and return the result.
3. If the first character of input_string is "*", process
input_string as a byte sequence (Section 4.2.7) and return the
result.
4. If the first character of input_string is "?", process
input_string as a Boolean (Section 4.2.8) and return the result.
5. If the first character of input_string is an ALPHA, process
input_string as a token (Section 4.2.6) and return the result.
6. Otherwise, the item type is unrecognized; fail parsing.
4.2.4. Parsing a Number from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return a number. input_string
is modified to remove the parsed value.
NOTE: This algorithm parses both Integers (Section 3.4) and Floats
(Section 3.5), and returns the corresponding structure.
1. Let type be "integer".
2. Let sign be 1.
3. Let input_number be an empty string.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
4. If the first character of input_string is "-", consume it and
set sign to -1.
5. If input_string is empty, there is an empty integer; fail
parsing.
6. If the first character of input_string is not a DIGIT, fail
parsing.
7. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let char be the result of consuming the first character of
input_string.
2. If char is a DIGIT, append it to input_number.
3. Else, if type is "integer" and char is ".", append char to
input_number and set type to "float".
4. Otherwise, prepend char to input_string, and exit the loop.
5. If type is "integer" and input_number contains more than 15
characters, fail parsing.
6. If type is "float" and input_number contains more than 16
characters, fail parsing.
8. If type is "integer":
1. Parse input_number as an integer and let output_number be
the product of the result and sign.
2. If output_number is outside the range defined in
Section 3.4, fail parsing.
9. Otherwise:
1. If the final character of input_number is ".", fail parsing.
2. If the number of characters after "." in input_number is
greater than six, fail parsing.
3. Parse input_number as a float and let output_number be the
product of the result and sign.
10. Return output_number.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
4.2.5. Parsing a String from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return an unquoted string.
input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. Let output_string be an empty string.
2. If the first character of input_string is not DQUOTE, fail
parsing.
3. Discard the first character of input_string.
4. While input_string is not empty:
1. Let char be the result of consuming the first character of
input_string.
2. If char is a backslash ("\"):
1. If input_string is now empty, fail parsing.
2. Let next_char be the result of consuming the first
character of input_string.
3. If next_char is not DQUOTE or "\", fail parsing.
4. Append next_char to output_string.
3. Else, if char is DQUOTE, return output_string.
4. Else, if char is in the range %x00-1f or %x7f (i.e., is not
in VCHAR or SP), fail parsing.
5. Else, append char to output_string.
5. Reached the end of input_string without finding a closing DQUOTE;
fail parsing.
4.2.6. Parsing a Token from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return a token. input_string
is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is not ALPHA, fail
parsing.
2. Let output_string be an empty string.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
3. While input_string is not empty:
1. If the first character of input_string is not one of ALPHA,
DIGIT, "_", "-", ".", ":", "%", "*" or "/", return
output_string.
2. Let char be the result of consuming the first character of
input_string.
3. Append char to output_string.
4. Return output_string.
4.2.7. Parsing a Byte Sequence from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return a byte sequence.
input_string is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is not "*", fail parsing.
2. Discard the first character of input_string.
3. If there is not a "*" character before the end of input_string,
fail parsing.
4. Let b64_content be the result of consuming content of
input_string up to but not including the first instance of the
character "*".
5. Consume the "*" character at the beginning of input_string.
6. If b64_content contains a character not included in ALPHA, DIGIT,
"+", "/" and "=", fail parsing.
7. Let binary_content be the result of Base 64 Decoding [RFC4648]
b64_content, synthesizing padding if necessary (note the
requirements about recipient behaviour below).
8. Return binary_content.
Because some implementations of base64 do not allow reject of encoded
data that is not properly "=" padded (see [RFC4648], Section 3.2),
parsers SHOULD NOT fail when it is not present, unless they cannot be
configured to do so.
Because some implementations of base64 do not allow rejection of
encoded data that has non-zero pad bits (see [RFC4648], Section 3.5),
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
parsers SHOULD NOT fail when it is present, unless they cannot be
configured to do so.
This specification does not relax the requirements in [RFC4648],
Section 3.1 and 3.3; therefore, parsers MUST fail on characters
outside the base64 alphabet, and on line feeds in encoded data.
4.2.8. Parsing a Boolean from Text
Given an ASCII string as input_string, return a Boolean. input_string
is modified to remove the parsed value.
1. If the first character of input_string is not "?", fail parsing.
2. Discard the first character of input_string.
3. If the first character of input_string matches "1", discard the
first character, and return true.
4. If the first character of input_string matches "0", discard the
first character, and return false.
5. No value has matched; fail parsing.
5. IANA Considerations
This draft has no actions for IANA.
6. Security Considerations
The size of most types defined by Structured Headers is not limited;
as a result, extremely large header fields could be an attack vector
(e.g., for resource consumption). Most HTTP implementations limit
the sizes of individual header fields as well as the overall header
block size to mitigate such attacks.
It is possible for parties with the ability to inject new HTTP header
fields to change the meaning of a Structured Header. In some
circumstances, this will cause parsing to fail, but it is not
possible to reliably fail in all such circumstances.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 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>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",
IEEE 754-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935,
ISBN 978-0-7381-5752-8, August 2008,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4610935/>.
See also http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/ [6].
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.
[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>.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
[RFC7541] Peon, R. and H. Ruellan, "HPACK: Header Compression for
HTTP/2", RFC 7541, DOI 10.17487/RFC7541, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7541>.
[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>.
7.3. URIs
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
[2] https://httpwg.github.io/
[3] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/header-structure
[4] https://github.com/httpwg/structured-header-tests
[5] https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki/Structured-Headers
[6] https://github.com/httpwg/structured-header-tests
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Matthew Kerwin for his detailed feedback and careful
consideration during the development of this specification.
Appendix B. Frequently Asked Questions
B.1. Why not JSON?
Earlier proposals for structured headers were based upon JSON
[RFC8259]. However, constraining its use to make it suitable for
HTTP header fields required senders and recipients to implement
specific additional handling.
For example, JSON has specification issues around large numbers and
objects with duplicate members. Although advice for avoiding these
issues is available (e.g., [RFC7493]), it cannot be relied upon.
Likewise, JSON strings are by default Unicode strings, which have a
number of potential interoperability issues (e.g., in comparison).
Although implementers can be advised to avoid non-ASCII content where
unnecessary, this is difficult to enforce.
Another example is JSON's ability to nest content to arbitrary
depths. Since the resulting memory commitment might be unsuitable
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
(e.g., in embedded and other limited server deployments), it's
necessary to limit it in some fashion; however, existing JSON
implementations have no such limits, and even if a limit is
specified, it's likely that some header field definition will find a
need to violate it.
Because of JSON's broad adoption and implementation, it is difficult
to impose such additional constraints across all implementations;
some deployments would fail to enforce them, thereby harming
interoperability. In short, if it looks like JSON, people will be
tempted to use a JSON parser / serialiser on header fields.
Since a major goal for Structured Headers is to improve
interoperability and simplify implementation, these concerns led to a
format that requires a dedicated parser and serializer.
Additionally, there were widely shared feelings that JSON doesn't
"look right" in HTTP headers.
B.2. Structured Headers don't "fit" my data.
Structured headers intentionally limits the complexity of data
structures, to assure that it can be processed in a performant manner
with little overhead. This means that work is necessary to fit some
data types into them.
Sometimes, this can be achieved by creating limited substructures in
values, and/or using more than one header. For example, consider:
Example-Thing: name="Widget", cost=89.2, descriptions=(foo bar)
Example-Description: foo; url="https://example.net"; context=123,
bar; url="https://example.org"; context=456
Since the description contains an array of key/value pairs, we use a
List to represent them, with the token for each item in the array
used to identify it in the "descriptions" member of the Example-Thing
header.
When specifying more than one header, it's important to remember to
describe what a processor's behaviour should be when one of the
headers is missing.
If you need to fit arbitrarily complex data into a header, Structured
Headers is probably a poor fit for your use case.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
Appendix C. Implementation Notes
A generic implementation of this specification should expose the top-
level parse (Section 4.2) and serialize (Section 4.1) functions.
They need not be functions; for example, it could be implemented as
an object, with methods for each of the different top-level types.
For interoperability, it's important that generic implementations be
complete and follow the algorithms closely; see Section 1.1. To aid
this, a common test suite is being maintained by the community at
https://github.com/httpwg/structured-header-tests [7].
Implementers should note that dictionaries and parameters are order-
preserving maps. Some headers may not convey meaning in the ordering
of these data types, but it should still be exposed so that
applications which need to use it will have it available.
Likewise, implementations should note that it's important to preserve
the distinction between tokens and strings. While most programming
languages have native types that map to the other types well, it may
be necessary to create a wrapper "token" object or use a parameter on
functions to assure that these types remain separate.
Appendix D. Changes
_RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication._
D.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-12
o Editorial improvements.
o Reworked float serialisation (#896).
D.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-11
o Allow * in key (#844).
o Constrain floats to six digits of precision (#848).
o Allow dictionary members to have parameters (#842).
D.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-10
o Update abstract (#799).
o Input and output are now arrays of bytes (#662).
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
o Implementations need to preserve difference between token and
string (#790).
o Allow empty dictionaries and lists (#781).
o Change parameterized lists to have primary items (#797).
o Allow inner lists in both dictionaries and lists; removes lists of
lists (#816).
o Subsume Parameterised Lists into Lists (#839).
D.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-09
o Changed Boolean from T/F to 1/0 (#784).
o Parameters are now ordered maps (#765).
o Clamp integers to 15 digits (#737).
D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-08
o Disallow whitespace before items properly (#703).
o Created "key" for use in dictionaries and parameters, rather than
relying on identifier (#702). Identifiers have a separate minimum
supported size.
o Expanded the range of special characters allowed in identifier to
include all of ALPHA, ".", ":", and "%" (#702).
o Use "?" instead of "!" to indicate a Boolean (#719).
o Added "Intentionally Strict Processing" (#684).
o Gave better names for referring specs to use in Parameterised
Lists (#720).
o Added Lists of Lists (#721).
o Rename Identifier to Token (#725).
o Add implementation guidance (#727).
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
D.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-07
o Make Dictionaries ordered mappings (#659).
o Changed "binary content" to "byte sequence" to align with Infra
specification (#671).
o Changed "mapping" to "map" for #671.
o Don't fail if byte sequences aren't "=" padded (#658).
o Add Booleans (#683).
o Allow identifiers in items again (#629).
o Disallowed whitespace before items (#703).
o Explain the consequences of splitting a string across multiple
headers (#686).
D.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-06
o Add a FAQ.
o Allow non-zero pad bits.
o Explicitly check for integers that violate constraints.
D.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-05
o Reorganise specification to separate parsing out.
o Allow referencing specs to use ABNF.
o Define serialisation algorithms.
o Refine relationship between ABNF, parsing and serialisation
algorithms.
D.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-04
o Remove identifiers from item.
o Remove most limits on sizes.
o Refine number parsing.
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
D.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-03
o Strengthen language around failure handling.
D.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-02
o Split Numbers into Integers and Floats.
o Define number parsing.
o Tighten up binary parsing and give it an explicit end delimiter.
o Clarify that mappings are unordered.
o Allow zero-length strings.
o Improve string parsing algorithm.
o Improve limits in algorithms.
o Require parsers to combine header fields before processing.
o Throw an error on trailing garbage.
D.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-01
o Replaced with draft-nottingham-structured-headers.
D.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00
o Added signed 64bit integer type.
o Drop UTF8, and settle on BCP137 ::EmbeddedUnicodeChar for h1-
unicode-string.
o Change h1_blob delimiter to ":" since "'" is valid t_char
Authors' Addresses
Mark Nottingham
Fastly
Email: mnot@mnot.net
URI: https://www.mnot.net/
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Structured Headers for HTTP August 2019
Poul-Henning Kamp
The Varnish Cache Project
Email: phk@varnish-cache.org
Nottingham & Kamp Expires February 25, 2020 [Page 35]
