Individual Submission J. Snell
Internet-Draft December 6, 2011
Intended status: Informational
Expires: June 8, 2012
Prefer Header for HTTP
draft-snell-http-prefer-05
Abstract
This specification defines an HTTP header field that can be used by a
user-agent to request that certain behaviors be implemented by a
server while processing a request.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 http://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 June 8, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
(http://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.
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Prefer Request Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The "return-accepted" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. The "return-representation" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. The "return-status" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. The "return-minimal" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. The "wait" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. The "strict" and "lenient" Processing Preferences . . . . . . 6
9. Registered Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. The Registry of Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1.1. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
1. Introduction
This specification defines a new HTTP request header field that may
be used by user-agents to request optional behaviors be applied by a
server during the processing the request.
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. The Prefer Request Header
The Prefer request-header field is used to indicate that particular
server behaviors are preferred by the user-agent, but not required
for successful completion of the request. Prefer is similar in
nature to the Expect header field defined by
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] Section 9.3 with the exception that
servers are allowed to ignore stated preferences.
Prefer = "Prefer" ":" 1#preference
preference = OWS preference-token OWS *prefer-params OWS
preference-value = token / quoted-string
preference-token = token OWS [ "=" OWS preference-value OWS ]
prefer-params = ";" OWS preference-token
This header field is defined with an extensible syntax to allow for
future values included in the Registry of Preferences
(Section 10.1)). A server that does not recognize or is unable to
comply with particular preference values in the Prefer header field
of a request MUST ignore those values and MUST NOT stop processing or
signal an error.
A preference token MAY specify a preference-value. Empty, or zero
length preference-values on both the preference directive and
parameters are equivalent to no value being specified at all. The
following, then, are equivalent:
Prefer: foo; bar=""
Prefer: foo=; bar
Prefer: foo=""; bar=
An optional, arbitrary collection of preference parameters MAY be
specified for any preference directive. The meaning and application
of such parameters is dependent on the definition of each preference
directive and the server's implementation thereof.
If a particular preference directive or parameter is specified
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
multiple times, repeated occurrences MUST be ignored without
signaling an error or otherwise altering the processing of the
request.
Comparison of preference token names is case-insensitive while values
are case-sensitive regardless of whether token or quoted-string
values are used.
Note that the application of a preference by the server MAY affect
the caching characteristics of the response. Specifically, should
the application of a preference result in a variance to the
representation returned by a cacheable response, a Vary header field
MUST be included listing the Prefer header field as one of the
selecting header fields.
The Prefer request header field MUST be forwarded by the proxy if the
request is forwarded. In various situations, A proxy may determine
that it is capable of honoring a preference independently of the
server to which the request is directed. For instance, an
intervening proxy may be capable of transparently providing
asynchronous handling of a request using a 202 Accepted responses
independently of the origin server. Such proxies could choose to
honor the "return-accepted" preference. Individual preference
directives MAY define their own requirements and restrictions as to
whether and how proxies may apply the preference to a request
independently of the origin server.
3. The "return-accepted" Preference
The "return-accepted" preference indicates that the user-agent
prefers the server to respond with a 202 Accepted status in the case
where the length of time it takes to generate a response will exceed
some arbitrary threshold established by the server.
return-accepted = "return-accepted"
The key motivation for the "return-accepted" preference is to
facilitate the operation of asynchronous request handling by allowing
the user-agent to indicate to a server it's capability and preference
for handling 202 Accepted responses.
4. The "return-representation" Preference
The "return-representation" preference indicates that the user-agent
prefers that the server include an entity representing the current
state of the resource in the response to a successful request.
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
return-representation = "return-representation"
When honoring the "return-representation" preference, the server MUST
include a Content-Location header field specifying the URI of the
resource representation being returned. Per section 6.1 of
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], the presence of the Content-Location
header field in the response asserts that the payload is a
representation of the resource identified by the Content-Location
URI.
The "return-representation" preference is intended primarily to
provide a means of optimizing communication between the user-agent
and server by eliminating the need for a subsequent GET request to
retrieve the current representation of the resource following a
modification.
Currently, after successfully processing a modification request such
as a POST or PUT, a server may choose to return either an entity
describing the status of the operation or a representation of the
modified resource itself. While the selection of which type of
entity to return, if any at all, is solely at the discretion of the
server, the "return-representation" preference -- along with the
"return-status" and "return-minimal" directives defined below --
allow the server to take the user-agent's preferences into
consideration while constructing the response.
5. The "return-status" Preference
The "return-status" preference indicates that the user-agent prefers
the server to include an entity describing the status of the request
in the response as opposed to returning a representation of the
current state of the resource.
return-status = "return-status"
When honoring the "return-status" preference, the server SHOULD NOT
include a Content-Location header field in the response.
6. The "return-minimal" Preference
The "return-minimal" preference indicates that the user-agent wishes
the server to return a minimal response to a successful request.
Typically, such responses would utilize the 204 No Content status,
but other codes MAY be used as appropriate, such as a 200 status with
a zero-length response entity. The determination of what constitutes
an appropriate minimal response is solely at the discretion of the
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
server.
return-minimal = "return-minimal"
The "return-minimal" preference is intended to provide a means of
optimizing communication between the user-agent and server by
reducing the amount of data the server is required to return to the
user-agent following a request. This can be particularly useful, for
instance, when communicating with limited-bandwidth mobile devices or
when the user-agent simply does not require any further information
about the result of a request beyond knowing if it was successfully
processed.
7. The "wait" Preference
The "wait" preference can be used to establish an upper bound on the
length of time, in seconds, the user-agent is willing to wait for a
response, after which the user-agent may choose to abandon the
request. In the case generating a response will take longer than the
time specified, the server, or proxy, can choose to either return a
202 Accepted response, cancel processing, or continue attempting to
complete the request.
wait = "wait" OWS "=" OWS delta-seconds
User-Agents specifying the "wait" Preference SHOULD also use the Date
header field, as specified in [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] Section
9.2, within the request to establish the time at which the client
began waiting for the completion of the request.
8. The "strict" and "lenient" Processing Preferences
ED NOTE: This preference directive is currently exploratory in
nature. I've added it to solicit feedback as to it's general
utility. It is possible that I may pull this back out.
The "strict" and "lenient" preferences are mutually-exclusive
directives indicating, at the servers discretion, how the user-agent
wishes the server to handle potential error conditions that may arise
in the processing of a request. For instance, if the payload of a
request contains various minor syntactical or semantic errors, but
the server is still capable of comprehending and successfully
processing the request, a decision must be made to either reject the
request with an appropriate 4xx error response or to go ahead with
processing. The "strict" preference can be used by the user-agent to
indicate that, in such conditions, it would prefer that the server
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
reject the request, while the "lenient" preference indicates that the
user-agent would prefer the server to attempt to process the request.
The specific meaning and application of the "strict" and "lenient"
directives is specific to each type of resource, the request method
and the operation of the server.
handling = "strict" / "lenient"
9. Registered Preferences
Well-defined preferences can be registered for convenience and/or to
promote reuse by other applications. This specification establishes
an IANA registry of such relation types see Section Section 10.1.
Registered preference names MUST conform to the token rule, and MUST
be compared character-by-character in a case-insensitive fashion.
They SHOULD be appropriate to the specificity of the preference;
i.e., if the semantics are highly specific to a particular
application, the name should reflect that, so that more general names
are available for less specific use.
Registered preferences MUST NOT constrain servers, user-agents or any
intermediaries involved in the exchange and processing of a request
to any behavior required for successful processing. The use and
application of a preference within a given request MUST be optional
on the part of all participants.
10. IANA Considerations
The 'Prefer' header field should be added to the permanent registry
(see [RFC3864]).
Header field name: Prefer
Applicable Protocol: HTTP
Status:
Author/Change controller: IETF
Specification document: this specification
10.1. The Registry of Preferences
Preferences are registered on the advice of a Designated Expert
(appointed by the IESG or their delegate), with a Specification
Required (using terminology from [RFC5226]).
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
The requirements for registered preferences are described in
Section 9
Registration requests consist of the completed registration template
below, typically published in an RFC or Open Standard (in the sense
described by [RFC2026], Section 7). However, to allow for the
allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert may
approve registration once they are satisfied that a specification
will be published.
Note that relation types can be registered by third parties, if the
Designated Expert determines that an unregistered relation type is
widely deployed and not likely to be registered in a timely manner.
The registration template is:
o Preference: (A value for the Prefer request header field that
conforms to the syntax rule given in Section 2)
o Description:
o Reference:
o Notes: [optional]
o Application Data: [optional]
Registration requests should be sent to the preferences@ietf.org
mailing list, marked clearly in the subject line (e.g., "NEW
PREFERENCE - example" to register an "example" preference).
Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) will
either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this
decision to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an
explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the
request successful.
Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert can be
first appealed to Application Area Directors (contactable using
app-ads@tools.ietf.org email address or directly by looking up their
email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if the
appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using
the iesg@iesg.org mailing list).
IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated
Expert(s), and should direct all requests for registration to the
review mailing list.
10.1.1. Initial Registry Contents
The Preferences Registry's initial contents are:
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
o Preference: return-accepted
o Description: Indicates that the user-agent prefers the server to
respond with a 202 Accepted status as described by Section 3
o Reference: [this specification]
o Preference: return-minimal
o Description: Indicates that the user-agent prefers the server
return a minimal response to a request as described by Section 6
o Reference: [this specification]
o Preference: return-representation
o Description: Indicates that the user-agent prefers the server to
include a representation of the current state of the resource in
response to a request as described by Section 4
o Reference: [this specification]
o Preference: return-status
o Description: Indicates that the user-agent prefers the server to
return an entity describing the current state of a resource in
response to a request as described by Section 5
o Reference: [this specification]
o Preference: wait
o Description: Indicates an upper bound to the lenght of time the
user-agent is willing to wait for a response, after which the
request may be aborted.
o Reference: [this specification]
o Preference: strict
o Description: Indicates that the client wishes the server to apply
strict validation and error handling to the processing of a
request.
o Reference: [this specification]
o Preference: lenient
o Description: Indicates that the client wishes the server to apply
lenient validation and error handling to the processing of a
request.
o Reference: [this specification]
11. Security Considerations
Specific preferences requested by a client can introduce security
considerations and concerns beyond those discussed in HTTP/1.1 Parts
1 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging], 2 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics],
3 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p3-payload], 4 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional],
5 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p5-range], 6 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p6-cache], and 7
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p7-auth]. Implementors must refer to the
specifications and descriptions of each preference to determine the
security considerations relevant to each.
12. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., and
J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and
Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-17 (work
in progress), October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., and
J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics",
draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-17 (work in progress),
October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p3-payload]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., and
J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content
Negotiation", draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-17 (work in
progress), October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., and
J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests",
draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-17 (work in progress),
October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p5-range]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., and
J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial
Responses", draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-17 (work in
progress), October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p6-cache]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y.,
Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1, part 6:
Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-17 (work in
progress), October 2011.
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p7-auth]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., and
J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication",
draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17 (work in progress),
October 2011.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
September 2004.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Author's Address
James M Snell
Phone:
Email: jasnell@gmail.com
URI:
Snell Expires June 8, 2012 [Page 11]
