Individual Submission J. Snell
Internet-Draft December 8, 2011
Intended status: Informational
Expires: June 10, 2012
Prefer Header for HTTP
draft-snell-http-prefer-07
Abstract
This specification defines an HTTP header field that can be used by a
client to request that certain behaviors be implemented by a server
while processing a request.
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 10, 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 10, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Prefer Request Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Cache Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. The "return-accepted" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. The "return-representation" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. The "return-minimal" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. The "wait" Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. The "strict" and "lenient" Processing Preferences . . . . . . 7
8. Registered Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. The Registry of Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1.1. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Snell Expires June 10, 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 clients 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].
1.1. Syntax Notation
This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
notation of [RFC5234] and includes, by reference, the "token",
"quoted-string", "OWS", "BWS" rules and the #rule extension as
defined within [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging] Section 1.2.
2. The Prefer Request Header
The Prefer request-header field is used to indicate that particular
server behaviors are preferred by the client, 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 = token [ BWS "=" BWS value ]
*( OWS ";" [ OWS parameter ] )
parameter = token [ BWS "=" BWS value ]
value = token / quoted-string
This header field is defined with an extensible syntax to allow for
future values included in the Registry of Preferences (Section 9.1)).
A server that does not recognize or is unable to comply with
particular preference tokens in the Prefer header field of a request
MUST ignore those tokens and MUST NOT stop processing or signal an
error.
A preference token MAY specify a value. Empty, or zero length values
on both the preference token and within parameters are equivalent to
no value being specified at all. The following, then, are
equivalent:
Prefer: foo; bar=""
Prefer: foo=; bar
Prefer: foo=""; bar=
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
An optional, arbitrary collection of parameters MAY be specified for
any preference token. The meaning and application of such parameters
is dependent on the definition of each preference token and the
server's implementation thereof.
If a particular preference token or parameter is specified 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.
The Prefer request header field MUST be forwarded by a 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 tokens
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.
As per [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging], Section 3.2, Implementations
MUST be capable of supporting either multiple instances of the Prefer
header field in a single message as well as multiple preference
tokens separated by commas in a single Prefer header, for instance,
the following examples are equivalent:
# Multiple Prefer Header Fields
POST /foo HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org
Prefer: return-accepted
Prefer: wait=100
# Single Prefer Header Field
POST /foo HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org
Prefer: return-accepted, wait=100
2.1. Cache Considerations
Note that while the Prefer header field is not intended to be used as
content negotiation mechanism, the application of a preference could
affect the caching characteristics of a response. Specifically, if a
server supports the optional application of a preference that could
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
even potentially result in a variance to a cache's handling of a
response entity, a Vary header field MUST be included with the
response listing the Prefer header field regardless of whether the
client actually uses Prefer in the request.
Because of the inherent complexities involved with properly
implementing server-driven content negotiation, effective caching,
and the application of optional preferences, implementors must
exercise caution when utilizing preferences in such a way as to
impact the caching of a response.
2.2. Examples
The following examples illustrate the use of various Preferences
defined by this specification, as well as undefined extensions for
strictly illustrative purposes:
# Return a 202 Accepted response for asynchronous processing
# if the response cannot be processed within 10 seconds.
# An undefined "priority" preference is also specified.
Prefer: return-accepted, wait=10;
Prefer: priority=5;
# Use lenient processing
Prefer: Lenient
# Use of an optional, undefined parameter on the
# return-minimal preference requesting a response
# status code of 204 for a successful response.
Prefer: return-minimal; status=204
3. The "return-accepted" Preference
The "return-accepted" preference indicates that the client 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 client to indicate to a server it's capability and preference for
handling 202 Accepted responses.
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
4. The "return-representation" Preference
The "return-representation" preference indicates that the client
prefers that the server include an entity representing the current
state of the resource in the response to a successful request.
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 client 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-minimal" preference defined below -- allow the server to take
the client's preferences into consideration while constructing the
response.
5. The "return-minimal" Preference
The "return-minimal" preference indicates that the client 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
server.
return-minimal = "return-minimal"
The "return-minimal" preference is intended to provide a means of
optimizing communication between the client and server by reducing
the amount of data the server is required to return to the client
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
following a request. This can be particularly useful, for instance,
when communicating with limited-bandwidth mobile devices or when the
client simply does not require any further information about the
result of a request beyond knowing if it was successfully processed.
6. The "wait" Preference
The "wait" preference can be used to establish an upper bound on the
length of time, in seconds, the client is willing to wait for a
response, after which the client 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" BWS "=" BWS delta-seconds
Clients 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. Failing to include
a Date header field in the request would require the server to use
the instant it received and began processing the request as the
baseline for determining how long the client has been waiting which
could yield unintended results depending on how out of synch the
client and server clocks are.
7. The "strict" and "lenient" Processing Preferences
The "strict" and "lenient" preferences are mutually-exclusive
directives indicating, at the servers discretion, how the client
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 client to
indicate that, in such conditions, it would prefer that the server
reject the request, while the "lenient" preference indicates that the
client 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"
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
8. 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 9.1.
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, clients or any
intermediaries involved in the exchange and processing of a request
to any behavior required for successful processing. The use and
application of a preference within a given request MUST be optional
on the part of all participants.
9. 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
9.1. 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]).
The requirements for registered preferences are described in
Section 8
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.
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
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.
9.1.1. Initial Registry Contents
The Preferences Registry's initial contents are:
o Preference: return-accepted
o Description: Indicates that the client 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 client prefers the server return a
minimal response to a request as described by Section 5
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
o Reference: [this specification]
o Preference: return-representation
o Description: Indicates that the client 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: wait
o Description: Indicates an upper bound to the lenght of time the
client 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]
10. 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
[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.
11. 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.
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 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.
[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.
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HTTP Prefer December 2011
[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.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
Author's Address
James M Snell
Phone:
Email: jasnell@gmail.com
URI:
Snell Expires June 10, 2012 [Page 12]
