draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-01.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-latest.txt 
HTTP Working Group P-H. Kamp HTTP Working Group P-H. Kamp
Internet-Draft The Varnish Cache Project Internet-Draft The Varnish Cache Project
Intended status: Standards Track April 24, 2017 Intended status: Standards Track August 9, 2017
Expires: October 26, 2017 Expires: February 10, 2018
HTTP Header Common Structure HTTP Header Common Structure
draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-01 draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-latest
Abstract Abstract
An abstract data model for HTTP headers, "Common Structure", and a An abstract data model for HTTP headers, "Common Structure", and a
HTTP/1 serialization of it, generalized from current HTTP headers. HTTP/1 serialization of it, generalized from current HTTP headers.
Note to Readers Note to Readers
Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group
mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 26, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 10, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 12, line 12 skipping to change at page 12, line 12
URL-like escapes or C-style back-slash escapes, possibly with the URL-like escapes or C-style back-slash escapes, possibly with the
addition of \uxxxx UNICODE escapes. addition of \uxxxx UNICODE escapes.
Where non-ASCII character sets are used, they are almost always Where non-ASCII character sets are used, they are almost always
implicit, rather than explicit. UTF8 and ISO-8859-1 seem to be most implicit, rather than explicit. UTF8 and ISO-8859-1 seem to be most
common. common.
A.2.4. Binary blobs A.2.4. Binary blobs
Often used for cryptographic data. Usually in base64 encoding, Often used for cryptographic data. Usually in base64 encoding,
sometimes ""-quoted more often not. base85 encoding is also seen, sometimes ""-quoted more often not. base85 encoding is also seen,
usually quoted. usually quoted.
A.2.5. Identifiers A.2.5. Identifiers
Seems to almost always fit in the RFC723x 'token' definition. Seems to almost always fit in the RFC723x 'token' definition.
A.3. Is this actually a useful thing to generalize ? A.3. Is this actually a useful thing to generalize ?
The number one wishlist item seems to be UNICODE strings, with a big The number one wishlist item seems to be UNICODE strings, with a big
side order of not having to write a new parser routine every time side order of not having to write a new parser routine every time
skipping to change at page 16, line 10 skipping to change at page 16, line 10
* 1#warning-value * 1#warning-value
o Proxy-Authenticate [RFC7235], Section 4.3 o Proxy-Authenticate [RFC7235], Section 4.3
o WWW-Authenticate [RFC7235], Section 4.1 o WWW-Authenticate [RFC7235], Section 4.1
* 1#challenge * 1#challenge
Appendix B. Changes Appendix B. Changes
B.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00 B.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-01
None yet.
B.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00
Added signed 64bit integer type. Added signed 64bit integer type.
Drop UTF8, and settle on BCP137 [RFC5137]::EmbeddedUnicodeChar for Drop UTF8, and settle on BCP137 [RFC5137]::EmbeddedUnicodeChar for
h1-unicode-string. h1-unicode-string.
Change h1_blob delimiter to ":" since "'" is valid t_char Change h1_blob delimiter to ":" since "'" is valid t_char
Author's Address Author's Address
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.44jr. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/