티스토리 수익 글 보기

Note:“> MAY“> MUST“> MUST NOT“> OPTIONAL“> RECOMMENDED“> REQUIRED“> SHALL“> SHALL NOT“> SHOULD“> SHOULD NOT“> ]> greenbytes GmbH

Hafenweg 16 MuensterNW48155 Germany julian.reschke@greenbytes.de http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/

Applications HTTP HTTP content-encoding In HTTP, “Content Codings” allow for payload encodings such as for compression or integrity checks. In particular, the “gzip” content coding is widely used for payload data sent in response messages. Content Codings can be used in request messages as well, however discoverability is not on par with response messages. This document extends the HTTP “Accept-Encoding” header field for use in responses. Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at . Working Group information can be found at and ; source code and issues list for this draft can be found at . The changes in this draft are summarized in .

In HTTP, “Content Codings” allow for payload encodings such as for compression or integrity checks (). In particular, the “gzip” content coding is widely used for payload data sent in response messages. Content Codings can be used in request messages as well, however discoverability is not on par with response messages. This document extends the HTTP “Accept-Encoding” header field () for use in responses.

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in . This document reuses terminology used in the base HTTP specifications, namely and .

defines “Accept-Encoding” as a request header field only. This specification extends that definition to allow “Accept-Encoding” as a response header field as well. When present, it indicates what content codings a resource was willing to accept at the time of the response. A field value that only contains “identity” implies that no content codings are supported. Note that this information is specific to the specific request. The set of supported encodings might be different for other resources on the same server, could also change depending on other aspects of the request (such as the request method), or might change in the future. defines status code 415 (Unsupported Media Type) to apply to both media type and content coding related problems. Servers that fail a request due to an unsupported content coding &SHOULD; respond with a 415 status and &SHOULD; include an “Accept-Encoding” header field in that response, allowing clients to distinguish between content coding related issues and media type related issues. In order to avoid confusion with media type related problems, servers that fail a request with a 415 status for reasons unrelated to content codings &SHOULD-NOT; include the “Accept-Encoding” header field. While sending “Accept-Encoding” in a 415 (Unsupported Media Type) response will be the most common use case, it is not restricted to this particular status code. For instance, a server might include it in a 2xx response when a request payload was big enough to justify use of a compression coding, but the client failed to do so.

Client submits a POST request using Content-Encoding “compress” ():

POST /edit/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Content-Type: application/atom+xml;type=entry Content-Encoding: compress …compressed payload…

Server rejects request because it only allows the “gzip” content coding:

HTTP/1.1 415 Unsupported Media Type Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 11:43:53 GMT Accept-Encoding: gzip Content-Length: Content-Type: text/plain This resource only supports the “gzip” content coding in requests.

…at which point the client can retry the request with the supported “gzip” content coding. Alternatively, a server that does not support any content codings in requests could answer with:

HTTP/1.1 415 Unsupported Media Type Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 11:43:53 GMT Accept-Encoding: identity Content-Length: Content-Type: text/plain This resource does not support content codings in requests.

Servers that do not support content codings in requests already are required to fail a request that does use a content coding. recommends to use the status code 415 (Unsupported Media Type), so the only change needed is to include the “Accept-Encoding” header field with value “identity” in that response. Servers that do support some content codings are required to fail requests with unsupported content codings as well. To be compliant with this specification, servers will need to use the status code 415 (Unsupported Media Type) to signal the problem, and will have to include an “Accept-Encoding” header field that enumerates the content codings that are supported. As the set of supported content codings usually is static and small, adding the header field ought to be trivial.

This specification does not introduce any new security considerations beyond those discussed in .

HTTP header fields are registered within the “Message Headers” registry located at , as defined by . This document updates the definition of the “Accept-Encoding” header field, so the “Permanent Message Header Field Names” registry shall be updated accordingly: Header Field Name Protocol Status Reference Accept-Encoding http standard , extended by of this document

Harvard University

sob@harvard.edu

Adobe Systems Incorporated

fielding@gbiv.com

greenbytes GmbH

julian.reschke@greenbytes.de

Adobe Systems Incorporated

fielding@gbiv.com

greenbytes GmbH

julian.reschke@greenbytes.de

Nine by Nine

GK-IETF@ninebynine.org

BEA Systems

mnot@pobox.com

HP Labs

JeffMogul@acm.org

Clarified that the information returned in Accept-Encoding is per resource, not per server. Added some deployment considerations. Updated HTTP/1.1 references.

Restrict the scope of A-E from “future requests” to “at the time of this request”. Mention use of A-E in responses other than 415. Recommend not to include A-E in a 415 response unless there was actually a problem related to content coding.

First Working Group draft; updated boilerplate accordingly.

Thanks go to the members of the and HTTPbis Working Group, namely Amos Jeffries, Mark Nottingham, and Ted Hardie.