diff options
author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc8187.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8187.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8187.txt | 730 |
1 files changed, 730 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8187.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8187.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ab1febb --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8187.txt @@ -0,0 +1,730 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Reschke +Request for Comments: 8187 greenbytes +Obsoletes: 5987 September 2017 +Category: Standards Track +ISSN: 2070-1721 + + + Indicating Character Encoding and Language for HTTP Header Field + Parameters + +Abstract + + By default, header field values in Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) + messages cannot easily carry characters outside the US-ASCII coded + character set. RFC 2231 defines an encoding mechanism for use in + parameters inside Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) header + field values. This document specifies an encoding suitable for use + in HTTP header fields that is compatible with a simplified profile of + the encoding defined in RFC 2231. + + This document obsoletes RFC 5987. + +Status of This Memo + + This is an Internet Standards Track document. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8187. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2017 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 + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. Comparison to RFC 2231 and Definition of the Encoding . . . . 3 + 3.1. Parameter Continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.2. Parameter Value Character Encoding and Language + Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.2.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.2.2. Historical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.2.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.3. Language Specification in Encoded Words . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4. Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions . . . . 7 + 4.1. When to Use the Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.2. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + Appendix B. Implementation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + +1. Introduction + + Use of characters outside the US-ASCII coded character set + ([RFC0020]) in HTTP header fields ([RFC7230]) is non-trivial: + + o The HTTP specification discourages use of non-US-ASCII characters + in field values, placing them into the "obs-text" Augmented + Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) production ([RFC7230], Section 3.2). + + o Furthermore, it stays silent about default character encoding + schemes for field values, so any use of non-US-ASCII characters + would need to be specific to the field definition or would require + some other kind of out-of-band information. + + o Finally, some APIs assume a default character encoding scheme in + order to map from the octet sequences (obtained from the HTTP + message) to character sequences: for instance, the XMLHttpRequest + API ([XMLHttpRequest]) uses the Interface Definition Language type + "ByteString", effectively resulting in the ISO-8859-1 character + encoding scheme ([ISO-8859-1]) being used. + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + On the other hand, RFC 2231 defines an encoding mechanism for + parameters inside MIME header fields ([RFC2231]), which, as opposed + to HTTP messages, do need to be sent over non-binary transports. + This document specifies an encoding suitable for use in HTTP header + fields that is compatible with a simplified profile of the encoding + defined in RFC 2231. It can be applied to any HTTP header field that + uses the common "parameter" ("name=value") syntax. + + This document obsoletes [RFC5987] and moves it to "Historic" status; + the changes are summarized in Appendix A. + + Note: In the remainder of this document, RFC 2231 is only + referenced for the purpose of explaining the choice of features + that were adopted; therefore, they are purely informative. + + Note: This encoding does not apply to message payloads transmitted + over HTTP, such as when using the media type "multipart/form-data" + ([RFC7578]). + +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 + [RFC2119]. + + This specification uses the ABNF notation defined in [RFC5234]. The + following core rules are included by reference, as defined in + [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), HEXDIG + (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), and LWSP (linear whitespace). + + This specification uses terminology defined in [RFC6365], namely: + "character encoding scheme" (abbreviated to "character encoding" + below), "charset", and "coded character set". + + Note that this differs from RFC 2231, which uses the term "character + set" for "character encoding scheme". + +3. Comparison to RFC 2231 and Definition of the Encoding + + RFC 2231 defines several extensions to MIME. The sections below + discuss if and how they apply to HTTP header fields. + + In short: + + o Parameter Continuations aren't needed (Section 3.1), + + + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + o Character Encoding and Language Information are useful, therefore + a simple subset is specified (Section 3.2), and + + o Language Specifications in Encoded Words aren't needed + (Section 3.3). + +3.1. Parameter Continuations + + Section 3 of [RFC2231] defines a mechanism that deals with the length + limitations that apply to MIME headers. These limitations do not + apply to HTTP ([RFC7231], Appendix A.6). + + Thus, parameter continuations are not part of the encoding defined by + this specification. + +3.2. Parameter Value Character Encoding and Language Information + + Section 4 of [RFC2231] specifies how to embed language information + into parameter values and also how to encode non-ASCII characters, + dealing with restrictions both in MIME and HTTP header field + parameters. + + However, RFC 2231 does not specify a mandatory-to-implement character + encoding, making it hard for senders to decide which encoding to use. + Thus, recipients implementing this specification MUST support the + "UTF-8" character encoding [RFC3629]. + + Furthermore, RFC 2231 allows the character encoding information to be + left out. The encoding defined by this specification does not allow + that. + +3.2.1. Definition + + The presence of extended parameter values is usually indicated by a + parameter name ending in an asterisk character. However, note that + this is just a convention, and that the extended parameter values + need to be explicitly specified in the definition of the header field + using this extension (see Section 4). + + The ABNF for extended parameter values is specified below: + + + + + + + + + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + ext-value = charset "'" [ language ] "'" value-chars + ; like RFC 2231's <extended-initial-value> + ; (see [RFC2231], Section 7) + + charset = "UTF-8" / mime-charset + + mime-charset = 1*mime-charsetc + mime-charsetc = ALPHA / DIGIT + / "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" + / "+" / "-" / "^" / "_" / "`" + / "{" / "}" / "~" + ; as <mime-charset> in Section 2.3 of [RFC2978] + ; except that the single quote is not included + ; SHOULD be registered in the IANA charset registry + + language = <Language-Tag, see [RFC5646], Section 2.1> + + value-chars = *( pct-encoded / attr-char ) + + pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG + ; see [RFC3986], Section 2.1 + + attr-char = ALPHA / DIGIT + / "!" / "#" / "$" / "&" / "+" / "-" / "." + / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~" + ; token except ( "*" / "'" / "%" ) + + The value part of an extended parameter (ext-value) is a token that + consists of three parts: + + 1. the REQUIRED character encoding name (charset), + + 2. the OPTIONAL language information (language), and + + 3. a character sequence representing the actual value (value-chars), + separated by single quote characters. + + Note that both character encoding names and language tags are + restricted to the US-ASCII coded character set and are matched case- + insensitively (see Section 2.3 of [RFC2978] and Section 2.1.1 of + [RFC5646]). + + Inside the value part, characters not contained in attr-char are + encoded into an octet sequence using the specified character + encoding. That octet sequence is then percent-encoded as specified + in Section 2.1 of [RFC3986]. + + + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + Producers MUST use the "UTF-8" ([RFC3629]) character encoding. + Extension character encodings (mime-charset) are reserved for future + use. + + Note: Recipients should be prepared to handle encoding errors, + such as malformed or incomplete percent escape sequences, or + non-decodable octet sequences, in a robust manner. This + specification does not mandate any specific behavior; for + instance, the following strategies are all acceptable: + + * ignoring the parameter, + + * stripping a non-decodable octet sequence, and + + * substituting a non-decodable octet sequence by a replacement + character, such as the Unicode character U+FFFD (Replacement + Character). + +3.2.2. Historical Notes + + The RFC 7230 token production ([RFC7230], Section 3.2.6) differs from + the production used in RFC 2231 (imported from Section 5.1 of + [RFC2045]) in that curly braces (i.e., "{" and "}") are excluded. + Thus, these two characters are excluded from the attr-char production + as well. + + The <mime-charset> ABNF defined here differs from the one in + Section 2.3 of [RFC2978] in that it does not allow the single quote + character (see also RFC Errata ID 1912 [Err1912]). In practice, no + character encoding names using that character have been registered at + the time of this writing. + + For backwards compatibility with RFC 2231, the encoding defined by + this specification deviates from common parameter syntax in that the + quoted-string notation is not allowed. Implementations using generic + parser components might not be able to detect the use of quoted- + string notation and thus might accept that format, although invalid, + as well. + + [RFC5987] did require support for ISO-8859-1 ([ISO-8859-1]), too; for + compatibility with legacy code, recipients are encouraged to support + this encoding as well. + +3.2.3. Examples + + Non-extended notation, using "token": + + foo: bar; title=Economy + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + Non-extended notation, using "quoted-string": + + foo: bar; title="US-$ rates" + + Extended notation, using the Unicode character U+00A3 ("£", POUND + SIGN): + + foo: bar; title*=utf-8'en'%C2%A3%20rates + + Note: The Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded into the + octet sequence C2 A3 using the UTF-8 character encoding, and then + percent-encoded. Also, note that the space character was encoded as + %20, as it is not contained in attr-char. + + Extended notation, using the Unicode characters U+00A3 ("£", POUND + SIGN) and U+20AC ("€", EURO SIGN): + + foo: bar; title*=UTF-8''%c2%a3%20and%20%e2%82%ac%20rates + + Note: The Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded into the + octet sequence C2 A3 using the UTF-8 character encoding, and then + percent-encoded. Likewise, the Unicode euro sign character U+20AC + was encoded into the octet sequence E2 82 AC, and then percent- + encoded. Also note that HEXDIG allows both lowercase and uppercase + characters, so recipients must understand both, and that the language + information is optional, while the character encoding is not. + +3.3. Language Specification in Encoded Words + + Section 5 of [RFC2231] extends the encoding defined in [RFC2047] to + also support language specification in encoded words. RFC 2616, the + now-obsolete HTTP/1.1 specification, did refer to RFC 2047 + ([RFC2616], Section 2.2). However, it wasn't clear to which header + field it applied. Consequently, the current revision of the HTTP/1.1 + specification has deprecated use of the encoding forms defined in RFC + 2047 (see Section 3.2.4 of [RFC7230]). + + Thus, this specification does not include this feature. + +4. Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions + + Specifications of HTTP header fields that use the extensions defined + in Section 3.2 ought to clearly state that. A simple way to achieve + this is to normatively reference this specification and to include + the ext-value production into the ABNF for specific header field + parameters. + + + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + For instance: + + foo = token ";" LWSP title-param + title-param = "title" LWSP "=" LWSP value + / "title*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value + ext-value = <see RFC 8187, Section 3.2> + + Note: The Parameter Value Continuation feature defined in + Section 3 of [RFC2231] makes it impossible to have multiple + instances of extended parameters with identical names, as the + processing of continuations would become ambiguous. Thus, + specifications using this extension are advised to disallow this + case for compatibility with RFC 2231. + + Note: This specification does not automatically assign a new + interpretation to parameter names ending in an asterisk. As + pointed out above, it's up to the specification for the + non-extended parameter to "opt in" to the syntax defined here. + That being said, some existing implementations are known to + automatically switch to using this notation when a parameter name + ends with an asterisk; thus, using parameter names ending in an + asterisk for something else is likely to cause interoperability + problems. + +4.1. When to Use the Extension + + Section 4.2 of [RFC2277] requires that protocol elements containing + human-readable text be able to carry language information. Thus, the + ext-value production ought to always be used when the parameter value + is of a textual nature and its language is known. + + Furthermore, the extension ought to also be used whenever the + parameter value needs to carry characters not present in the US-ASCII + coded character set ([RFC0020]); note that it would be unacceptable + to define a new parameter that would be restricted to a subset of the + Unicode character set. + +4.2. Error Handling + + Header field specifications need to define whether multiple instances + of parameters with identical names are allowed and how they should be + processed. This specification suggests that a parameter using the + extended syntax takes precedence. This would allow producers to use + both formats without breaking recipients that do not understand the + extended syntax yet. + + + + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + Example: + + foo: bar; title="EURO exchange rates"; + title*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20exchange%20rates + + In this case, the sender provides an ASCII version of the title for + legacy recipients, but also includes an internationalized version for + recipients understanding this specification -- the latter obviously + ought to prefer the new syntax over the old one. + +5. Security Considerations + + The format described in this document makes it possible to transport + non-ASCII characters, and thus enables character "spoofing" scenarios + in which a displayed value appears to be something other than it is. + + Furthermore, there are known attack scenarios related to decoding + UTF-8. + + See Section 10 of [RFC3629] for more information on both topics. + + In addition, the extension specified in this document makes it + possible to transport multiple language variants for a single + parameter, and such use might allow spoofing attacks where different + language versions of the same parameter are not equivalent. Whether + this attack is effective as an attack depends on the parameter + specified. + +6. IANA Considerations + + This document does not require any IANA actions. + +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>. + + [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>. + + [RFC2978] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration + Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, DOI 10.17487/RFC2978, + October 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2978>. + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO + 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November + 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>. + + [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform + Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, + RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. + + [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>. + + [RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying + Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, + September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>. + + [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>. + + [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>. + +7.2. Informative References + + [Err1912] RFC Errata, "Erratum ID 1912, RFC 2978", + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1912>. + + [ISO-8859-1] + International Organization for Standardization, + "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic + character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1", ISO/ + IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998. + + [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail + Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message + Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>. + + [RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) + Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", + RFC 2047, DOI 10.17487/RFC2047, November 1996, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2047>. + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + [RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded + Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and + Continuations", RFC 2231, DOI 10.17487/RFC2231, November + 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2231>. + + [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and + Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277, + January 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277>. + + [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., + Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext + Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>. + + [RFC5987] Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding for + Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field + Parameters", RFC 5987, DOI 10.17487/RFC5987, August 2010, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5987>. + + [RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5988>. + + [RFC6266] Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field + in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)", RFC 6266, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6266, June 2011, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6266>. + + [RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in + Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>. + + [RFC7578] Masinter, L., "Returning Values from Forms: multipart/ + form-data", RFC 7578, DOI 10.17487/RFC7578, July 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7578>. + + [RFC7616] Shekh-Yusef, R., Ed., Ahrens, D., and S. Bremer, "HTTP + Digest Access Authentication", RFC 7616, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7616, September 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7616>. + + [RFC8053] Oiwa, Y., Watanabe, H., Takagi, H., Maeda, K., Hayashi, + T., and Y. Ioku, "HTTP Authentication Extensions for + Interactive Clients", RFC 8053, DOI 10.17487/RFC8053, + January 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8053>. + + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + [XMLHttpRequest] + WhatWG, "XMLHttpRequest", <https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/>. + +Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5987 + + This section summarizes the changes compared to [RFC5987]: + + o The document title was changed to "Indicating Character Encoding + and Language for HTTP Header Field Parameters". + + o The introduction was rewritten to better explain the issues around + non-ASCII characters in field values. + + o The requirement to support the "ISO-8859-1" encoding was removed. + + o This document no longer attempts to redefine a generic "parameter" + ABNF (it turned out that there really isn't a generic definition + of parameters in HTTP; for instance, there are subtle differences + with respect to whitespace handling). + + o A note about defects in error handling in current implementations + was removed, as it was no longer accurate. + +Appendix B. Implementation Report + + The encoding defined in this document is currently used in four + different HTTP header fields: + + o "Authentication-Control", defined in [RFC8053], + + o "Authorization" (as used in HTTP Digest Authentication, defined in + [RFC7616]), + + o "Content-Disposition", defined in [RFC6266], and + + o "Link", defined in [RFC5988]. + + As the encoding is a profile/clarification of the one defined in + [RFC2231] in 1997, many user agents already supported it for use in + "Content-Disposition" when [RFC5987] was published. + + Since the publication of [RFC5987], three more popular desktop user + agents have added support for this encoding; see + <http://purl.org/NET/http/content-disposition-tests#encoding- + 2231-char> for details. At this time, the current versions of all + major desktop user agents support it. + + + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 8187 Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP September 2017 + + + Note that the implementation in Internet Explorer 9 does not support + the ISO-8859-1 character encoding; this document revision + acknowledges that UTF-8 is sufficient for expressing all code points + and removes the requirement to support ISO-8859-1. + + The "Link" header field, on the other hand, was more recently + specified in [RFC5988]. At the time of this writing, no user agent + except Firefox supported the "title*" parameter (starting with + release 15). + + Section 3.4 of [RFC7616] defines the "username*" parameter for use in + HTTP Digest Authentication. At the time of writing, no user agent + implemented this extension. + +Acknowledgements + + Thanks to Martin Dürst and Frank Ellermann for help figuring out ABNF + details, to Graham Klyne and Alexey Melnikov for general review, to + Chris Newman for pointing out an RFC 2231 incompatibility, and to + Benjamin Carlyle, Roar Lauritzsen, Eric Lawrence, and James Manger + for implementers feedback. + + Furthermore, thanks to the members of the IETF HTTP Working Group for + the feedback specific to this update of RFC 5987. + +Author's Address + + Julian F. Reschke + greenbytes GmbH + Hafenweg 16 + Münster, NW 48155 + Germany + + Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de + URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Reschke Standards Track [Page 13] |