Network Working Group R. Fielding Request for Comments: 2616 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996.[7] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet MailExtensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",RFC 2045, November 1996.[8] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- CommunicationLayers", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.[9] Crocker, D., "Standard for The Format of ARPA Internet TextMessages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.[10] Davis, F., Kahle, B., Morris, H., Salem, J., Shen, T., Wang, R.,Sui, J., and M. Grinbaum, "WAIS Interface Protocol PrototypeFunctional Specification," (v1.5), Thinking MachinesCorporation, April 1990.[11] Fielding, R., "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 1808,June 1995.[12] Horton, M. and R. Adams, "Standard for Interchange of USENETMessages", RFC 1036, December 1987.Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 158]RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999[13] Kantor, B. and P. Lapsley, "Network News Transfer Protocol", RFC977, February 1986.[14] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) PartThree: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047,November 1996.[15] Nebel, E. and L. Masinter, "Form-based File Upload in HTML", RFC1867, November 1995.[16] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,August 1982.[17] Postel, J., "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590,November 1996.[18] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC959, October 1985.
[19] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700,October 1994.[20] Sollins, K. and L. Masinter, "Functional Requirements forUniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994.[21] US-ASCII. Coded Character Set - 7-Bit American Standard Code forInformation Interchange. Standard ANSI X3.4-1986, ANSI, 1986.[22] ISO-8859. International Standard -- Information Processing --8-bit Single-Byte Coded Graphic Character Sets --Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987.Part 2: Latin alphabet No. 2, ISO-8859-2, 1987.Part 3: Latin alphabet No. 3, ISO-8859-3, 1988.Part 4: Latin alphabet No. 4, ISO-8859-4, 1988.Part 5: Latin/Cyrillic alphabet, ISO-8859-5, 1988.Part 6: Latin/Arabic alphabet, ISO-8859-6, 1987.Part 7: Latin/Greek alphabet, ISO-8859-7, 1987.Part 8: Latin/Hebrew alphabet, ISO-8859-8, 1988.Part 9: Latin alphabet No. 5, ISO-8859-9, 1990.[23] Meyers, J. and M. Rose, "The Content-MD5 Header Field", RFC1864, October 1995.[24] Carpenter, B. and Y. Rekhter, "Renumbering Needs Work", RFC1900, February 1996.[25] Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3", RFC1952, May 1996.Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 159]RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999[26] Venkata N. Padmanabhan, and Jeffrey C. Mogul. "Improving HTTPLatency", Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, v. 28, pp. 25-35,Dec. 1995. Slightly revised version of paper in Proc. 2ndInternational WWW Conference '94: Mosaic and the Web, Oct. 1994,which is available athttp://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/DDay/mogul/HTTPLatency.html.[27] Joe Touch, John Heidemann, and Katia Obraczka. "Analysis of HTTPPerformance", ,ISI Research Report ISI/RR-98-463, (original report dated Aug.1996), USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1998.[28] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification,
Page 2:
eferred to as "HTTP/1.1", and is an
Page 5 and 6:
12.1 Server-driven Negotiation ....
Page 7 and 8:
14.40 Trailer .....................
Page 9 and 10:
1.2 RequirementsThe key words "MUST
Page 12 and 13:
Fielding, et al. Standards Track [P
Page 14 and 15:
equest chain ----------------------
Page 16 and 17:
Elements separated by a bar ("|") a
Page 18 and 19:
HTTP/1.1 header field values can be
Page 20 and 21:
An application that sends a request
Page 22 and 23:
3.2.3 URI ComparisonWhen comparing
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
is not desirable and is discouraged
Page 28 and 29:
CRLFchunk = chunk-size [ chunk-exte
Page 30 and 31:
When in canonical form, media subty
Page 32 and 33:
3.9 Quality ValuesHTTP content nego
Page 34 and 35:
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999HTTP/1.1
Page 36 and 37:
message-body = entity-body| Transfe
Page 38 and 39:
in advance.Messages MUST NOT includ
Page 40 and 41:
equested resource, and 501 (Not Imp
Page 42 and 43:
names) MUST use the following rules
Page 44 and 45:
values for the first digit:- 1xx: I
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
how the transfer-length of a messag
Page 50 and 51:
connection-token close.If either th
Page 52 and 53:
idempotent (see section 9.1.2). Non
Page 54 and 55:
compatibility with RFC 2068, a serv
Page 56 and 57:
If at any point an error status is
Page 58 and 59:
optional features implemented by th
Page 60 and 61:
- Extending a database through an a
Page 62 and 63:
intervention (or other means) on th
Page 64 and 65:
10.1.2 101 Switching ProtocolsThe s
Page 66 and 67:
esponse MAY include new or updated
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
The response MUST include the follo
Page 72 and 73:
If the client is sending data, a se
Page 74 and 75:
If the response could be unacceptab
Page 76 and 77:
10.4.15 414 Request-URI Too LongThe
Page 78 and 79:
10.5.5 504 Gateway TimeoutThe serve
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Caching would be useless if it did
Page 84 and 85:
Warning (but without removing any e
Page 86 and 87:
If the user has overridden the basi
Page 88 and 89:
in the past. This means that the re
Page 90 and 91:
RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999the time
Page 92 and 93:
simple:response_is_fresh = (freshne
Page 94 and 95:
match.In HTTP/1.1, a conditional re
Page 96 and 97:
validators or strong validators. Cl
Page 98 and 99:
- MAY send a weak entity tag instea
Page 100 and 101:
Unless specifically constrained by
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
warn-code 1xx, which are deleted ev
Page 106 and 107:
for the associated entity, its enti
Page 108 and 109:
- DELETE- POSTIn order to prevent d
Page 110 and 111:
The Accept request-header field can
Page 112 and 113:
image/jpeg = 0.5text/html;level=2 =
Page 114 and 115:
Note: If the request does not inclu
Page 116 and 117:
Accept-Ranges: bytesbut are not req
Page 118 and 119:
containing an Authorization field,
Page 120 and 121:
- Restrictions on what may be store
Page 122 and 123:
improve privacy in some cases, we c
Page 124 and 125: Fielding, et al. Standards Track [P
Page 126 and 127: must-revalidateBecause a cache MAY
Page 128 and 129: understand.For example, consider a
Page 130 and 131: new coding is known to be acceptabl
Page 132 and 133: 14.14 Content-LocationThe Content-L
Page 134 and 135: Note: while the definition of Conte
Page 136 and 137: server SHOULD return them in the or
Page 138 and 139: Some origin server implementations
Page 140 and 141: Expires = "Expires" ":" HTTP-dateAn
Page 142 and 143: A client MUST include a Host header
Page 144 and 145: een modified since the date given b
Page 146 and 147: RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 June 1999If none
Page 148 and 149: 14.29 Last-ModifiedThe Last-Modifie
Page 150 and 151: MAY require that behavior be consis
Page 152 and 153: yte-ranges-specifier = bytes-unit "
Page 154 and 155: Content) instead of 200 (OK).- The
Page 156 and 157: The TE request-header field indicat
Page 160 and 161: a cache cannot determine from the r
Page 162 and 163: SHOULD NOT, by default, forward the
Page 164 and 165: this user agent behavior in mind.Re
Page 166 and 167: designers and implementors be parti
Page 168 and 169: strongly correlated to the membersh
Page 170 and 171: serious security considerations. Co
Page 172 and 173: The HTTP protocol has evolved consi
Page 176 and 177: Implementation and Analysis", RFC 1
Page 178 and 179: University of California, IrvineIrv
Page 182 and 183: Notes:1) Additional CRLFs may prece
Page 184 and 185: full compliance with the MIME proto
Page 186 and 187: ead chunk-size and CRLF}read entity
Page 188 and 189: - understand any valid response in
Page 190 and 191: CREATE had a race that required an
Page 192 and 193: also needed to be a general header,
Page 194: Fielding, et al. Standards Track [P
show all

Network Working Group R. Fielding Request for Comments: 2616 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?