draft-reschke-http-jfv-03.txt		draft-reschke-http-jfv-04.txt
	Network Working Group J. Reschke		Network Working Group J. Reschke
	Internet-Draft greenbytes		Internet-Draft greenbytes
	Intended status: Standards Track March 15, 2016		Intended status: Standards Track June 23, 2016
	Expires: September 16, 2016		Expires: December 25, 2016
	A JSON Encoding for HTTP Header Field Values		A JSON Encoding for HTTP Header Field Values
	draft-reschke-http-jfv-03		draft-reschke-http-jfv-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document establishes a convention for use of JSON-encoded field		This document establishes a convention for use of JSON-encoded field
	values in HTTP header fields.		values in HTTP header fields.
	Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)		Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
	Distribution of this document is unlimited. Although this is not a		Distribution of this document is unlimited. Although this is not a
	work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to		work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to
	the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) mailing list at		the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) mailing list at
	ietf-http-wg@w3.org [1], which may be joined by sending a message		ietf-http-wg@w3.org [1], which may be joined by sending a message
	with subject "subscribe" to ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [2].		with subject "subscribe" to ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [2].
	Discussions of the HTTPbis Working Group are archived at		Discussions of the HTTPbis Working Group are archived at
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.		<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.
	XML versions and latest edits for this document are available from		XML versions and latest edits for this document are available from
	<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-reschke-http-jfv>.		<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-reschke-http-jfv>.
	The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix A.3.		The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix A.4.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 September 16, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	skipping to change at page 2, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 40 ¶
	9. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Appendix A. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before		Appendix A. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
	publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	A.1. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		A.1. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	A.2. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		A.2. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	A.3. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		A.3. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			A.4. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Defining syntax for new HTTP header fields ([RFC7230], Section 3.2)		Defining syntax for new HTTP header fields ([RFC7230], Section 3.2)
	is non-trivial. Among the commonly encountered problems are:		is non-trivial. Among the commonly encountered problems are:
	o There is no common syntax for complex field values. Several well-		o There is no common syntax for complex field values. Several well-
	known header fields do use a similarly looking syntax, but it is		known header fields do use a similarly looking syntax, but it is
	hard to write generic parsing code that will both correctly handle		hard to write generic parsing code that will both correctly handle
	skipping to change at page 8, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 19 ¶
	would simplify the syntax for non-list-typed header fields, but all		would simplify the syntax for non-list-typed header fields, but all
	the benefits of having the same data model for both types of header		the benefits of having the same data model for both types of header
	fields would be gone. A hybrid approach might make sense, as long as		fields would be gone. A hybrid approach might make sense, as long as
	it doesn't require any heuristics on the recipient's side.		it doesn't require any heuristics on the recipient's side.
	Note: a concrete proposal was made by Kazuho Oku in <https://		Note: a concrete proposal was made by Kazuho Oku in <https://
	lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016JanMar/0155.html>.		lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016JanMar/0155.html>.
	[[anchor7: Use of generic libs vs compactness of field values..]]		[[anchor7: Use of generic libs vs compactness of field values..]]
			[[anchor8: Mention potential "Key" header field extension ([KEY]).]]
	8. Deployment Considerations		8. Deployment Considerations
	This JSON-based syntax will only apply to newly introduced header		This JSON-based syntax will only apply to newly introduced header
	fields, thus backwards compatibility is not a problem. That being		fields, thus backwards compatibility is not a problem. That being
	said, it is conceivable that there is existing code that might trip		said, it is conceivable that there is existing code that might trip
	over double quotes not being used for HTTP's quoted-string syntax		over double quotes not being used for HTTP's quoted-string syntax
	(Section 3.2.6 of [RFC7230]).		(Section 3.2.6 of [RFC7230]).
	9. Internationalization Considerations		9. Internationalization Considerations
	skipping to change at page 9, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 45 ¶
	June 2014,		June 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
	11.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[ISO-8859-1] International Organization for Standardization,		[ISO-8859-1] International Organization for Standardization,
	"Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded		"Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded
	graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet		graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet
	No. 1", ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.		No. 1", ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.
			[KEY] Fielding, R. and M. Nottingham, "The Key HTTP
			Response Header Field", draft-ietf-httpbis-key-01
			(work in progress), March 2016.
	[RFC5987] Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding		[RFC5987] Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding
	for Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field		for Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field
	Parameters", RFC 5987, DOI 10.17487/RFC5987,		Parameters", RFC 5987, DOI 10.17487/RFC5987,
	August 2010,		August 2010,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5987>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5987>.
	[RFC6266] Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-Disposition Header		[RFC6266] Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-Disposition Header
	Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)",		Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)",
	RFC 6266, DOI 10.17487/RFC6266, June 2011,		RFC 6266, DOI 10.17487/RFC6266, June 2011,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6266>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6266>.
	skipping to change at page 11, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 10 ¶
	A.3. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-02		A.3. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-02
	Mention Kazuho Oku's proposal for abbreviated forms.		Mention Kazuho Oku's proposal for abbreviated forms.
	Added a bit of text about the motivation for a concrete JSON subset		Added a bit of text about the motivation for a concrete JSON subset
	(ack Cory Benfield).		(ack Cory Benfield).
	Expand I18N section.		Expand I18N section.
			A.4. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-03
			Mention relation to KEY header field.
	Appendix B. Acknowledgements		Appendix B. Acknowledgements
	Thanks go to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Working Group		Thanks go to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Working Group
	participants.		participants.
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Julian F. Reschke		Julian F. Reschke
	greenbytes GmbH		greenbytes GmbH
	Hafenweg 16		Hafenweg 16
End of changes. 8 change blocks.
	5 lines changed or deleted		16 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/