draft-reschke-http-jfv-05.txt   draft-reschke-http-jfv-latest.txt 
Network Working Group J. Reschke Network Working Group J. Reschke
Internet-Draft greenbytes Internet-Draft greenbytes
Intended status: Standards Track December 16, 2016 Intended status: Standards Track May 22, 2017
Expires: June 19, 2017 Expires: November 23, 2017
A JSON Encoding for HTTP Header Field Values A JSON Encoding for HTTP Header Field Values
draft-reschke-http-jfv-05 draft-reschke-http-jfv-latest
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-
ietf-http-wg@w3.org [1], which may be joined by sending a message wg@w3.org [1], which may be joined by sending a message with subject
with subject "subscribe" to ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [2]. "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 C.5. The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.5.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 June 19, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 23, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Data Model and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Data Model and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Sender Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Sender Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Recipient Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Recipient Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Using this Format in Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . 5 5. Using this Format in Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . 5
6. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Encoding and Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Encoding and Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.3. Object Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.3. Object Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.1. Content-Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A.1. Content-Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.2. Content-Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A.2. Content-Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.3. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.3. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.4. Accept-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A.4. Accept-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix B. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C.1. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 C.1. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C.2. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 C.2. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C.3. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C.3. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C.4. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C.4. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C.5. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C.5. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C.5.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C.5.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C.5.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C.5.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C.5.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C.5.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix D. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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
valid field values but also reject invalid ones. valid field values but also reject invalid ones.
skipping to change at page 5, line 31 skipping to change at page 5, line 33
("]") octet, then ("]") octet, then
3. run the resulting octet sequence through a JSON parser. 3. run the resulting octet sequence through a JSON parser.
The result of the parsing operation is either an error (in which case The result of the parsing operation is either an error (in which case
the header field values needs to be considered invalid), or a JSON the header field values needs to be considered invalid), or a JSON
array. array.
5. Using this Format in Header Field Definitions 5. Using this Format in Header Field Definitions
[[anchor5: Explain what a definition of a new header field needs to [[CREF1: Explain what a definition of a new header field needs to do
do precisely to use this format, mention must-ignore extensibility]] precisely to use this format, mention must-ignore extensibility]]
6. Deployment Considerations 6. 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]).
7. Interoperability Considerations 7. Interoperability Considerations
skipping to change at page 6, line 27 skipping to change at page 6, line 33
with [ECMA-262], Section 24.3.1.1). with [ECMA-262], Section 24.3.1.1).
Furthermore, ordering of object members is not significant and can Furthermore, ordering of object members is not significant and can
not be relied upon. not be relied upon.
8. Internationalization Considerations 8. Internationalization Considerations
In HTTP/1.1, header field values are represented by octet sequences, In HTTP/1.1, header field values are represented by octet sequences,
usually used to transmit ASCII characters, with restrictions on the usually used to transmit ASCII characters, with restrictions on the
use of certain control characters, and no associated default use of certain control characters, and no associated default
character encoding, nor a way to describe it ([RFC7230], Section character encoding, nor a way to describe it ([RFC7230],
3.2). HTTP/2 does not change this. Section 3.2). HTTP/2 does not change this.
This specification maps all characters which can cause problems to This specification maps all characters which can cause problems to
JSON escape sequences, thereby solving the HTTP header field JSON escape sequences, thereby solving the HTTP header field
internationalization problem. internationalization problem.
Future specifications of HTTP might change to allow non-ASCII Future specifications of HTTP might change to allow non-ASCII
characters natively. In that case, header fields using the syntax characters natively. In that case, header fields using the syntax
defined by this specification would have a simple migration path (by defined by this specification would have a simple migration path (by
just stopping to require escaping of non-ASCII characters). just stopping to require escaping of non-ASCII characters).
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 8
Using JSON-shaped field values is believed to not introduce any new Using JSON-shaped field values is believed to not introduce any new
threads beyond those described in Section 12 of [RFC7159], namely the threads beyond those described in Section 12 of [RFC7159], namely the
risk of recipients using the wrong tools to parse them. risk of recipients using the wrong tools to parse them.
Other than that, any syntax that makes extensions easy can be used to Other than that, any syntax that makes extensions easy can be used to
smuggle information through field values; however, this concern is smuggle information through field values; however, this concern is
shared with other widely used formats, such as those using parameters shared with other widely used formats, such as those using parameters
in the form of name/value pairs. in the form of name/value pairs.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", [RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
STD 80, RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969, RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Data Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/ Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
RFC7159, March 2014, 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", [RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
RFC 7493, DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[ECMA-262] Ecma International, "ECMA-262 6th Edition, The [ECMA-262]
ECMAScript 2015 Language Specification", Ecma International, "ECMA-262 6th Edition, The ECMAScript
Standard ECMA-262, June 2015, 2015 Language Specification", Standard ECMA-262, June
<http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/>. 2015, <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/>.
[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.
[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
for Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field
Parameters", RFC 5987, DOI 10.17487/RFC5987,
August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5987>.
[RFC6266] Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-Disposition Header [ISO-8859-1]
Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)", International Organization for Standardization,
RFC 6266, DOI 10.17487/RFC6266, June 2011, "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6266>. character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1", ISO/
IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.
[RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in [KEY] Fielding, R. and M. Nottingham, "The Key HTTP Response
Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, Header Field", draft-ietf-httpbis-key-01 (work in
RFC 6365, DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011, progress), March 2016.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>.
[RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext [RFC5987] Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding for
Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field
RFC 7235, DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014, Parameters", RFC 5987, DOI 10.17487/RFC5987, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5987>.
[XMLHttpRequest] WhatWG, "XMLHttpRequest", [RFC6266] Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field
<https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/>. in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)", RFC 6266,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6266, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6266>.
URIs [RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>.
[1] <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org> [RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>.
[2] <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe> [XMLHttpRequest]
WhatWG, "XMLHttpRequest", <https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/>.
Appendix A. Examples Appendix A. Examples
This section shows how some of the existing HTTP header fields would This section shows how some of the existing HTTP header fields would
look like if they would use the format defined by this specification. look like if they would use the format defined by this specification.
A.1. Content-Length A.1. Content-Length
"Content-Length" is defined in Section 3.3.2 of [RFC7230], with the "Content-Length" is defined in Section 3.3.2 of [RFC7230], with the
field value's ABNF being: field value's ABNF being:
Content-Length = 1*DIGIT Content-Length = 1*DIGIT
So the field value is similar to a JSON number ([RFC7159], Section So the field value is similar to a JSON number ([RFC7159],
6). Section 6).
Content-Length is restricted to a single field instance, as it Content-Length is restricted to a single field instance, as it
doesn't use the list production (as per Section 3.2.2 of [RFC7230]). doesn't use the list production (as per Section 3.2.2 of [RFC7230]).
However, in practice multiple instances do occur, and the definition However, in practice multiple instances do occur, and the definition
of the header field does indeed discuss how to handle these cases. of the header field does indeed discuss how to handle these cases.
If Content-Length was defined using the JSON format discussed here, If Content-Length was defined using the JSON format discussed here,
the ABNF would be something like: the ABNF would be something like:
Content-Length = #number Content-Length = #number
skipping to change at page 11, line 26 skipping to change at page 11, line 43
codings = content-coding / "identity" / "*" codings = content-coding / "identity" / "*"
weight = OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue weight = OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue
qvalue = ( "0" [ "." 0*3DIGIT ] ) qvalue = ( "0" [ "." 0*3DIGIT ] )
/ ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] ) / ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] )
An example for a complex header field value given in the definition An example for a complex header field value given in the definition
of the header field is: of the header field is:
gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0 gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0
Due to the defaulting rules for the quality value ([RFC7231], Section Due to the defaulting rules for the quality value ([RFC7231],
5.3.1), this could also be written as: Section 5.3.1), this could also be written as:
gzip, identity; q=0.5, *; q=0 gzip, identity; q=0.5, *; q=0
A JSON representation could be: A JSON representation could be:
[ [
{ {
"gzip" : { "gzip" : {
} }
}, },
skipping to change at page 12, line 32 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
Appendix B. Discussion Appendix B. Discussion
This approach uses a default of "JSON array", using implicit array This approach uses a default of "JSON array", using implicit array
markers. An alternative would be a default of "JSON object". This markers. An alternative would be a default of "JSON object". This
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
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016JanMar/0155.html>. <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-
wg/2016JanMar/0155.html>.
[[anchor15: Use of generic libs vs compactness of field values..]] [[CREF2: Use of generic libs vs compactness of field values..]]
[[anchor16: Mention potential "Key" header field extension ([KEY]).]] [[CREF3: Mention potential "Key" header field extension ([KEY]).]]
Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
C.1. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-00 C.1. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-00
Editorial fixes + working on the TODOs. Editorial fixes + working on the TODOs.
C.2. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-01 C.2. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-01
Mention slightly increased risk of smuggling information in header Mention slightly increased risk of smuggling information in header
skipping to change at page 13, line 21 skipping to change at page 13, line 40
Expand I18N section. Expand I18N section.
C.4. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-03 C.4. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-03
Mention relation to KEY header field. Mention relation to KEY header field.
C.5. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-04 C.5. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-04
Between June and December 2016, this was a work item of the HTTP Between June and December 2016, this was a work item of the HTTP
working group (see working group (see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv/>). Work httpbis-jfv/>). Work (if any) continues now on
(if any) continues now on
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reschke-http-jfv/>. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reschke-http-jfv/>.
Changes made while this was a work item of the HTTP Working Group: Changes made while this was a work item of the HTTP Working Group:
C.5.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-00 C.5.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-00
Added example for "Accept-Encoding" (inspired by Kazuho's feedback), Added example for "Accept-Encoding" (inspired by Kazuho's feedback),
showing a potential way to optimize the format when default values showing a potential way to optimize the format when default values
apply. apply.
skipping to change at page 13, line 45 skipping to change at page 14, line 16
Add interop discussion, building on I-JSON and ECMA-262 (see Add interop discussion, building on I-JSON and ECMA-262 (see
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/225>). <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/225>).
C.5.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-02 C.5.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-02
Move non-essential parts into appendix. Move non-essential parts into appendix.
Updated XHR reference. Updated XHR reference.
Appendix D. Acknowledgements 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
Muenster, NW 48155 Muenster, NW 48155
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
115 lines changed or deleted 110 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/