One document matched: draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01.txt
Differences from draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00.txt
Network Working Group J. Reschke
Internet-Draft greenbytes
Updates: 2616 (if approved) July 27, 2010
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 28, 2011
Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01
Abstract
HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but
points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard. This
specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-
Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization
considerations.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
This specification is expected to replace the definition of Content-
Disposition in the HTTP/1.1 specification, as currently revised by
the IETF HTTPbis working group. See also
<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/123>.
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Although this is not a
work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to
the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) mailing list at
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].
Discussions of the HTTPbis Working Group are archived at
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.
XML versions, latest edits and the issues list for this document are
available from
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http>. A
collection of test cases is available at
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/>.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
Reschke Expires January 28, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Content-Disposition in HTTP July 2010
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Reschke Expires January 28, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Content-Disposition in HTTP July 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Disposition Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Filename Escaping . . . . . 8
Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix E. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
E.1. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reschke Expires January 28, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Content-Disposition in HTTP July 2010
1. Introduction
HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field in
Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], but points out that it is not part of
the HTTP/1.1 Standard (Section 15.5):
Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP standard, but since it
is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for
implementors.
This specification takes over the definition and registration of
Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP. Based on interoperability
testing with existing User Agents, it defines a profile of the
features defined in the MIME variant ([RFC2183]) of the header field,
and also clarifies internationalization considerations.
2. Notational Conventions
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 [RFC2119].
This specification uses the augmented BNF notation defined in Section
2.1 of [RFC2616], including its rules for linear whitespace (LWS).
3. Header Field Definitions
3.1. Grammar
content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":"
disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm )
disposition-type = "inline" | "attachment" | disp-ext-type
; case-insensitive
disp-ext-type = token
disposition-parm = filename-parm | disp-ext-parm
filename-parm = "filename" "=" value
| "filename*" "=" ext-value
disp-ext-parm = token "=" value
| ext-token "=" ext-value
ext-token = <the characters in token, followed by "*">
Reschke Expires January 28, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Content-Disposition in HTTP July 2010
Defined in [RFC2616]:
token = <token, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2>
value = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6>
Defined in [draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http]:
ext-value = <ext-value, defined in [draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http], Section 3.2>
3.2. Disposition Type
If the disposition type matches "attachment" (case-insensitively),
the implied suggestion is that the user agent should not display the
response, but directly enter a "save response as..." dialog.
On the other hand, if it matches "inline", this implies regular
processing. Note that this type may be used when it is desirable to
transport filename information for the case of a subsequent, user-
initiated, save operation.
Other disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way as
"attachment" ([RFC2183], Section 2.8).
3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename'
[[anchor3: Talk about expected behavior, mention security
considerations.]]
3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions
Parameters other than "filename" SHOULD be ignored ([RFC2183],
Section 2.8).
4. Examples
Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of "foo.html":
Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=foo.html
Direct UA to behave as if the Content-Disposition header field wasn't
present, but to remember the filename "foo.html" for a subsequent
save operation:
Content-Disposition: INLINE; FILENAME= "foo.html"
Reschke Expires January 28, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Content-Disposition in HTTP July 2010
5. Security Considerations
[[csec: Both refer to 2183, and also mention: long filenames, dot and
dotdot, absolute paths, mismatches between media type and extension]]
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter
This specification does not introduce any changes to the registration
procedures for disposition values and parameters that are defined in
Section 9 of [RFC2183].
6.2. Header Field Registration
This document updates the definition of the Content-Disposition HTTP
header field in the permanent HTTP header field registry (see
[RFC3864]).
Header field name: Content-Disposition
Applicable protocol: http
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Specification document: this specification (Section 3)
7. Acknowledgements
[[anchor6: TBD.]]
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Reschke Expires January 28, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Content-Disposition in HTTP July 2010
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http]
Reschke, J., "Applicability of RFC 2231 Encoding to
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Headers",
draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-12 (work in progress),
April 2010.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
September 2004.
URIs
[1] <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
[2] <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe>
Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition
Compared to Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], the following normative
changes reflecting actual implementations have been made:
o According to RFC 2616, the disposition type "attachment" only
applies to content of type "application/octet-stream". This
restriction has been removed, because user agents in practice do
not check the content type, and it also discourages properly
declaring the media type.
o The definition for the disposition type "inline" ([RFC2183],
Section 2.1) has been re-added with a suggestion for its
processing.
o This specification requires support for the extended parameter
encoding defined in [draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http].
Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183
Section 2 of [RFC2183] defines several additional disposition
parameters: "creation-date", "modification-date", "quoted-date-time",
and "size". These do not appear to be implemented by any user agent,
thus have been ommitted from this specification.
Reschke Expires January 28, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Content-Disposition in HTTP July 2010
Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Filename Escaping
[[anchor10: Mention: RFC 2047, IE, Safari]]
Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00
Adjust terminology ("header" -> "header field"). Update rfc2231-in-
http reference.
Appendix E. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
publication)
E.1. edit
Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2009-10-16): Umbrella issue for
editorial fixes/enhancements.
Index
C
Content-Disposition header 4
H
Headers
Content-Disposition 4
Author's Address
Julian F. Reschke
greenbytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16
Muenster, NW 48155
Germany
Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
Reschke Expires January 28, 2011 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 01:17:34 |