| HTTP | J. Reschke |
| Internet-Draft | greenbytes |
| Obsoletes: 5987 (if approved) | July 8, 2016 |
| Intended status: Standards Track | |
| Expires: January 9, 2017 |
Indicating Character Encoding and Language for HTTP Header Field Parameters
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-02
By default, header field values in Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) messages cannot directly carry characters outside the US-ASCII coded character set. RFC 2231 defines an encoding mechanism for use in Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) headers. This document specifies an encoding suitable for use in HTTP header fields that is compatible with a profile of the encoding defined in RFC 2231.
Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.
Working Group information can be found at <http://httpwg.github.io/>; source code and issues list for this draft can be found at <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions>.
The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.
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 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 9, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
By default, header field values in HTTP messages ([RFC7230]) cannot directly carry characters outside the US-ASCII coded character set ([RFC0020]). RFC 2231 ([RFC2231]) defines an encoding mechanism for use in MIME headers. This document specifies an encoding suitable for use in HTTP header fields that is compatible with a profile of the encoding defined in RFC 2231.
This document obsoletes [RFC5987] and moves it to "historic" status; the changes are summarized in Appendix A.
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 ABNF (Augmented Backus-Naur Form) notation defined in [RFC5234]. The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in [RFC5234]: 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: "
Note that this differs from RFC 2231, which uses the term "character set" for "character encoding scheme".
RFC 2231 defines several extensions to MIME. The sections below discuss if and how they apply to HTTP header fields.
In short:
[RFC2231] defines a mechanism that deals with the length limitations that apply to MIME headers. These limitations do not apply to HTTP ([RFC7231]).
Thus, parameter continuations are not part of the encoding defined by this specification.
[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 [RFC3629].
Furthermore, RFC 2231 allows the character encoding information to be left out. The encoding defined by this specification does not allow that.
The presence of extended parameter values usually is indicated by a parameter name ending in an asterisk character. Note however that this is just a convention, and that it needs 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:
ext-value = charset "'" [ language ] "'" value-chars
; like RFC 2231's <extended-initial-value>
; (see
The value part of an extended parameter (ext-value) is a token that consists of three parts:
Note that both character encoding names and language tags are restricted to the US-ASCII coded character set, and are matched case-insensitively (see [RFC2978] and [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 [RFC3986].
Producers [RFC3629]) character encoding. Extension character encodings (mime-charset) are reserved for future use.
The RFC 7230 token production ([RFC7230]) differs from the production used in RFC 2231 (imported from [RFC2045]) in that curly braces ("{" 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 [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.
Non-extended notation, using "token":
foo: bar; title=Economy
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'
Note: the Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded into the octet sequence C2 A3 using the UTF-8 character encoding, 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''
Note: the Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded into the octet sequence C2 A3 using the UTF-8 character encoding, then percent-encoded. Likewise, the Unicode euro sign character U+20AC was encoded into the octet sequence E2 82 AC, 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.
[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]). 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 [RFC7230]).
Thus, this specification does not include this feature.
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
For instance:
foo = token ";" LWSP title-param
title-param = "title" LWSP "=" LWSP value
/ "title*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value
ext-value = <see draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis,
[RFC2277] requires that protocol elements containing human-readable text are able to carry language information. Thus, the
Furthermore, the extension ought to also be used whenever the parameter value needs to carry characters not present in the US-ASCII ([RFC0020]) coded character set (note that it would be unacceptable to define a new parameter that would be restricted to a subset of the Unicode character set).
Header field specifications need to define whether multiple instances of parameters with identical parmname components 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.
Example:
foo: bar; title="EURO exchange rates";
title*=utf-8''
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.
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 relating to decoding UTF-8.
See [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 useful as an attack depends on the parameter specified.
There are no IANA Considerations related to this specification.
This section summarizes the changes compared to [RFC5987]:
The encoding defined in this document currently is used for two different HTTP header fields:
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] got 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.
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 only recently specified in [RFC5988]. At the time of this writing, no shipping User Agent except Firefox supported the "title*" parameter (starting with release 15).
Only editorial changes for the purpose of starting the revision process (obs5987).
Resolved issues "iso-8859-1" and "title" (title simplified). Added and resolved issue "historic5987".
Added issues "httpbis", "parmsyntax", "terminology" and "valuesyntax". Closed issue "impls".
Resolved issue "terminology".
In Section 3.2, pull historical notes into a separate subsection. Resolved issues "valuesyntax" and "parmsyntax".
Update status of Firefox support in HTTP Link Header field.
Update status of Firefox support in HTTP Link Header field.
Update status with respect to Safari 6.
Started work on update with respect to RFC 723x.
Editorial changes; introducing non-ASCII characters into author's address, acknowledgements, and examples.
Removed mention of RFC 2616 from Abstract and Introduction.
Reference RFC 20 for US-ASCII.
Do not attempt to define a generic parameter ABNF; just concentrate on the parameter value syntax.
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 implementer's feedback.