Network Working Group G. Deng Internet-Draft Microsoft Intended status: Standards Track 23 April 2025 Expires: 25 October 2025 Register a new reserved content coding value draft-deng-httpbis-unknown-content-coding-00 Abstract This document proposes a new reserved value unknown for the HTTP protocol parameter content coding. About This Document This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://guohuideng2024.github.io/register_unknown_cc/draft-deng- register-a-reserved-content-coding-value.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-deng-httpbis-unknown-content-coding/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/guohuideng2024/register_unknown_cc. 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 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://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 25 October 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Deng Expires 25 October 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Register a new reserved content coding v April 2025 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Rationale and proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Rationale and proposal There is a need to convert (https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/ pull/1796) an arbitary content encoding value from a http response to unknown, if the UA(user agent) doesn't recognize or support the original content encoding value. This conversion requires that the original value cannot be unknown. Therefore, this document proposes a new reserved value unknown for the HTTP protocol parameter. A content coding value cannot be unknown. 2. Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 3. Security Considerations No security concerns. Deng Expires 25 October 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Register a new reserved content coding v April 2025 4. IANA Considerations IANA maintains a HTTP Content Coding Registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http- parameters.xhtml). If this proposal becomes a standard, a new reserved value unknown will be added to the registry. 5. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . Acknowledgments Many thanks to Noam Rosenthal, Anne van Kesteren, Yoav Weiss, Patrick Meenan, Nic Jansma, and Lucas Pardue for the discussion and guidance. Author's Address Guohui Deng Microsoft Email: guohuideng@microsoft.com Deng Expires 25 October 2025 [Page 3]