このドキュメントは、RFC2616を翻訳したものです。 参考訳ですので、標準としての効力はありません。 RFCとしての詳細は原文を参照してください。 その他制限等は、原文に準じるものとします。 最新版は http://siisise.net/ にて公開します。 Yuuichirou Oka (oka @ csce.kyushu-u.ac.jp)さんのRFC 2068の訳を含んでいます。 ご意見・ご感想等ありましたら、佐藤 雅俊 okome at siisise.net までお願いします。 Network Working Group R. Fielding リクエスト for Comments: 2616 UC Irvine Obsoletes: 2068 J. Gettys Category: Standards Track Compaq/W3C J. Mogul Compaq H. Frystyk W3C/MIT L. Masinter Xerox P. Leach Microsoft T. Berners-Lee W3C/MIT 1999年6月 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 このメモの状況(Status of this Memo) This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and リクエストs discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. このドキュメントは、インターネット共同社会においてのインターネット標準 プロトコルを規定し、改善のための議論や提案を求めるものです。"インターネッ ト・オフィシャル・プロトコル標準" (STD 1)の最新版を参照して、このプロトコ ルの標準の状態や状況を確認するようにしてください。このメモの再配布は制限 しません。 著作権表示(Copyright Notice) Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. 概要(Abstract) Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) は、分散化して協調したハイパーメディア 情報システムのためのアプリケーション層プロトコルです。それは、共通の無国籍( データに依存しない)プロトコルであり、要求メソッド、エラーコードやヘッダを拡 張することで、ネームサーバや分散オブジェクト管理システムのようなハイパーテキ スト以外の多くの処理にも使うことができます[47]。HTTPの機能/特徴は、システム に依存せず、独立してデータ転送するための、データ表現の分類と取り決めです。 HTTPは、World-Wide Web グローバル情報イニシアティブにより1990年から使われて います。この仕様書は、"HTTP/1.1"として参照されるプロトコルについて規定し、 RFC 2068 [33] から更新されました。 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Table of Contents 1 はじめに .......................................................7 1.1 目的 .........................................................7 1.2 Requirements .................................................8 1.3 Terminology ..................................................8 1.4 Overall Operation ...........................................12 2 Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar ....................14 2.1 Augmented BNF ...............................................14 2.2 基本ルール ..................................................15 3 プロトコル・パラメータ ........................................17 3.1 HTTP Version ................................................17 3.2 Uniform Resource Identifiers ................................18 3.2.1 General Syntax ...........................................19 3.2.2 http URL .................................................19 3.2.3 URI Comparison ...........................................20 3.3 Date/Time Formats ...........................................20 3.3.1 Full Date ................................................20 3.3.2 Delta Seconds ............................................21 3.4 Character Sets ..............................................21 3.4.1 Missing Charset ..........................................22 3.5 Content Codings .............................................23 3.6 Transfer Codings ............................................24 3.6.1 Chunked Transfer Coding ..................................25 3.7 Media Types .................................................26 3.7.1 Canonicalization and Text Defaults .......................27 3.7.2 Multipart Types ..........................................27 3.8 Product Tokens ..............................................28 3.9 Quality Values ..............................................29 3.10 Language Tags ...............................................29 3.11 Entity Tags .................................................30 3.12 Range Units .................................................30 4 HTTP メッセージ ...............................................31 4.1 メッセージ タイプ ...........................................31 4.2 メッセージ ヘッダ ...........................................31 4.3 メッセージ ボディ ...........................................32 4.4 メッセージ長 ................................................33 4.5 General ヘッダ フィールドs .......................................34 5 リクエスト .......................................................35 5.1 リクエスト-Line ................................................35 5.1.1 Method ...................................................36 5.1.2 リクエスト-URI ..............................................36 5.2 The Resource Identified by a リクエスト ........................38 5.3 リクエスト ヘッダ フィールドs .......................................38 6 レスポンス ......................................................39 6.1 Status-Line .................................................39 6.1.1 ステータス コード and Reason Phrase ............................39 6.2 レスポンス ヘッダ フィールドs ......................................41 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 7 Entity ........................................................42 7.1 Entity ヘッダ フィールドs ........................................42 7.2 Entity Body .................................................43 7.2.1 Type .....................................................43 7.2.2 Entity Length ............................................43 8 Connections ...................................................44 8.1 Persistent Connections ......................................44 8.1.1 Purpose ..................................................44 8.1.2 Overall Operation ........................................45 8.1.3 プロキシ(proxy) Servers ............................................46 8.1.4 Practical Considerations .................................46 8.2 Message Transmission Requirements ...........................47 8.2.1 Persistent Connections and Flow Control ..................47 8.2.2 Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages .........48 8.2.3 Use of the 100 (Continue) Status .........................48 8.2.4 Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes Connection ..50 9 Method Definitions ............................................51 9.1 Safe and Idempotent Methods .................................51 9.1.1 Safe Methods .............................................51 9.1.2 Idempotent Methods .......................................51 9.2 OPTIONS .....................................................52 9.3 GET .........................................................53 9.4 HEAD ........................................................54 9.5 POST ........................................................54 9.6 PUT .........................................................55 9.7 DELETE ......................................................56 9.8 TRACE .......................................................56 9.9 CONNECT .....................................................57 10 ステータス コード Definitions ......................................57 10.1 Informational 1xx ...........................................57 10.1.1 100 Continue .............................................58 10.1.2 101 Switching Protocols ..................................58 10.2 成功 2xx ....................................................58 10.2.1 200 OK ...................................................58 10.2.2 201 Created ..............................................59 10.2.3 202 Accepted .............................................59 10.2.4 203 Non-Authoritative Information ........................59 10.2.5 204 No Content ...........................................60 10.2.6 205 Reset Content ........................................60 10.2.7 206 Partial Content ......................................60 10.3 リダイレクション 3xx ........................................61 10.3.1 300 Multiple Choices .....................................61 10.3.2 301 Moved Permanently ....................................62 10.3.3 302 Found ................................................62 10.3.4 303 See Other ............................................63 10.3.5 304 Not Modified .........................................63 10.3.6 305 Use プロキシ .........................................64 10.3.7 306 (Unused) .............................................64 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 10.3.8 307 Temporary Redirect ...................................65 10.4 クライアントエラー 4xx ......................................65 10.4.1 400 Bad リクエスト .........................................65 10.4.2 401 Unauthorized ........................................66 10.4.3 402 Payment Required ....................................66 10.4.4 403 Forbidden ...........................................66 10.4.5 404 Not Found ...........................................66 10.4.6 405 Method Not Allowed ..................................66 10.4.7 406 Not Acceptable ......................................67 10.4.8 407 プロキシ(proxy) 認証 Required .......................67 10.4.9 408 リクエスト Timeout .....................................67 10.4.10 409 Conflict ............................................67 10.4.11 410 Gone ................................................68 10.4.12 411 Length Required .....................................68 10.4.13 412 Precondition Failed .................................68 10.4.14 413 リクエスト Entity Too Large ............................69 10.4.15 414 リクエスト-URI Too Long ................................69 10.4.16 415 Unsupported Media Type ..............................69 10.4.17 416 リクエストed Range Not Satisfiable .....................69 10.4.18 417 Expectation Failed ..................................70 10.5 サーバー エラー 5xx .........................................70 10.5.1 500 Internal Server Error ................................70 10.5.2 501 Not Implemented ......................................70 10.5.3 502 Bad ゲートウェイ ..........................................70 10.5.4 503 Service Unavailable ..................................70 10.5.5 504 ゲートウェイ Timeout ......................................71 10.5.6 505 HTTP Version Not Supported ...........................71 11 アクセス認証 .................................................71 12 Content ネゴシエーション(交渉) ...............................71 12.1 Server-driven ネゴシエーション ..............................72 12.2 Agent-driven ネゴシエーション ...............................73 12.3 透過ネゴシエーション(Transparent Negotiation) ...............74 13 Caching in HTTP ..............................................74 13.1.1 Cache Correctness ........................................75 13.1.2 警告(Warnings) ...........................................76 13.1.3 キャッシュコントロール機構 ...............................77 13.1.4 Explicit ユーザエージェント警告 ..........................78 13.1.5 Exceptions to the Rules and Warnings .....................78 13.1.6 Client-controlled Behavior ...............................79 13.2 Expiration Model ............................................79 13.2.1 Server-Specified Expiration ..............................79 13.2.2 Heuristic Expiration .....................................80 13.2.3 Age Calculations .........................................80 13.2.4 Expiration Calculations ..................................83 13.2.5 Disambiguating Expiration Values .........................84 13.2.6 Disambiguating Multiple レスポンスs ........................84 13.3 Validation Model ............................................85 13.3.1 Last-Modified Dates ......................................86 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 13.3.2 Entity Tag Cache Validators ..............................86 13.3.3 Weak and Strong Validators ...............................86 13.3.4 Rules for When to Use Entity Tags and Last-Modified Dates.89 13.3.5 Non-validating Conditionals ..............................90 13.4 レスポンス Cacheability .......................................91 13.5 Constructing レスポンスs From Caches ..........................92 13.5.1 End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Headers ........................92 13.5.2 Non-modifiable Headers ...................................92 13.5.3 Combining Headers ........................................94 13.5.4 Combining Byte Ranges ....................................95 13.6 Caching Negotiated レスポンスs ................................95 13.7 Shared and Non-Shared Caches ................................96 13.8 Errors or Incomplete レスポンス Cache Behavior ................97 13.9 Side Effects of GET and HEAD ................................97 13.10 Invalidation After Updates or Deletions ...................97 13.11 Write-Through Mandatory ...................................98 13.12 Cache Replacement .........................................99 13.13 History Lists .............................................99 14 ヘッダ フィールド Definitions ....................................100 14.1 Accept .....................................................100 14.2 Accept-Charset .............................................102 14.3 Accept-Encoding ............................................102 14.4 Accept-Language ............................................104 14.5 Accept-Ranges ..............................................105 14.6 Age ........................................................106 14.7 Allow ......................................................106 14.8 Authorization ..............................................107 14.9 Cache-Control ..............................................108 14.9.1 What is Cacheable .......................................109 14.9.2 What May be Stored by Caches ............................110 14.9.3 Modifications of the Basic Expiration Mechanism .........111 14.9.4 Cache Revalidation and Reload Controls ..................113 14.9.5 No-Transform Directive ..................................115 14.9.6 Cache Control Extensions ................................116 14.10 Connection ...............................................117 14.11 Content-Encoding .........................................118 14.12 Content-Language .........................................118 14.13 Content-Length ...........................................119 14.14 Content-Location .........................................120 14.15 Content-MD5 ..............................................121 14.16 Content-Range ............................................122 14.17 Content-Type .............................................124 14.18 Date .....................................................124 14.18.1 Clockless 元のサーバ Operation ......................125 14.19 ETag .....................................................126 14.20 Expect ...................................................126 14.21 Expires ..................................................127 14.22 From .....................................................128 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 14.23 Host .....................................................128 14.24 If-Match .................................................129 14.25 If-Modified-Since ........................................130 14.26 If-None-Match ............................................132 14.27 If-Range .................................................133 14.28 If-Unmodified-Since ......................................134 14.29 Last-Modified ............................................134 14.30 Location .................................................135 14.31 Max-Forwards .............................................136 14.32 Pragma ...................................................136 14.33 Proxy-Authenticate .......................................137 14.34 Proxy-Authorization ......................................137 14.35 Range ....................................................138 14.35.1 Byte Ranges ...........................................138 14.35.2 Range Retrieval リクエストs ..............................139 14.36 Referer ..................................................140 14.37 Retry-After ..............................................141 14.38 Server ...................................................141 14.39 TE .......................................................142 14.40 Trailer ..................................................143 14.41 Transfer-Encoding..........................................143 14.42 Upgrade ..................................................144 14.43 User-Agent ...............................................145 14.44 Vary .....................................................145 14.45 Via ......................................................146 14.46 Warning ..................................................148 14.47 WWW-Authenticate .........................................150 15 Security Considerations .......................................150 15.1 Personal Information....................................151 15.1.1 Abuse of Server Log Information .........................151 15.1.2 Transfer of Sensitive Information .......................151 15.1.3 Encoding Sensitive Information in URI's .................152 15.1.4 Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers ..............152 15.2 Attacks Based On File and Path Names .......................153 15.3 DNS Spoofing ...............................................154 15.4 Location Headers and Spoofing ..............................154 15.5 Content-Disposition Issues .................................154 15.6 認証 Credentials and Idle Clients ..........................155 15.7 プロキシ and Caching ........................................155 15.7.1 Denial of Service Attacks on プロキシ....................156 16 謝辞(Acknowledgments) .......................................156 17 参考文献(References) ........................................158 18 著者アドレス(Authors' Addresses) ............................162 19 付録(Appendices) ............................................164 19.1 Internet Media Type message/http and アプリケーション/http .164 19.2 Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges ...................165 19.3 Tolerant アプリケーションs .................................166 19.4 Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities ....167 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 19.4.1 MIME-Version ............................................167 19.4.2 Conversion to Canonical Form ............................167 19.4.3 Conversion of Date Formats ..............................168 19.4.4 Introduction of Content-Encoding ........................168 19.4.5 No Content-Transfer-Encoding ............................168 19.4.6 Introduction of Transfer-Encoding .......................169 19.4.7 MHTML and Line Length Limitations .......................169 19.5 Additional Features ........................................169 19.5.1 Content-Disposition .....................................170 19.6 Compatibility with Previous Versions .......................170 19.6.1 Changes from HTTP/1.0 ...................................171 19.6.2 Compatibility with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections ......172 19.6.3 Changes from RFC 2068 ...................................172 20 Index .......................................................175 21 Full Copyright Statement ....................................176 1 はじめに(Introduction) 1.1 目的(Purpose) Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) は、分散化して協調動作するハイパー メディア情報システムのためのアプリケーション層プロトコルです。HTTPは、 World-Wide Web グローバル情報イニシアティブにより、1990年から使われていま す。最初のバージョンのHTTP(HTTP/0.9参照)は、インターネット上で生のデータ を転送するための簡単なプロトコルでした。RFC 1945 [6] で定義された HTTP/1.0は、要求/応答にデータ転送と修正者のメタ情報を含むMIMEライクなメッ セージのフォーマットを支給し、改良したプロトコルです。(再訳必要)しかしな がら、HTTP/1.0は、階層プロキシ、キャッシング、継続接続の必要性、または仮 想ホストの効果に充分に考慮されていなかった。加えて、"HTTP/1.0"対応だと言 っている不完全な実装をしたアプリケーションの増加は、2つの通信アプリケーシ ョンの能力の違いを正しく規定するためにプロトコルバージョンの変更を必要とさ せた。 この仕様書は、"HTTP/1.1"として参照されるプロトコルを定義する。 このプロトコルには、含まれている。 includes more stringent requirements than HTTP/1.0 in order to ensure 信頼できる実装 of its features. Practical information systems require more functionality than simple retrieval, including search, front-end update, and annotation. HTTP allows an open-ended set of methods and headers that indicate the purpose of a リクエスト [47]. It builds on the discipline of reference provided by the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [3], as a location (URL) [4] or name (URN) [20], for indicating the resource to which a Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 method is to be applied. Messages are passed in a format similar to that used by Internet mail [9] as defined by the 多目的インターネット・メール拡張 (MIME) [7]. HTTP is also used as a 共通のプロトコル for コミュニケーション between ユーザエージェント and プロキシ/ゲートウェイ to other Internet システム, including those supported by the SMTP [16], NNTP [13], FTP [18], Gopher [2], and WAIS [10] protocols. In this way, HTTP allows basic hypermedia access to resources available from diverse アプリケーションs. 1.2 条件 (Requirements) このドキュメントで使われるキーワード MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, と OPTIONAL は、RFC 2119 [34]で説明されている. 実装がプロトコルの MUST または REQUIRED レベルの要求条件を一つでも満た していないなら、その実装は、プロトコルに準拠していない. An 実装 that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIREDレベル and all the SHOULD レベルの要求条件 for its protocols is said to be "完全準拠"; one that satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD レベル requirements for its プロトコル is said to be "条件付き準拠." 1.3 専門用語(Terminology) この仕様書 uses a number of terms to refer to the roles played by participants in, and objects of, the HTTP コミュニケーション. コネクション(connection) A トランスポート層 仮想サーキット established between two programs for the purpose of コミュニケーション. メッセージ(message) 基本単位 of HTTP コミュニケーション, consisting of a structured sequence of octets matching the syntax defined in section 4 and transmitted via the connection. リクエスト/要求(リクエスト) セクション5で定義される、HTTP 要求メッセージ. レスポンス/応答(レスポンス) セクション6で定義される、HTTP 応答メッセージ. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 リソース(resource) ネットワーク・データ・オブジェクトまたはサービス that can be identified by a URI, as defined in section 3.2. Resources may be available in multiple representations (e.g. multiple languages, data formats, size, and resolutions) or vary in other ways. エンティティ/実在物(entity) The 情報 transferred as the payload of a リクエストまたは レスポンス. An entity consists of metainformation in the form of entity-ヘッダ フィールドs and content in the form of an entity-body, as described in section 7. representation セクション12で記述される、レスポンスを含むエンティティ that is subject to content negotiation. There may exist multiple representations associated with a particular レスポンス status. content negotiation The メカニズムmechanism for selecting the appropriate representation when servicing a リクエスト, as described in section 12. The representation of entities in any レスポンス can be negotiated (including error レスポンスs). variant A resource may have one, or more than one, representation(s) associated with it at any given instant. Each of these representations is termed a `varriant'. Use of the term `variant' does not necessarily imply that the resource is subject to content negotiation. クライアント(client) リクエストを送信する目的で接続を確立するプログラム. ユーザ エージェント(user agent) The クライアント which initiates a リクエスト. These are often browsers, editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end user tools. サーバ(server) An アプリケーション プログラム that accepts connections in order to service リクエストs by sending back レスポンスs. Any given program may be capable of being both a client and a server; our use of these terms refers only to the role being performed by the program for a particular connection, rather than to the program's capabilities in general. Likewise, any server may act as an 元のサーバ, プロキシ, ゲートウェイ, or tunnel, switching behavior based on the nature of each リクエスト. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 元のサーバ The server on which a given リソース resides or is to be created. プロキシ(proxy) An 中継プログラム which acts as both a server and a client for the purpose of making リクエストs on behalf of other clients. リクエストs are serviced internally or by passing them on, with possible translation, to other servers. A プロキシ MUST implement both the client and server requirements of this specification. A "transparent プロキシ" is a プロキシ that does not modify the リクエスト or レスポンス beyond what is required for プロキシ 認証 and identification. A "non-transparent プロキシ(proxy)" is a プロキシ(proxy) that modifies the リクエスト or レスポンス in order to provide some added service to the user agent, such as group annotation services, media type transformation, protocol reduction, or anonymity filtering. Except where either transparent or non-transparent behavior is explicitly stated, the HTTP プロキシ requirements apply to both types of プロキシ. ゲートウェイ(gateway) A サーバ which acts as an intermediary for some other server. Unlike a プロキシ, a ゲートウェイ receives リクエストs as if it were the 元のサーバ for the リクエストed resource; the リクエストing client may not be aware that it is communicating with a gateway. トンネル(tunnel) An 仲介(中継)プログラム which is acting as a blind ふたつのコネクションの間を中継する. Once active, a tunnel is not considered a party to the HTTP コミュニケーション, though the tunnel may have been initiated by an HTTPリクエスト. The tunnel ceases to exist when both ends of the relayed connections are closed. キャッシュ(cache) A プログラムの応答メッセージ保管場所 and the subsystem that controls its message storage, retrieval, and deletion. A cache stores cacheable レスポンスs in order to reduce the レスポンス time and network バンド幅 consumption on future, equivalent リクエストs. Any client or server may include a cache, though a cache cannot be used by a server that is acting as a tunnel. キャッシュ可能／キャッシュできる (cachable) キャッシャが後のリクエストのためにレスポンスメッセージのコピーを保持 する事が許される場合、レスポンスはキャッシュ可能である。HTTP レスポン スをキャッシュできるかどうかの判定規則は13章で定義する。リソースが キャッシュできたとしても、キャッシュがあるリクエストにキャッシュされ たコピーを使えるかどうかについて、別の制約があるかもしれない。 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 直接 (first-hand) レスポンスがオリジンサーバから直接、プロキシを経由するような不要な 遅れを含まないで送られてくるとき、レスポンスが直接であるという。 また、その正当性がオリジンサーバと直接チェックされる時も、その レスポンスは直接であるという。 explicit expiration time The time at which the 元のサーバ intends that an entity should no longer be returned by a cache without further validation. 自発的保持期限／有効期限 (heuristic expiration time) 有効期限が明示されていない場合に、キャッシャが指定する有効期限。 経過時間 (age) オリジンサーバから送られてから、またはオリジンサーバによって有効に されてからの時間を レスポンスの 経過時間という。 freshness lifetime The length of time between the generation of a レスポンス and its expiration time. 有効 (fresh) レスポンスの経過時間が、有効時間をまだ超えていない場合、 そのレスポンスは有効であるという。 無効 (stale) レスポンスの経過時間が、有効時間を超えた場合、そのレスポンスは無効で あるという。 （訳注：直訳は「新鮮でない、古い」。もっといい訳語募集中） semantically transparent A cache behaves in a "semantically transparent" manner, with respect to a particular レスポンス, when its use affects neither the リクエストing client nor the 元のサーバ, except to improve performance. When a cache is semantically transparent, the client receives exactly the same レスポンス (except for hop-by-hop headers) that it would have received had its リクエスト been handled directly by the 元のサーバ. validator A protocol element (e.g., an entity tag or a Last-Modified time) that is used to find out whether a cache entry is an equivalent copy of an entity. upstream/downstream Upstream and downstream describe the flow of a message: all messages flow from upstream to downstream. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 inbound/outbound Inbound and outbound refer to the リクエスト and レスポンス paths for messages: "inbound" means "traveling toward the 元のサーバ", and "outbound" means "traveling toward the user agent" 1.4 オーバーロール・オペレーション(作業) HTTPプロトコルは、要求/応答プロトコルである. A クライアントは、 sends a リクエスト to the server in the form of a リクエスト method, URI, and protocol version, followed by a MIME-like message containing リクエスト modifiers, client information, and possible body content over a connection with a server. The server responds with a status line, including the message's protocol version and a success or error code, followed by a MIME-like message containing server information, entity metainformation, and possible entity-body content. The relationship between HTTP and MIME is described in appendix 19.4. Most HTTP コミュニケーション is initiated by a user agent and consists of a リクエスト to be applied to a resource on some 元のサーバ. In the simplest case, this may be accomplished via a single connection (v) between the user agent (UA) and the 元のサーバ (O). リクエスト chain ------------------------> UA -------------------v------------------- O <----------------------- レスポンス chain A more 複雑な状況 occurs when one or more 中継者 are present in the リクエスト/レスポンス chain. There are three common forms of intermediary: プロキシ, ゲートウェイ, and トンネル. A プロキシ is a 転送エージェント, receiving リクエストs for a URI in its absolute form, rewriting all or part of the メッセージ, and 転送する the 再フォーマットされたリクエスト toward the サーバ identified by the URI. A ゲートウェイ is a receiving agent, acting as a layer above some other server(s) and, if 必要なら, 翻訳する the リクエストs to the underlying サーバのプロトコル. A トンネルは、メッセージを変えずに2つのコネクションの間を中継する役をつとめる; tunnels are used when the コミュニケーション needs to pass through an 中継者 (ファイアウォールのような) even when the intermediary cannot understand the contents of the messages. リクエスト chain --------------------------------------> UA -----v----- A -----v----- B -----v----- C -----v----- O <------------------------------------- レスポンス chain 上の図では、ユーザエージェントと元のサーバの間に3つの中継者(A, BとC)がいる. A リクエスト or レスポンス メッセージ that travels the whole chain will pass through four separate connections. This distinction is important because some HTTP コミュニケーション options Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 may apply only to the connection with the nearest, non-tunnel neighbor, only to the end-points of the chain, or to all connections along the chain. Although the diagram is linear, each participant may be engaged in multiple, simultaneous コミュニケーションs. For example, B may be receiving リクエストs from many clients other than A, and/or forwarding リクエストs to servers other than C, at the same time that it is handling A's リクエスト. Any party to the コミュニケーション which is not acting as a tunnel may employ an internal cache for handling リクエストs. The effect of a cache is that the リクエスト/レスポンス chain is shortened if one of the participants along the chain has a cached レスポンス applicable to that リクエスト. The following illustrates the resulting chain if B has a cached copy of an earlier レスポンス from O (via C) for a リクエスト which has not been cached by UA or A. リクエスト chain ----------> UA -----v----- A -----v----- B - - - - - - C - - - - - - O <--------- レスポンス chain Not all レスポンスs are usefully cacheable, and some リクエストs may contain modifiers which place special requirements on cache behavior. HTTP requirements for cache behavior and cacheable レスポンスs are defined in セクション 13. In fact, there are a wide variety of architectures and configurations of caches and プロキシ currently being experimented with or deployed across the World Wide Web. These systems include national hierarchies of プロキシ caches to save transoceanic バンド幅, systems that broadcast or multicast cache entries, organizations that distribute subsets of cached data via CD-ROM, and so on. HTTP systems are used in corporate intranets over high-バンド幅 links, and for access via PDAs with low-power radio links and intermittent connectivity. The goal of HTTP/1.1 is to support the wide diversity of configurations already deployed while introducing protocol constructs that meet the needs of those who build web アプリケーションs that require high reliability and, failing that, at least reliable indications of failure. HTTP コミュニケーション usually takes place over TCP/IP connections. The default port is TCP 80 [19], but other ports can be used. This does not preclude HTTP from being implemented on top of any other protocol on the Internet, or on other networks. HTTP only presumes a reliable transport; any protocol that provides such guarantees can be used; the mapping of the HTTP/1.1 リクエスト and レスポンス structures onto the transport data units of the protocol in question is outside the scope of this specification. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 In HTTP/1.0, most implementations used a new connection for each リクエスト/レスポンス exchange. In HTTP/1.1, a connection may be used for one or more リクエスト/レスポンス exchanges, although connections may be closed for a variety of reasons (see section 8.1). 2 Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar 2.1 拡張BNF All of the mechanisms specified in this document are described in both prose and an augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) similar to that used by RFC 822 [9]. 実装者 will need to be familiar with the notation in order to understand this specification. The augmented BNF includes the following constructs: name = definition The name of a rule is simply the name itself (without any enclosing "<" and ">") and is separated from its definition by the equal "=" character. White space is only significant in that indentation of continuation lines is used to indicate a rule definition that spans more than one line. Certain basic rules are in uppercase, such as SP, LWS, HT, CRLF, DIGIT, ALPHA, etc. Angle brackets are used within definitions whenever their presence will facilitate discerning the use of rule names. "リテラル" Quotation marks surround literal text. Unless stated otherwise, the text is case-insensitive. rule1 | rule2 Elements separated by a bar ("|") are alternatives, e.g., "yes | no" will accept yes or no. (rule1 rule2) Elements enclosed in parentheses are treated as a single element. Thus, "(elem (foo | bar) elem)" allows the token sequences "elem foo elem" and "elem bar elem". *rule The character "*" preceding an element indicates repetition. The full form is "*element" indicating at least and at most occurrences of element. Default values are 0 and infinity so that "*(element)" allows any number, including zero; "1*element" requires at least one; and "1*2element" allows one or two. [rule] Square brackets enclose optional elements; "[foo bar]" is equivalent to "*1(foo bar)". Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 N rule Specific repetition: "(element)" is equivalent to "*(element)"; that is, exactly occurrences of (element). Thus 2DIGIT is a 2-digit number, and 3ALPHA is a string of three alphabetic characters. #rule A construct "#" is defined, similar to "*", for defining lists of elements. The full form is "#element" indicating at least and at most elements, each separated by one or more commas (",") and OPTIONAL linear white space (LWS). This makes the usual form of lists very easy; a rule such as ( *LWS element *( *LWS "," *LWS element )) can be shown as 1#element Wherever this construct is used, null elements are allowed, but do not contribute to the count of elements present. That is, "(element), , (element) " is permitted, but counts as only two elements. Therefore, where at least one element is required, at least one non-null element MUST be present. Default values are 0 and infinity so that "#element" allows any number, including zero; "1#element" requires at least one; and "1#2element" allows one or two. ; comment A semi-colon, set off some distance to the right of rule text, starts a comment that continues to the end of line. This is a simple way of including useful notes in parallel with the specifications. implied *LWS The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included between any two adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and between adjacent words and separators, without changing the interpretation of a field. At least one delimiter (LWS and/or separators) MUST exist between any two tokens (for the definition of "token" below), since they would otherwise be interpreted as a single token. 2.2 基本ルール(Basic Rules) 次のルール are used throughout この仕様書 to describe basic parsing constructs. The US-ASCII coded character set is defined by ANSI X3.4-1986 [21]. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 OCTET = <任意の8ビットの連続データ> CHAR = <任意のUS-ASCII 文字 (octets 0 - 127)> UPALPHA = <任意のUS-ASCII 大文字 "A".."Z"> LOALPHA = <任意のUS-ASCII 小文字 "a".."z"> ALPHA = UPALPHA | LOALPHA DIGIT = <任意の US-ASCII 数字 "0".."9"> CTL = <任意の US-ASCII 制御文字 (octets 0 - 31) and DEL (127)> CR = LF = SP = HT = <"> = HTTP/1.1は、{エンティティボディを除く全プロトコル要素で連続するCR LFは行端マーカである}と定義する。 (付録 19.3 寛容なアプリケーション 参照). The エンティティボディ中の行端マーカは、defined by its associated media type, as described in section 3.7. CRLF = CR LF HTTP/1.1 ヘッダ フィールド values can be folded onto multiple lines if the continuation line begins with a space or horizontal tab. All linear white space, including folding, has the same semantics as SP. A recipient MAY replace any linear white space with a single SP before interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream. LWS = [CRLF] 1*( SP | HT ) The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and values that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser. Words of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than ISO- 8859-1 [22] only when encoded according to the rules of RFC 2047 [14]. TEXT = A CRLF is allowed in the definition of TEXT only as part of a header field continuation. It is expected that the folding LWS will be replaced with a single SP before interpretation of the TEXT value. Hexadecimal numeric characters are used in several protocol elements. HEX = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" | "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | DIGIT Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Many HTTP/1.1 ヘッダ フィールド values consist of words separated by LWS or special characters. These special characters MUST be in a quoted string to be used within a parameter value (as defined in section 3.6). token = 1* separators = "(" | ")" | "<" | ">" | "@" | "," | ";" | ":" | "\" | <"> | "/" | "[" | "]" | "?" | "=" | "{" | "}" | SP | HT Comments can be included in some HTTP ヘッダ フィールドs by surrounding the comment text with parentheses. Comments are only allowed in fields containing "comment" as part of their field value definition. In all other fields, parentheses are considered part of the field value. comment = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")" ctext = A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using double-quote marks. quoted-string = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> ) qdtext = > The backslash character ("\") MAY be used as a single-character quoting mechanism only within quoted-string and comment constructs. quoted-pair = "\" CHAR 3 Protocol Parameters 3.1 HTTP バージョン(HTTP Version) HTTP uses a "." 番号付与計画 to indicate versions of the protocol. The protocol versioning policy is intended to allow the sender to indicate the format of a message and its capacity for understanding further HTTP コミュニケーション, rather than the features obtained via that コミュニケーション. No change is made to the version number for the addition of message components which do not affect コミュニケーション behavior or which only add to extensible field values. The number is incremented when the changes made to the protocol add features which do not change the general message parsing algorithm, but which may add to the message semantics and imply additional capabilities of the sender. The number is incremented when the format of a message within the protocol is changed. See RFC 2145 [36] for a fuller explanation. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 HTTPメッセージのバージョン is indicated by an HTTP-Version field in the first line of the message. HTTP-Version = "HTTP" "/" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT Note that the major and minor numbers MUST be treated as separate integers and that each MAY be incremented higher than a single digit. Thus, HTTP/2.4 is a lower version than HTTP/2.13, which in turn is lower than HTTP/12.3. Leading zeros MUST be ignored by recipients and MUST NOT be sent. An アプリケーション that sends a リクエスト or レスポンス message that includes HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" MUST be at least conditionally compliant with this specification. アプリケーションs that are at least conditionally compliant with this specification SHOULD use an HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" in their messages, and MUST do so for any message that is not compatible with HTTP/1.0. For more details on when to send specific HTTP-Version values, see RFC 2145 [36]. The HTTPバージョン of an アプリケーション is the highest HTTPバージョン for which the アプリケーション is at least conditionally compliant. プロキシ(proxy) and ゲートウェイ アプリケーションs need to be careful when forwarding messages in プロトコル versions different from that of the アプリケーション. Since the プロトコル バージョン indicates the プロトコルの能力 of the sender, a プロキシ(proxy)/ゲートウェイ MUST NOT send a message with a version indicator which is greater than its actual version. If a higher version リクエスト is received, the プロキシ(proxy)/ゲートウェイ MUST either downgrade the リクエスト バージョン, or respond with an エラー, or switch to tunnel behavior. Due to 相互運用問題 with HTTP/1.0 プロキシ discovered since the publication of RFC 2068[33], caching プロキシ MUST, gateways MAY, and tunnels MUST NOT upgrade the リクエスト to the highest version they support. The プロキシ(proxy)/gateway's レスポンス to that リクエスト MUST be in the same major version as the リクエスト. Note: Converting between versions of HTTP may involve modification of ヘッダ フィールドs required or forbidden by the versions involved. 3.2 同一資源識別子(Uniform Resource Identifiers) URIs have been known by many names: WWW アドレス, Universal Document Identifiers, Universal Resource Identifiers [3], and finally the combination of Uniform Resource Locators (URL) [4] and Names (URN) [20]. As far as HTTP is concerned, Uniform Resource Identifiers are simply formatted strings which identify--via name, location, or any other characteristic--a resource. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 3.2.1 General Syntax URIs in HTTP can be represented in absolute form or relative to some known base URI [11], depending upon the context of their use. The two forms are differentiated by the fact that absolute URIs always begin with a scheme name followed by a colon. For definitive information on URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics," RFC 2396 [42] (which replaces RFCs 1738 [4] and RFC 1808 [11]). This specification adopts the definitions of "URI-reference", "absoluteURI", "relativeURI", "port", "host","abs_path", "rel_path", and "authority" from that specification. The HTTPプロトコル does not place any a priori limit on the length of a URI. Servers MUST be able to handle the URI of any resource they serve, and SHOULD be able to handle URIs of unbounded length if they provide GET-based forms that could generate such URIs. A server SHOULD return 414 (リクエスト-URI Too Long) status if a URI is longer than the server can handle (see section 10.4.15). Note: Servers ought to be cautious about depending on URI lengths above 255 bytes, because some older client or プロキシ(proxy) implementations might not properly support these lengths. 3.2.2 http URL The "http" スキーマ is used to locate network resources via the HTTP プロトコル. このセクション defines the scheme-specific syntax and semantics for http URLs. http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]] If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The semantics are that the identified resource is located at the server listening for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the リクエスト-URI for the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2). The use of IPアドレスes in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible (see RFC 1900 [24]). If the abs_path is not present in the URL, it MUST be given as "/" when used as a リクエスト-URI for a resource (section 5.1.2). If a プロキシ(proxy) receives a host name which is not a fully qualified domain name, it MAY add its domain to the host name it received. If a プロキシ(proxy) receives a fully qualified domain name, the プロキシ(proxy) MUST NOT change the host name. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 3.2.3 URI Comparison When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire URIs, with these exceptions: - A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the default port for that URI-reference; - Comparisons of host names MUST be case-insensitive; - Comparisons of scheme names MUST be case-insensitive; - An empty abs_path is equivalent to an abs_path of "/". Characters other than those in the "reserved" and "unsafe" sets (see RFC 2396 [42]) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX" encoding. 例えば, 次の３つのURIは、等しい: http://abc.com:80/~smith/home.html http://ABC.com/%7Esmith/home.html http://ABC.com:/%7esmith/home.html 3.3 Date/Time フォーマット 3.3.1 フル Date HTTP アプリケーション have historically allowed ３つの異なるフォーマット for the representation of date/time stamps: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 822, updated by RFC 1123 Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 850, obsoleted by RFC 1036 Sun Nov 6 08:49:37 1994 ; ANSI C's asctime() format 最初のフォーマット is preferred as an Internet 標準 and represents a fixed-length subset of that defined by RFC 1123 [8] (an update to RFC 822 [9]). 二つ目のフォーマットは in common use, but is based on the obsolete RFC 850 [12] 日付フォーマット and lacks a four-digit year. HTTP/1.1クライアントとサーバ that parse the date value MUST accept all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they MUST RFC 1123フォーマットでのみ、生成しなければならない for representing ヘッダフィールドのHTTP-date の値. See section 19.3 for further information. Note: Recipients of date values are encouraged to be robust in accepting date values that may have been sent by non-HTTP アプリケーションs, as is sometimes the case when retrieving or posting messages via プロキシ/gateways to SMTP or NNTP. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 All HTTP 日時 stamps MUST be represented in グリニッジ標準時(GMT), without exception. For the purposes of HTTP, GMT is exactly equal to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). This is indicated in the first two formats by the inclusion of "GMT" as the three-letter abbreviation for time zone, and MUST be assumed when reading the asctime format. HTTP-date is case sensitive and MUST NOT include additional LWS beyond that specifically included as SP in the grammar. HTTP-date = rfc1123-date | rfc850-date | asctime-date rfc1123-date = wkday "," SP date1 SP time SP "GMT" rfc850-date = weekday "," SP date2 SP time SP "GMT" asctime-date = wkday SP date3 SP time SP 4DIGIT date1 = 2DIGIT SP month SP 4DIGIT ; day month year (e.g., 02 Jun 1982) date2 = 2DIGIT "-" month "-" 2DIGIT ; day-month-year (e.g., 02-Jun-82) date3 = month SP ( 2DIGIT | ( SP 1DIGIT )) ; month day (e.g., Jun 2) time = 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ; 00:00:00 - 23:59:59 wkday = "Mon" | "Tue" | "Wed" | "Thu" | "Fri" | "Sat" | "Sun" weekday = "Monday" | "Tuesday" | "Wednesday" | "Thursday" | "Friday" | "Saturday" | "Sunday" month = "Jan" | "Feb" | "Mar" | "Apr" | "May" | "Jun" | "Jul" | "Aug" | "Sep" | "Oct" | "Nov" | "Dec" Note: HTTP requirements for the date/time stamp format apply only to their usage within the protocol stream. Clients and servers are not required to use these formats for user presentation, リクエスト logging, etc. 3.3.2 Delta Seconds Some HTTP ヘッダ フィールドs allow a time value to be specified as an integer number of seconds, represented in decimal, after the time that the message was received. delta-seconds = 1*DIGIT 3.4 文字セット(Character Sets) HTTP uses the same definition of the term "character set" as that described for MIME: Fielding, et al. 標準トラック [Page 21] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The term "character set" is used in this document to refer to a この文書中で用語「文字セット」は method used with one or more tables to convert a sequence of octets into a sequence of characters. Note that unconditional conversion in the other direction is not required, in that not all characters may be available in a given character set and a character set may provide more than one sequence of octets to represent a particular character. This definition is intended to allow various kinds of character encoding, from simple single-table mappings such as US-ASCII to complex table switching methods such as those that use ISO-2022's techniques. However, the definition associated with a MIME character set name MUST fully specify the mapping to be performed from octets to characters. In particular, use of external profiling information to determine the exact mapping is not permitted. Note: This use of the term "character set" is more commonly referred to as a "character encoding." However, since HTTP and MIME share the same registry, it is important that the terminology also be shared. HTTP character sets are identified by case-insensitive tokens. The complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character Set registry [19]. charset = token Although HTTP allows an arbitrary token to be used as a charset value, any token that has a predefined value within the IANA Character Set registry [19] MUST represent the character set defined by that registry. アプリケーションs SHOULD limit their use of character sets to those defined by the IANA registry. 実装者 should be aware of IETF character set requirements [38] [41]. 3.4.1 Missing Charset いくつかのHTTP/1.0ソフトウェア has interpreted a Content-Typeヘッダ without charset パラメータ incorrectly to mean "recipient should guess." Senders wishing to defeat this behavior MAY include a charset パラメータ even when the 文字セット is ISO-8859-1 and SHOULD do so when it is known that it will not confuse the recipient. Unfortunately, some 古いHTTP/1.0クライアント did not deal properly with an explicit 文字セットパラメータ. HTTP/1.1 recipients MUST respect the 文字セットラベル provided by the sender; and those user agents that have a provision to "guess" a charset MUST use the charset from the Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 content-type field if they support that charset, rather than the recipient's preference, when initially displaying a document. See section 3.7.1. 3.5 Content Codings Content coding values indicate an encoding transformation that has been or can be applied to an entity. Content codings are primarily used to allow a document to be compressed or otherwise usefully transformed without losing the identity of its underlying media type and without loss of information. Frequently, the entity is stored in coded form, transmitted directly, and only decoded by the recipient. content-coding = token All content-coding values are case-insensitive. HTTP/1.1 uses content-coding values in the Accept-Encoding (section 14.3) and Content-Encoding (section 14.11) ヘッダ フィールドs. Although the value describes the content-coding, what is more important is that it indicates what decoding mechanism will be required to remove the encoding. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for content-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry contains the following tokens: gzip An encoding format produced by the ファイル圧縮プログラム "gzip" (GNU zip) as described in RFC 1952 [25]. This format is a Lempel-Ziv coding (LZ77) with a 32 bit CRC. compress The encoding format produced by the common UNIX file compression program "compress". This format is an adaptive Lempel-Ziv-Welch coding (LZW). Use of program names for the identification of encoding formats is not desirable and is discouraged for future encodings. Their use here is representative of historical practice, not good design. For compatibility with previous implementations of HTTP, アプリケーションs SHOULD consider "x-gzip" and "x-compress" to be equivalent to "gzip" and "compress" respectively. deflate The "zlib" format defined in RFC 1950 [31] in combination with the "deflate" compression mechanism described in RFC 1951 [29]. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 identity The default (identity) encoding; the use of no transformation whatsoever. This content-coding is used only in the Accept- Encoding header, and SHOULD NOT be used in the Content-Encoding header. New content-coding value tokens SHOULD be registered; to allow interoperability between clients and servers, specifications of the content coding algorithms needed to implement a new value SHOULD be publicly available and adequate for independent implementation, and conform to the purpose of content coding defined in this section. 3.6 Transfer Codings Transfer-coding values are used to indicate an encoding transformation that has been, can be, or may need to be applied to an entity-body in order to ensure "safe transport" through the network. This differs from a content coding in that the transfer-coding is a property of the message, not of the original entity. transfer-coding = "chunked" | transfer-extension transfer-extension = token *( ";" parameter ) Parameters are in the form of attribute/value pairs. parameter = attribute "=" value attribute = token value = token | quoted-string All transfer-coding values are case-insensitive. HTTP/1.1 uses transfer-coding values in the TE ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.39) and in the Transfer-Encoding ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.41). Whenever a transfer-coding is applied to a message-body, the set of transfer-codings MUST include "chunked", unless the message is terminated by closing the connection. When the "chunked" transfer- coding is used, it MUST be the last transfer-coding applied to the message-body. The "chunked" transfer-coding MUST NOT be applied more than once to a message-body. These rules allow the recipient to determine the transfer-length of the message (section 4.4). Transfer-codings are analogous to the Content-Transfer-Encoding values of MIME [7], which were designed to enable safe transport of binary data over a 7-bit transport service. However, safe transport has a different focus for an 8bit-clean transfer protocol. In HTTP, the only unsafe characteristic of message-bodies is the difficulty in determining the exact body length (section 7.2.2), or the desire to encrypt data over a shared transport. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for transfer-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry contains the following tokens: "chunked" (section 3.6.1), "identity" (section 3.6.2), "gzip" (section 3.5), "compress" (section 3.5), and "deflate" (section 3.5). New transfer-coding value tokens SHOULD be registered in the same way as new content-coding value tokens (section 3.5). A server which receives an entity-body with a transfer-coding it does not understand SHOULD return 501 (Unimplemented), and close the connection. A server MUST NOT send transfer-codings to an HTTP/1.0 client. 3.6.1 Chunked Transfer Coding The chunked encoding modifies the body of a message in order to transfer it as a series of chunks, each with its own size indicator, followed by an OPTIONAL trailer containing entity-ヘッダ フィールドs. This allows dynamically produced content to be transferred along with the information necessary for the recipient to verify that it has received the full message. Chunked-Body = *chunk last-chunk trailer CRLF chunk = chunk-size [ chunk-extension ] CRLF chunk-data CRLF chunk-size = 1*HEX last-chunk = 1*("0") [ chunk-extension ] CRLF chunk-extension= *( ";" chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] ) chunk-ext-name = token chunk-ext-val = token | quoted-string chunk-data = chunk-size(OCTET) trailer = *(entity-header CRLF) The chunk-size field is a string of hex digits indicating the size of the chunk. The chunked encoding is ended by any chunk whose size is zero, followed by the trailer, which is terminated by an empty line. The trailer allows the sender to include additional HTTP header fields at the end of the message. The Trailer ヘッダ フィールド can be used to indicate which ヘッダ フィールドs are included in a trailer (see section 14.40). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 A server using chunked transfer-coding in a レスポンス MUST NOT use the trailer for any ヘッダ フィールドs unless at least one of the following is true: a)リクエスト included a TE ヘッダ フィールド that indicates "trailers" is acceptable in the transfer-coding of the レスポンス, as described in section 14.39; or, b)the server is the 元のサーバ for the レスポンス, the trailer fields consist entirely of optional metadata, and the recipient could use the message (in a manner acceptable to the 元のサーバ) without receiving this metadata. In other words, the 元のサーバ is willing to accept the possibility that the trailer fields might be silently discarded along the path to the client. This requirement prevents an interoperability failure when the message is being received by an HTTP/1.1 (or later) プロキシ(proxy) and forwarded to an HTTP/1.0 recipient. It avoids a situation where compliance with the protocol would have necessitated a possibly infinite buffer on the プロキシ(proxy). An example process for decoding a Chunked-Body is presented in appendix 19.4.6. All HTTP/1.1 アプリケーションs MUST be able to receive and decode the "chunked" transfer-coding, and MUST ignore chunk-extension extensions they do not understand. 3.7 Media Types HTTP uses Internet Media Types [17] in the Content-Type (section 14.17) and Accept (section 14.1) ヘッダ フィールドs in order to provide open and extensible data typing and type negotiation. media-type = type "/" subtype *( ";" parameter ) type = token subtype = token Parameters MAY follow the type/subtype in the form of attribute/value pairs (as defined in section 3.6). The type, subtype, and parameter attribute names are case- insensitive. Parameter values might or might not be case-sensitive, depending on the semantics of the parameter name. Linear white space (LWS) MUST NOT be used between the type and subtype, nor between an attribute and its value. The presence or absence of a parameter might be significant to the processing of a media-type, depending on its definition within the media type registry. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Note that some older HTTP アプリケーションs do not recognize media type parameters. When sending data to older HTTP アプリケーションs, implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are required by that type/subtype definition. Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA [19]). The media type registration process is outlined in RFC 1590 [17]. Use of non-registered media types is discouraged. 3.7.1 Canonicalization and Text Defaults Internet media types are registered with a canonical form. An entity-body transferred via HTTP messages MUST be represented in the appropriate canonical form prior to its transmission except for "text" types, as defined in the next paragraph. When in canonical form, media subtypes of the "text" type use CRLF as the text line break. HTTP relaxes this requirement and allows the transport of text media with plain CR or LF alone representing a line break when it is done consistently for an entire entity-body. HTTP アプリケーションs MUST accept CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF as being representative of a line break in text media received via HTTP. In addition, if the text is represented in a character set that does not use octets 13 and 10 for CR and LF respectively, as is the case for some multi-byte character sets, HTTP allows the use of whatever octet sequences are defined by that character set to represent the equivalent of CR and LF for line breaks. This flexibility regarding line breaks applies only to text media in the entity-body; a bare CR or LF MUST NOT be substituted for CRLF within any of the HTTP control structures (such as ヘッダ フィールドs and multipart boundaries). If an entity-body is encoded with a content-coding, the underlying data MUST be in a form defined above prior to being encoded. The "charset" parameter is used with some media types to define the character set (section 3.4) of the data. When no explicit charset parameter is provided by the sender, media subtypes of the "text" type are defined to have a default charset value of "ISO-8859-1" when received via HTTP. Data in character sets other than "ISO-8859-1" or its subsets MUST be labeled with an appropriate charset value. See section 3.4.1 for compatibility problems. 3.7.2 Multipart Types MIME provides for a number of "multipart" types -- encapsulations of one or more entities within a single message-body. All multipart types share a common syntax, as defined in section 5.1.1 of RFC 2046 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 [40], and MUST include a boundary parameter as part of the media type value. The message body is itself a protocol element and MUST therefore use only CRLF to represent line breaks between body-parts. Unlike in RFC 2046, the epilogue of any multipart message MUST be empty; HTTP アプリケーションs MUST NOT transmit the epilogue (even if the original multipart contains an epilogue). These restrictions exist in order to preserve the self-delimiting nature of a multipart message- body, wherein the "end" of the message-body is indicated by the ending multipart boundary. In general, HTTP treats a multipart message-body no differently than any other media type: strictly as payload. The one exception is the "multipart/byteranges" type (appendix 19.2) when it appears in a 206 (Partial Content) レスポンス, which will be interpreted by some HTTP caching mechanisms as described in sections 13.5.4 and 14.16. In all other cases, an HTTP user agent SHOULD follow the same or similar behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type. The MIME ヘッダ フィールドs within each body-part of a multipart message- body do not have any significance to HTTP beyond that defined by their MIME semantics. In general, an HTTP user agent SHOULD follow the same or similar behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type. If an アプリケーション receives an unrecognized multipart subtype, the アプリケーション MUST treat it as being equivalent to "multipart/mixed". Note: The "multipart/form-data" type has been specifically defined for carrying form data suitable for processing via the POST リクエスト method, as described in RFC 1867 [15]. 3.8 Product Tokens Product tokens are used to allow communicating アプリケーションs to identify themselves by software name and version. Most fields using product tokens also allow sub-products which form a significant part of the アプリケーション to be listed, separated by white space. By convention, the products are listed in order of their significance for identifying the アプリケーション. product = token ["/" product-version] product-version = token Examples: User-Agent: CERN-LineMode/2.15 libwww/2.17b3 Server: Apache/0.8.4 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Product tokens SHOULD be short and to the point. They MUST NOT be used for advertising or other non-essential information. Although any token character MAY appear in a product-version, this token SHOULD only be used for a version identifier (i.e., successive versions of the same product SHOULD only differ in the product-version portion of the product value). 3.9 Quality Values HTTP content negotiation (section 12) uses short "floating point" numbers to indicate the relative importance ("weight") of various negotiable parameters. A weight is normalized to a real number in the range 0 through 1, where 0 is the minimum and 1 the maximum value. If a parameter has a quality value of 0, then content with this parameter is `not acceptable' for the client. HTTP/1.1 アプリケーションs MUST NOT generate more than three digits after the decimal point. User configuration of these values SHOULD also be limited in this fashion. qvalue = ( "0" [ "." 0*3DIGIT ] ) | ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] ) "Quality values" is a misnomer, since these values merely represent relative degradation in desired quality. 3.10 Language Tags A language tag identifies a natural language spoken, written, or otherwise conveyed by human beings for コミュニケーション of information to other human beings. Computer languages are explicitly excluded. HTTP uses language tags within the Accept-Language and Content- Language fields. The syntax and registry of HTTP language tags is the same as that defined by RFC 1766 [1]. In summary, a language tag is composed of 1 or more parts: A primary language tag and a possibly empty series of subtags: language-tag = primary-tag *( "-" subtag ) primary-tag = 1*8ALPHA subtag = 1*8ALPHA White space is not allowed within the tag and all tags are case- insensitive. The name space of language tags is administered by the IANA. Example tags include: en, en-US, en-cockney, i-cherokee, x-pig-latin Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 where any two-letter primary-tag is an ISO-639 language abbreviation and any two-letter initial subtag is an ISO-3166 country code. (The last three tags above are not registered tags; all but the last are examples of tags which could be registered in future.) 3.11 Entity Tags Entity tags are used for comparing two or more entities from the same リクエストed resource. HTTP/1.1 uses entity tags in the ETag (section 14.19), If-Match (section 14.24), If-None-Match (section 14.26), and If-Range (section 14.27) ヘッダ フィールドs. The definition of how they are used and compared as cache validators is in section 13.3.3. An entity tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator. entity-tag = [ weak ] opaque-tag weak = "W/" opaque-tag = quoted-string A "strong entity tag" MAY be shared by two entities of a resource only if they are equivalent by octet equality. A "weak entity tag," indicated by the "W/" prefix, MAY be shared by two entities of a resource only if the entities are equivalent and could be substituted for each other with no significant change in semantics. A weak entity tag can only be used for weak comparison. An entity tag MUST be unique across all versions of all entities associated with a particular resource. A given entity tag value MAY be used for entities obtained by リクエストs on different URIs. The use of the same entity tag value in conjunction with entities obtained by リクエストs on different URIs does not imply the equivalence of those entities. 3.12 Range Units HTTP/1.1 allows a client to リクエスト that only part (a range of) the レスポンス entity be included within the レスポンス. HTTP/1.1 uses range units in the Range (section 14.35) and Content-Range (section 14.16) ヘッダ フィールドs. An entity can be broken down into subranges according to various structural units. range-unit = bytes-unit | other-range-unit bytes-unit = "bytes" other-range-unit = token The only range unit defined by HTTP/1.1 is "bytes". HTTP/1.1 implementations MAY ignore ranges specified using other units. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 HTTP/1.1 has been designed to allow implementations of アプリケーションs that do not depend on knowledge of ranges. 4 HTTP Message 4.1 Message Types HTTP messages consist of リクエストs from client to server and レスポンスs from server to client. HTTP-message = リクエスト | レスポンス ; HTTP/1.1 messages リクエスト (section 5) and レスポンス (section 6) messages use the generic message format of RFC 822 [9] for transferring entities (the payload of the message). Both types of message consist of a start-line, zero or more ヘッダ フィールドs (also known as "headers"), an empty line (i.e., a line with nothing preceding the CRLF) indicating the end of the ヘッダ フィールドs, and possibly a message-body. generic-message = start-line *(message-header CRLF) CRLF [ message-body ] start-line = リクエスト-Line | Status-Line In the interest of robustness, servers SHOULD ignore any empty line(s) received where a リクエスト-Line is expected. In other words, if the server is reading the protocol stream at the beginning of a message and receives a CRLF first, it should ignore the CRLF. Certain buggy HTTP/1.0 client implementations generate extra CRLF's after a POST リクエスト. To restate what is explicitly forbidden by the BNF, an HTTP/1.1 client MUST NOT preface or follow a リクエスト with an extra CRLF. 4.2 Message Headers HTTP ヘッダ フィールドs, which include general-header (section 4.5), リクエスト-header (section 5.3), レスポンス-header (section 6.2), and entity-header (section 7.1) fields, follow the same generic format as that given in Section 3.1 of RFC 822 [9]. Each ヘッダ フィールド consists of a name followed by a colon (":") and the field value. Field names are case-insensitive. The field value MAY be preceded by any amount of LWS, though a single SP is preferred. ヘッダ フィールドs can be extended over multiple lines by preceding each extra line with at least one SP or HT. アプリケーションs ought to follow "common form", where one is known or indicated, when generating HTTP constructs, since there might exist some implementations that fail to accept anything Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 beyond the common forms. message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ] field-name = token field-value = *( field-content | LWS ) field-content = The field-content does not include any leading or trailing LWS: linear white space occurring before the first non-whitespace character of the field-value or after the last non-whitespace character of the field-value. Such leading or trailing LWS MAY be removed without changing the semantics of the field value. Any LWS that occurs between field-content MAY be replaced with a single SP before interpreting the field value or forwarding the message downstream. The order in which ヘッダ フィールドs with differing field names are received is not significant. However, it is "good practice" to send general-ヘッダ フィールドs first, followed by リクエスト-header or レスポンス- ヘッダ フィールドs, and ending with the entity-ヘッダ フィールドs. Multiple message-ヘッダ フィールドs with the same field-name MAY be present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that ヘッダ フィールド is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)]. It MUST be possible to combine the multiple ヘッダ フィールドs into one "field-name: field-value" pair, without changing the semantics of the message, by appending each subsequent field-value to the first, each separated by a comma. The order in which ヘッダ フィールドs with the same field-name are received is therefore significant to the interpretation of the combined field value, and thus a プロキシ(proxy) MUST NOT change the order of these field values when a message is forwarded. 4.3 Message Body The message-body (if any) of an HTTP message is used to carry the entity-body associated with the リクエスト or レスポンス. The message-body differs from the entity-body only when a transfer-coding has been applied, as indicated by the Transfer-Encoding ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.41). message-body = entity-body | Transfer-Encoding MUST be used to indicate any transfer-codings applied by an アプリケーション to ensure safe and proper transfer of the message. Transfer-Encoding is a property of the message, not of the Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 32] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 entity, and thus MAY be added or removed by any アプリケーション along the リクエスト/レスポンス chain. (However, section 3.6 places restrictions on when certain transfer-codings may be used.) The rules for when a message-body is allowed in a message differ for リクエストs and レスポンスs. The presence of a message-body in a リクエスト is signaled by the inclusion of a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding ヘッダ フィールド in the リクエスト's message-headers. A message-body MUST NOT be included in a リクエスト if the specification of the リクエスト method (section 5.1.1) does not allow sending an entity-body in リクエストs. A server SHOULD read and forward a message-body on any リクエスト; if the リクエスト method does not include defined semantics for an entity-body, then the message-body SHOULD be ignored when handling the リクエスト. For レスポンス messages, whether or not a message-body is included with a message is dependent on both the リクエスト method and the レスポンス ステータス コード (section 6.1.1). All レスポンスs to the HEAD リクエスト method MUST NOT include a message-body, even though the presence of entity- ヘッダ フィールドs might lead one to believe they do. All 1xx (informational), 204 (no content), and 304 (not modified) レスポンスs MUST NOT include a message-body. All other レスポンスs do include a message-body, although it MAY be of zero length. 4.4 Message Length The transfer-length of a message is the length of the message-body as it appears in the message; that is, after any transfer-codings have been applied. When a message-body is included with a message, the transfer-length of that body is determined by one of the following (in order of precedence): 1.Any レスポンス message which "MUST NOT" include a message-body (such as the 1xx, 204, and 304 レスポンスs and any レスポンス to a HEAD リクエスト) is always terminated by the first empty line after the ヘッダ フィールドs, regardless of the entity-ヘッダ フィールドs present in the message. 2.If a Transfer-Encoding ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.41) is present and has any value other than "identity", then the transfer-length is defined by use of the "chunked" transfer-coding (section 3.6), unless the message is terminated by closing the connection. 3.If a Content-Length ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.13) is present, its decimal value in OCTETs represents both the entity-length and the transfer-length. The Content-Length ヘッダ フィールド MUST NOT be sent if these two lengths are different (i.e., if a Transfer-Encoding Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 33] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 ヘッダ フィールド is present). If a message is received with both a Transfer-Encoding ヘッダ フィールド and a Content-Length ヘッダ フィールド, the latter MUST be ignored. 4.If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the ransfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self- elimiting media type defines the transfer-length. This media type UST NOT be used unless the sender knows that the recipient can arse it; the presence in a リクエスト of a Range header with ultiple byte- range specifiers from a 1.1 client implies that the lient can parse multipart/byteranges レスポンスs. A range header might be forwarded by a 1.0 プロキシ(proxy) that does not understand multipart/byteranges; in this case the server MUST delimit the message using methods defined in items 1,3 or 5 of this section. 5.By the server closing the connection. (Closing the connection cannot be used to indicate the end of a リクエスト body, since that would leave no possibility for the server to send back a レスポンス.) For compatibility with HTTP/1.0 アプリケーションs, HTTP/1.1 リクエストs containing a message-body MUST include a valid Content-Length header field unless the server is known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant. If a リクエスト contains a message-body and a Content-Length is not given, the server SHOULD respond with 400 (bad リクエスト) if it cannot determine the length of the message, or with 411 (length required) if it wishes to insist on receiving a valid Content-Length. All HTTP/1.1 アプリケーションs that receive entities MUST accept the "chunked" transfer-coding (section 3.6), thus allowing this mechanism to be used for messages when the message length cannot be determined in advance. Messages MUST NOT include both a Content-Length ヘッダ フィールド and a non-identity transfer-coding. If the message does include a non- identity transfer-coding, the Content-Length MUST be ignored. When a Content-Length is given in a message where a message-body is allowed, its field value MUST exactly match the number of OCTETs in the message-body. HTTP/1.1 user agents MUST notify the user when an invalid length is received and detected. 4.5 General ヘッダ フィールドs There are a few ヘッダ フィールドs which have general applicability for both リクエスト and レスポンス messages, but which do not apply to the entity being transferred. These ヘッダ フィールドs apply only to the Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 34] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 message being transmitted. general-header = Cache-Control ; Section 14.9 | Connection ; Section 14.10 | Date ; Section 14.18 | Pragma ; Section 14.32 | Trailer ; Section 14.40 | Transfer-Encoding ; Section 14.41 | Upgrade ; Section 14.42 | Via ; Section 14.45 | Warning ; Section 14.46 General-ヘッダ フィールド names can be extended reliably only in combination with a change in the protocol version. However, new or experimental ヘッダ フィールドs may be given the semantics of general ヘッダ フィールドs if all parties in the コミュニケーション recognize them to be general-ヘッダ フィールドs. Unrecognized ヘッダ フィールドs are treated as entity-ヘッダ フィールドs. 5 リクエスト A リクエスト message from a client to a server includes, within the first line of that message, the method to be applied to the resource, the identifier of the resource, and the protocol version in use. リクエスト = リクエスト-Line ; Section 5.1 *(( general-header ; Section 4.5 | リクエスト-header ; Section 5.3 | entity-header ) CRLF) ; Section 7.1 CRLF [ message-body ] ; Section 4.3 5.1 リクエスト-Line The リクエスト-Line begins with a method token, followed by the リクエスト-URI and the protocol version, and ending with CRLF. The elements are separated by SP characters. No CR or LF is allowed except in the final CRLF sequence. リクエスト-Line = Method SP リクエスト-URI SP HTTP-Version CRLF Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 35] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 5.1.1 Method The Method token indicates the method to be performed on the resource identified by the リクエスト-URI. The method is case-sensitive. Method = "OPTIONS" ; Section 9.2 | "GET" ; Section 9.3 | "HEAD" ; Section 9.4 | "POST" ; Section 9.5 | "PUT" ; Section 9.6 | "DELETE" ; Section 9.7 | "TRACE" ; Section 9.8 | "CONNECT" ; Section 9.9 | extension-method extension-method = token The list of methods allowed by a resource can be specified in an Allow ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.7). The return code of the レスポンス always notifies the client whether a method is currently allowed on a resource, since the set of allowed methods can change dynamically. An 元のサーバ SHOULD return the ステータス コード 405 (Method Not Allowed) if the method is known by the 元のサーバ but not allowed for the リクエストed resource, and 501 (Not Implemented) if the method is unrecognized or not implemented by the 元のサーバ. The methods GET and HEAD MUST be supported by all general-purpose servers. All other methods are OPTIONAL; however, if the above methods are implemented, they MUST be implemented with the same semantics as those specified in section 9. 5.1.2 リクエスト-URI The リクエスト-URI is a Uniform Resource Identifier (section 3.2) and identifies the resource upon which to apply the リクエスト. リクエスト-URI = "*" | absoluteURI | abs_path | authority The four options for リクエスト-URI are dependent on the nature of the リクエスト. The asterisk "*" means that the リクエスト does not apply to a particular resource, but to the server itself, and is only allowed when the method used does not necessarily apply to a resource. One example would be OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1 The absoluteURI form is REQUIRED when the リクエスト is being made to a プロキシ(proxy). The プロキシ(proxy) is リクエストed to forward the リクエスト or service it from a valid cache, and return the レスポンス. Note that the プロキシ(proxy) MAY forward the リクエスト on to another プロキシ(proxy) or directly to the server Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 36] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 specified by the absoluteURI. In order to avoid リクエスト loops, a プロキシ(proxy) MUST be able to recognize all of its server names, including any aliases, local variations, and the numeric IPアドレス. An example リクエスト-Line would be: GET http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1 To allow for transition to absoluteURIs in all リクエストs in future versions of HTTP, all HTTP/1.1 servers MUST accept the absoluteURI form in リクエストs, even though HTTP/1.1 clients will only generate them in リクエストs to プロキシ. The authority form is only used by the CONNECT method (section 9.9). The most common form of リクエスト-URI is that used to identify a resource on an 元のサーバ or gateway. In this case the absolute path of the URI MUST be transmitted (see section 3.2.1, abs_path) as the リクエスト-URI, and the network location of the URI (authority) MUST be transmitted in a Host ヘッダ フィールド. For example, a client wishing to retrieve the resource above directly from the 元のサーバ would create a TCP connection to port 80 of the host "www.w3.org" and send the lines: GET /pub/WWW/TheProject.html HTTP/1.1 Host: www.w3.org followed by the remainder of the リクエスト. Note that the absolute path cannot be empty; if none is present in the original URI, it MUST be given as "/" (the server root). The リクエスト-URI is transmitted in the format specified in section 3.2.1. If the リクエスト-URI is encoded using the "% HEX HEX" encoding [42], the 元のサーバ MUST decode the リクエスト-URI in order to properly interpret the リクエスト. Servers SHOULD respond to invalid リクエスト-URIs with an appropriate ステータス コード. A transparent プロキシ(proxy) MUST NOT rewrite the "abs_path" part of the received リクエスト-URI when forwarding it to the next inbound server, except as noted above to replace a null abs_path with "/". Note: The "no rewrite" rule prevents the プロキシ(proxy) from changing the meaning of the リクエスト when the 元のサーバ is improperly using a non-reserved URI character for a reserved purpose. 実装者 should be aware that some pre-HTTP/1.1 プロキシ have been known to rewrite the リクエスト-URI. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 37] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 5.2 The Resource Identified by a リクエスト The exact resource identified by an Internet リクエスト is determined by examining both the リクエスト-URI and the Host ヘッダ フィールド. An 元のサーバ that does not allow resources to differ by the リクエストed host MAY ignore the Host ヘッダ フィールド value when determining the resource identified by an HTTP/1.1 リクエスト. (But see section 19.6.1.1 for other requirements on Host support in HTTP/1.1.) An 元のサーバ that does differentiate resources based on the host リクエストed (sometimes referred to as virtual hosts or vanity host names) MUST use the following rules for determining the リクエストed resource on an HTTP/1.1 リクエスト: 1. If リクエスト-URI is an absoluteURI, the host is part of the リクエスト-URI. Any Host ヘッダ フィールド value in the リクエスト MUST be ignored. 2. If the リクエスト-URI is not an absoluteURI, and the リクエスト includes a Host ヘッダ フィールド, the host is determined by the Host header field value. 3. If the host as determined by rule 1 or 2 is not a valid host on the server, the レスポンス MUST be a 400 (Bad リクエスト) error message. Recipients of an HTTP/1.0 リクエスト that lacks a Host ヘッダ フィールド MAY attempt to use heuristics (e.g., examination of the URI path for something unique to a particular host) in order to determine what exact resource is being リクエストed. 5.3 リクエスト ヘッダ フィールドs The リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールドs allow the client to pass additional information about the リクエスト, and about the client itself, to the server. These fields act as リクエスト modifiers, with semantics equivalent to the parameters on a programming language method invocation. リクエスト-header = Accept ; Section 14.1 | Accept-Charset ; Section 14.2 | Accept-Encoding ; Section 14.3 | Accept-Language ; Section 14.4 | Authorization ; Section 14.8 | Expect ; Section 14.20 | From ; Section 14.22 | Host ; Section 14.23 | If-Match ; Section 14.24 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 38] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 | If-Modified-Since ; Section 14.25 | If-None-Match ; Section 14.26 | If-Range ; Section 14.27 | If-Unmodified-Since ; Section 14.28 | Max-Forwards ; Section 14.31 | プロキシ(proxy)-Authorization ; Section 14.34 | Range ; Section 14.35 | Referer ; Section 14.36 | TE ; Section 14.39 | User-Agent ; Section 14.43 リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド names can be extended reliably only in combination with a change in the protocol version. However, new or experimental ヘッダ フィールドs MAY be given the semantics of リクエスト- ヘッダ フィールドs if all parties in the コミュニケーション recognize them to be リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールドs. Unrecognized ヘッダ フィールドs are treated as entity-ヘッダ フィールドs. 6 レスポンス After receiving and interpreting a リクエスト message, a server responds with an HTTP レスポンス message. レスポンス = Status-Line ; Section 6.1 *(( general-header ; Section 4.5 | レスポンス-header ; Section 6.2 | entity-header ) CRLF) ; Section 7.1 CRLF [ message-body ] ; Section 7.2 6.1 Status-Line The first line of a レスポンス message is the Status-Line, consisting of the protocol version followed by a numeric ステータス コード and its associated textual phrase, with each element separated by SP characters. No CR or LF is allowed except in the final CRLF sequence. Status-Line = HTTP-Version SP Status-Code SP Reason-Phrase CRLF 6.1.1 ステータス コード and Reason Phrase The Status-Code element is a 3-digit integer result code of the attempt to understand and satisfy the リクエスト. These codes are fully defined in section 10. The Reason-Phrase is intended to give a short textual description of the Status-Code. The Status-Code is intended for use by automata and the Reason-Phrase is intended for the human user. The client is not required to examine or display the Reason- Phrase. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 39] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The first digit of the Status-Code defines the class of レスポンス. The last two digits do not have any categorization role. There are 5 values for the first digit: - 1xx: Informational - リクエスト received, continuing process - 2xx: Success - The action was successfully received, understood, and accepted - 3xx: Redirection - Further action must be taken in order to complete the リクエスト - 4xx: Client Error - The リクエスト contains bad syntax or cannot be fulfilled - 5xx: Server Error - The server failed to fulfill an apparently valid リクエスト The individual values of the numeric ステータス コードs defined for HTTP/1.1, and an example set of corresponding Reason-Phrase's, are presented below. The reason phrases listed here are only recommendations -- they MAY be replaced by local equivalents without affecting the protocol. Status-Code = "100" ; Section 10.1.1: Continue | "101" ; Section 10.1.2: Switching Protocols | "200" ; Section 10.2.1: OK | "201" ; Section 10.2.2: Created | "202" ; Section 10.2.3: Accepted | "203" ; Section 10.2.4: Non-Authoritative Information | "204" ; Section 10.2.5: No Content | "205" ; Section 10.2.6: Reset Content | "206" ; Section 10.2.7: Partial Content | "300" ; Section 10.3.1: Multiple Choices | "301" ; Section 10.3.2: Moved Permanently | "302" ; Section 10.3.3: Found | "303" ; Section 10.3.4: See Other | "304" ; Section 10.3.5: Not Modified | "305" ; Section 10.3.6: Use プロキシ(proxy) | "307" ; Section 10.3.8: Temporary Redirect | "400" ; Section 10.4.1: Bad リクエスト | "401" ; Section 10.4.2: Unauthorized | "402" ; Section 10.4.3: Payment Required | "403" ; Section 10.4.4: Forbidden | "404" ; Section 10.4.5: Not Found | "405" ; Section 10.4.6: Method Not Allowed | "406" ; Section 10.4.7: Not Acceptable Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 40] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 | "407" ; Section 10.4.8: プロキシ(proxy) 認証 Required | "408" ; Section 10.4.9: リクエスト Time-out | "409" ; Section 10.4.10: Conflict | "410" ; Section 10.4.11: Gone | "411" ; Section 10.4.12: Length Required | "412" ; Section 10.4.13: Precondition Failed | "413" ; Section 10.4.14: リクエスト Entity Too Large | "414" ; Section 10.4.15: リクエスト-URI Too Large | "415" ; Section 10.4.16: Unsupported Media Type | "416" ; Section 10.4.17: リクエストed range not satisfiable | "417" ; Section 10.4.18: Expectation Failed | "500" ; Section 10.5.1: Internal Server Error | "501" ; Section 10.5.2: Not Implemented | "502" ; Section 10.5.3: Bad Gateway | "503" ; Section 10.5.4: Service Unavailable | "504" ; Section 10.5.5: ゲートウェイ Time-out | "505" ; Section 10.5.6: HTTP Version not supported | extension-code extension-code = 3DIGIT Reason-Phrase = * HTTP ステータスコード are extensible. HTTP アプリケーションs are not required to understand the meaning of all registered ステータス コードs, though such understanding is obviously desirable. However, アプリケーションs MUST understand the class of any ステータス コード, as indicated by the first digit, and treat any unrecognized レスポンス as being equivalent to the x00 ステータス コード of that class, with the exception that an unrecognized レスポンス MUST NOT be cached. For example, if an unrecognized ステータス コード of 431 is received by the client, it can safely assume that there was something wrong with its リクエスト and treat the レスポンス as if it had received a 400 ステータス コード. In such cases, user agents SHOULD present to the user the entity returned with the レスポンス, since that entity is likely to include human- readable information which will explain the unusual status. 6.2 レスポンス ヘッダ フィールドs The レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールドs allow the server to pass additional information about the レスポンス which cannot be placed in the Status- Line. These ヘッダ フィールドs give information about the server and about further access to the resource identified by the リクエスト-URI. レスポンス-header = Accept-Ranges ; Section 14.5 | Age ; Section 14.6 | ETag ; Section 14.19 | Location ; Section 14.30 | プロキシ(proxy)-Authenticate ; Section 14.33 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 41] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 | Retry-After ; Section 14.37 | Server ; Section 14.38 | Vary ; Section 14.44 | WWW-Authenticate ; Section 14.47 レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド names can be extended reliably only in combination with a change in the protocol version. However, new or experimental ヘッダ フィールドs MAY be given the semantics of レスポンス- ヘッダ フィールドs if all parties in the コミュニケーション recognize them to be レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールドs. Unrecognized ヘッダ フィールドs are treated as entity-ヘッダ フィールドs. 7 Entity リクエスト and レスポンス messages MAY transfer an entity if not otherwise restricted by the リクエスト method or レスポンス ステータス コード. An entity consists of entity-ヘッダ フィールドs and an entity-body, although some レスポンスs will only include the entity-headers. In this section, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who receives the entity. 7.1 Entity ヘッダ フィールドs Entity-ヘッダ フィールドs define metainformation about the entity-body or, if no body is present, about the resource identified by the リクエスト. Some of this metainformation is OPTIONAL; some might be REQUIRED by portions of this specification. entity-header = Allow ; Section 14.7 | Content-Encoding ; Section 14.11 | Content-Language ; Section 14.12 | Content-Length ; Section 14.13 | Content-Location ; Section 14.14 | Content-MD5 ; Section 14.15 | Content-Range ; Section 14.16 | Content-Type ; Section 14.17 | Expires ; Section 14.21 | Last-Modified ; Section 14.29 | extension-header extension-header = message-header The extension-header mechanism allows additional entity-ヘッダ フィールドs to be defined without changing the protocol, but these fields cannot be assumed to be recognizable by the recipient. Unrecognized header fields SHOULD be ignored by the recipient and MUST be forwarded by transparent プロキシ. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 42] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 7.2 Entity Body The entity-body (if any) sent with an HTTPリクエスト or レスポンス is in a format and encoding defined by the entity-ヘッダ フィールドs. entity-body = *OCTET An entity-body is only present in a message when a message-body is present, as described in section 4.3. The entity-body is obtained from the message-body by decoding any Transfer-Encoding that might have been applied to ensure safe and proper transfer of the message. 7.2.1 Type When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that body is determined via the ヘッダ フィールドs Content-Type and Content- Encoding. These define a two-layer, ordered encoding model: entity-body := Content-Encoding( Content-Type( data ) ) Content-Type specifies the media type of the underlying data. Content-Encoding may be used to indicate any additional content codings applied to the data, usually for the purpose of data compression, that are a property of the リクエストed resource. There is no default encoding. Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a Content-Type ヘッダ フィールド defining the media type of that body. If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the resource. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient SHOULD treat it as type "application/octet-stream". 7.2.2 Entity Length The entity-length of a message is the length of the message-body before any transfer-codings have been applied. Section 4.4 defines how the transfer-length of a message-body is determined. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 43] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 8 Connections 8.1 Persistent Connections 8.1.1 Purpose Prior to persistent connections, a separate TCP connection was established to fetch each URL, increasing the load on HTTP servers and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and other associated data often require a client to make multiple リクエストs of the same server in a short amount of time. Analysis of these performance problems and results from a prototype implementation are available [26] [30]. Implementation experience and measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2068) implementations show good results [39]. Alternatives have also been explored, for example, T/TCP [27]. Persistent HTTP connections have a number of advantages: - By opening and closing fewer TCP connections, CPU time is saved in routers and hosts (clients, servers, プロキシ, gateways, tunnels, or caches), and memory used for TCP protocol control blocks can be saved in hosts. - HTTPリクエストs and レスポンスs can be pipelined on a connection. Pipelining allows a client to make multiple リクエストs without waiting for each レスポンス, allowing a single TCP connection to be used much more efficiently, with much lower elapsed time. - Network congestion is reduced by reducing the number of packets caused by TCP opens, and by allowing TCP sufficient time to determine the congestion state of the network. - Latency on subsequent リクエストs is reduced since there is no time spent in TCP's connection opening handshake. - HTTP can evolve more gracefully, since errors can be reported without the penalty of closing the TCP connection. Clients using future versions of HTTP might optimistically try a new feature, but if communicating with an older server, retry with old semantics after an error is reported. HTTP implementations SHOULD implement persistent connections. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 44] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 8.1.2 Overall Operation A significant difference between HTTP/1.1 and earlier versions of HTTP is that persistent connections are the default behavior of any HTTP connection. That is, unless otherwise indicated, the client SHOULD assume that the server will maintain a persistent connection, even after error レスポンスs from the server. Persistent connections provide a mechanism by which a client and a server can signal the close of a TCP connection. This signaling takes place using the Connection ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.10). Once a close has been signaled, the client MUST NOT send any more リクエストs on that connection. 8.1.2.1 ネゴシエーション(Negotiation) An HTTP/1.1 server MAY assume that a HTTP/1.1 client intends to maintain a persistent connection unless a Connection header including the connection-token "close" was sent in the リクエスト. If the server chooses to close the connection immediately after sending the レスポンス, it SHOULD send a Connection header including the connection-token close. An HTTP/1.1 client MAY expect a connection to remain open, but would decide to keep it open based on whether the レスポンス from a server contains a Connection header with the connection-token close. In case the client does not want to maintain a connection for more than that リクエスト, it SHOULD send a Connection header including the connection-token close. If either the client or the server sends the close token in the Connection header, that リクエスト becomes the last one for the connection. Clients and servers SHOULD NOT assume that a persistent connection is maintained for HTTP versions less than 1.1 unless it is explicitly signaled. See section 19.6.2 for more information on backward compatibility with HTTP/1.0 clients. In order to remain persistent, all messages on the connection MUST have a self-defined message length (i.e., one not defined by closure of the connection), as described in section 4.4. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 45] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 8.1.2.2 Pipelining A client that supports persistent connections MAY "pipeline" its リクエストs (i.e., send multiple リクエストs without waiting for each レスポンス). A server MUST send its レスポンスs to those リクエストs in the same order that the リクエストs were received. Clients which assume persistent connections and pipeline immediately after connection establishment SHOULD be prepared to retry their connection if the first pipelined attempt fails. If a client does such a retry, it MUST NOT pipeline before it knows the connection is persistent. Clients MUST also be prepared to resend their リクエストs if the server closes the connection before sending all of the corresponding レスポンスs. Clients SHOULD NOT pipeline リクエストs using non-idempotent methods or non-idempotent sequences of methods (see section 9.1.2). Otherwise, a premature termination of the transport connection could lead to indeterminate results. A client wishing to send a non-idempotent リクエスト SHOULD wait to send that リクエスト until it has received the レスポンス status for the previous リクエスト. 8.1.3 プロキシ サーバ It is especially important that プロキシ correctly implement the properties of the Connection ヘッダ フィールド as specified in section 14.10. The プロキシ(proxy) server MUST signal persistent connections separately with its clients and the 元のサーバs (or other プロキシ(proxy) servers) that it connects to. Each persistent connection applies to only one transport link. A プロキシ(proxy) server MUST NOT establish a HTTP/1.1 persistent connection with an HTTP/1.0 client (but see RFC 2068 [33] for information and discussion of the problems with the Keep-Alive header implemented by many HTTP/1.0 clients). 8.1.4 Practical Considerations Servers will usually have some time-out value beyond which they will no longer maintain an inactive connection. プロキシ(proxy) servers might make this a higher value since it is likely that the client will be making more connections through the same server. The use of persistent connections places no requirements on the length (or existence) of this time-out for either the client or the server. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 46] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 When a client or server wishes to time-out it SHOULD issue a graceful close on the transport connection. Clients and servers SHOULD both constantly watch for the other side of the transport close, and respond to it as appropriate. If a client or server does not detect the other side's close promptly it could cause unnecessary resource drain on the network. A client, server, or プロキシ(proxy) MAY close the transport connection at any time. For example, a client might have started to send a new リクエスト at the same time that the server has decided to close the "idle" connection. From the server's point of view, the connection is being closed while it was idle, but from the client's point of view, a リクエスト is in progress. This means that clients, servers, and プロキシ MUST be able to recover from asynchronous close events. Client software SHOULD reopen the transport connection and retransmit the aborted sequence of リクエストs without user interaction so long as the リクエスト sequence is idempotent (see section 9.1.2). Non-idempotent methods or sequences MUST NOT be automatically retried, although user agents MAY offer a human operator the choice of retrying the リクエスト(s). Confirmation by user-agent software with semantic understanding of the アプリケーション MAY substitute for user confirmation. The automatic retry SHOULD NOT be repeated if the second sequence of リクエストs fails. Servers SHOULD always respond to at least one リクエスト per connection, if at all possible. Servers SHOULD NOT close a connection in the middle of transmitting a レスポンス, unless a network or client failure is suspected. Clients that use persistent connections SHOULD limit the number of simultaneous connections that they maintain to a given server. A single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2 connections with any server or プロキシ(proxy). A プロキシ(proxy) SHOULD use up to 2*N connections to another server or プロキシ(proxy), where N is the number of simultaneously active users. These guidelines are intended to improve HTTP レスポンス times and avoid congestion. 8.2 Message Transmission Requirements 8.2.1 Persistent Connections and Flow Control HTTP/1.1 servers SHOULD maintain persistent connections and use TCP's flow control mechanisms to resolve temporary overloads, rather than terminating connections with the expectation that clients will retry. The latter technique can exacerbate network congestion. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 47] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 8.2.2 Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages An HTTP/1.1 (or later) client sending a message-body SHOULD monitor the network connection for an error status while it is transmitting the リクエスト. If the client sees an error status, it SHOULD immediately cease transmitting the body. If the body is being sent using a "chunked" encoding (section 3.6), a zero length chunk and empty trailer MAY be used to prematurely mark the end of the message. If the body was preceded by a Content-Length header, the client MUST close the connection. 8.2.3 Use of the 100 (Continue) Status The purpose of the 100 (Continue) status (see section 10.1.1) is to allow a client that is sending a リクエスト message with a リクエスト body to determine if the 元のサーバ is willing to accept the リクエスト (based on the リクエスト headers) before the client sends the リクエスト body. In some cases, it might either be inappropriate or highly inefficient for the client to send the body if the server will reject the message without looking at the body. Requirements for HTTP/1.1 clients: - If a client will wait for a 100 (Continue) レスポンス before sending the リクエスト body, it MUST send an Expect リクエスト-header field (section 14.20) with the "100-continue" expectation. - A client MUST NOT send an Expect リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.20) with the "100-continue" expectation if it does not intend to send a リクエスト body. Because of the presence of older implementations, the protocol allows ambiguous situations in which a client may send "Expect: 100- continue" without receiving either a 417 (Expectation Failed) status or a 100 (Continue) status. Therefore, when a client sends this ヘッダ フィールド to an 元のサーバ (possibly via a プロキシ(proxy)) from which it has never seen a 100 (Continue) status, the client SHOULD NOT wait for an indefinite period before sending the リクエスト body. Requirements for HTTP/1.1 元のサーバs: - Upon receiving a リクエスト which includes an Expect リクエスト-header field with the "100-continue" expectation, an 元のサーバ MUST either respond with 100 (Continue) status and continue to read from the input stream, or respond with a final ステータス コード. The 元のサーバ MUST NOT wait for the リクエスト body before sending the 100 (Continue) レスポンス. If it responds with a final status code, it MAY close the transport connection or it MAY continue Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 48] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 to read and discard the rest of the リクエスト. It MUST NOT perform the リクエストed method if it returns a final ステータス コード. - An 元のサーバ SHOULD NOT send a 100 (Continue) レスポンス if the リクエスト message does not include an Expect リクエスト-header field with the "100-continue" expectation, and MUST NOT send a 100 (Continue) レスポンス if such a リクエスト comes from an HTTP/1.0 (or earlier) client. There is an exception to this rule: for compatibility with RFC 2068, a server MAY send a 100 (Continue) status in レスポンス to an HTTP/1.1 PUT or POST リクエスト that does not include an Expect リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド with the "100- continue" expectation. This exception, the purpose of which is to minimize any client processing delays associated with an undeclared wait for 100 (Continue) status, applies only to HTTP/1.1 リクエストs, and not to リクエストs with any other HTTP- version value. - An 元のサーバ MAY omit a 100 (Continue) レスポンス if it has already received some or all of the リクエスト body for the corresponding リクエスト. - An 元のサーバ that sends a 100 (Continue) レスポンス MUST ultimately send a final ステータス コード, once the リクエスト body is received and processed, unless it terminates the transport connection prematurely. - If an 元のサーバ receives a リクエスト that does not include an Expect リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド with the "100-continue" expectation, the リクエスト includes a リクエスト body, and the server responds with a final ステータス コード before reading the entire リクエスト body from the transport connection, then the server SHOULD NOT close the transport connection until it has read the entire リクエスト, or until the client closes the connection. Otherwise, the client might not reliably receive the レスポンス message. However, this requirement is not be construed as preventing a server from defending itself against denial-of-service attacks, or from badly broken client implementations. Requirements for HTTP/1.1 プロキシ: - If a プロキシ(proxy) receives a リクエスト that includes an Expect リクエスト- ヘッダ フィールド with the "100-continue" expectation, and the プロキシ(proxy) either knows that the next-hop server complies with HTTP/1.1 or higher, or does not know the HTTP version of the next-hop server, it MUST forward the リクエスト, including the Expect header field. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 49] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 - If the プロキシ(proxy) knows that the version of the next-hop server is HTTP/1.0 or lower, it MUST NOT forward the リクエスト, and it MUST respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status. - プロキシ SHOULD maintain a cache recording the HTTP version numbers received from recently-referenced next-hop servers. - A プロキシ(proxy) MUST NOT forward a 100 (Continue) レスポンス if the リクエスト message was received from an HTTP/1.0 (or earlier) client and did not include an Expect リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド with the "100-continue" expectation. This requirement overrides the general rule for forwarding of 1xx レスポンスs (see section 10.1). 8.2.4 Client Behavior if Server Prematurely Closes Connection If an HTTP/1.1 client sends a リクエスト which includes a リクエスト body, but which does not include an Expect リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド with the "100-continue" expectation, and if the client is not directly connected to an HTTP/1.1 元のサーバ, and if the client sees the connection close before receiving any status from the server, the client SHOULD retry the リクエスト. If the client does retry this リクエスト, it MAY use the following "binary exponential backoff" algorithm to be assured of obtaining a reliable レスポンス: 1. Initiate a new connection to the server 2. Transmit the リクエスト-headers 3. Initialize a variable R to the estimated round-trip time to the server (e.g., based on the time it took to establish the connection), or to a constant value of 5 seconds if the round- trip time is not available. 4. Compute T = R * (2**N), where N is the number of previous retries of this リクエスト. 5. Wait either for an error レスポンス from the server, or for T seconds (whichever comes first) 6. If no error レスポンス is received, after T seconds transmit the body of the リクエスト. 7. If client sees that the connection is closed prematurely, repeat from step 1 until the リクエスト is accepted, an error レスポンス is received, or the user becomes impatient and terminates the retry process. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 50] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If at any point an error status is received, the client - SHOULD NOT continue and - SHOULD close the connection if it has not completed sending the リクエスト message. 9 Method Definitions The set of common methods for HTTP/1.1 is defined below. Although this set can be expanded, additional methods cannot be assumed to share the same semantics for separately extended clients and servers. The Host リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.23) MUST accompany all HTTP/1.1 リクエストs. 9.1 Safe and Idempotent Methods 9.1.1 Safe Methods 実装者 should be aware that the software represents the user in their interactions over the Internet, and should be careful to allow the user to be aware of any actions they might take which may have an unexpected significance to themselves or others. In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact that a possibly unsafe action is being リクエストed. Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET リクエスト; in fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important distinction here is that the user did not リクエスト the side-effects, so therefore cannot be held accountable for them. 9.1.2 Idempotent Methods Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical リクエストs is the same as for a single リクエスト. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, the methods OPTIONS and TRACE SHOULD NOT have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 51] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 However, it is possible that a sequence of several リクエストs is non- idempotent, even if all of the methods executed in that sequence are idempotent. (A sequence is idempotent if a single execution of the entire sequence always yields a result that is not changed by a reexecution of all, or part, of that sequence.) For example, a sequence is non-idempotent if its result depends on a value that is later modified in the same sequence. A sequence that never has side effects is idempotent, by definition (provided that no concurrent operations are being executed on the same set of resources). 9.2 OPTIONS The OPTIONS method represents a リクエスト for information about the コミュニケーション options available on the リクエスト/レスポンス chain identified by the リクエスト-URI. This method allows the client to determine the options and/or requirements associated with a resource, or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action or initiating a resource retrieval. レスポンスs to this method are not cacheable. If the OPTIONS リクエスト includes an entity-body (as indicated by the presence of Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding), then the media type MUST be indicated by a Content-Type field. Although this specification does not define any use for such a body, future extensions to HTTP might use the OPTIONS body to make more detailed queries on the server. A server that does not support such an extension MAY discard the リクエスト body. If the リクエスト-URI is an asterisk ("*"), the OPTIONS リクエスト is intended to apply to the server in general rather than to a specific resource. Since a server's コミュニケーション options typically depend on the resource, the "*" リクエスト is only useful as a "ping" or "no-op" type of method; it does nothing beyond allowing the client to test the capabilities of the server. For example, this can be used to test a プロキシ(proxy) for HTTP/1.1 compliance (or lack thereof). If the リクエスト-URI is not an asterisk, the OPTIONS リクエスト applies only to the options that are available when communicating with that resource. A 200 レスポンス SHOULD include any ヘッダ フィールドs that indicate optional features implemented by the server and applicable to that resource (e.g., Allow), possibly including extensions not defined by this specification. The レスポンス body, if any, SHOULD also include information about the コミュニケーション options. The format for such a Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 52] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 body is not defined by this specification, but might be defined by future extensions to HTTP. Content negotiation MAY be used to select the appropriate レスポンス format. If no レスポンス body is included, the レスポンス MUST include a Content-Length field with a field-value of "0". The Max-Forwards リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド MAY be used to target a specific プロキシ(proxy) in the リクエスト chain. When a プロキシ(proxy) receives an OPTIONS リクエスト on an absoluteURI for which リクエスト forwarding is permitted, the プロキシ(proxy) MUST check for a Max-Forwards field. If the Max-Forwards field-value is zero ("0"), the プロキシ(proxy) MUST NOT forward the message; instead, the プロキシ(proxy) SHOULD respond with its own コミュニケーション options. If the Max-Forwards field-value is an integer greater than zero, the プロキシ(proxy) MUST decrement the field-value when it forwards the リクエスト. If no Max-Forwards field is present in the リクエスト, then the forwarded リクエスト MUST NOT include a Max-Forwards field. 9.3 GET The GET method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of an entity) is identified by the リクエスト-URI. If the リクエスト-URI refers to a data-producing process, it is the produced data which shall be returned as the entity in the レスポンス and not the source text of the process, unless that text happens to be the output of the process. The semantics of the GET method change to a "conditional GET" if the リクエスト message includes an If-Modified-Since, If-Unmodified-Since, If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range ヘッダ フィールド. A conditional GET method リクエストs that the entity be transferred only under the circumstances described by the conditional ヘッダ フィールド(s). The conditional GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary network usage by allowing cached entities to be refreshed without requiring multiple リクエストs or transferring data already held by the client. The semantics of the GET method change to a "partial GET" if the リクエスト message includes a Range ヘッダ フィールド. A partial GET リクエストs that only part of the entity be transferred, as described in section 14.35. The partial GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary network usage by allowing partially-retrieved entities to be completed without transferring data already held by the client. The レスポンス to a GET リクエスト is cacheable if and only if it meets the requirements for HTTP caching described in section 13. See section 15.1.3 for security considerations when used for forms. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 53] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 9.4 HEAD The HEAD method is identical to GET except that the server MUST NOT return a message-body in the レスポンス. The metainformation contained in the HTTP headers in レスポンス to a HEAD リクエスト SHOULD be identical to the information sent in レスポンス to a GET リクエスト. This method can be used for obtaining metainformation about the entity implied by the リクエスト without transferring the entity-body itself. This method is often used for testing hypertext links for validity, accessibility, and recent modification. The レスポンス to a HEAD リクエスト MAY be cacheable in the sense that the information contained in the レスポンス MAY be used to update a previously cached entity from that resource. If the new field values indicate that the cached entity differs from the current entity (as would be indicated by a change in Content-Length, Content-MD5, ETag or Last-Modified), then the cache MUST treat the cache entry as stale. 9.5 POST The POST method is used to リクエスト that the 元のサーバ accept the entity enclosed in the リクエスト as a new subordinate of the resource identified by the リクエスト-URI in the リクエスト-Line. POST is designed to allow a uniform method to cover the following functions: - Annotation of existing resources; - Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list, or similar group of articles; - Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a form, to a data-handling process; - Extending a database through an append operation. The actual function performed by the POST method is determined by the server and is usually dependent on the リクエスト-URI. The posted entity is subordinate to that URI in the same way that a file is subordinate to a directory containing it, a news article is subordinate to a newsgroup to which it is posted, or a record is subordinate to a database. The action performed by the POST method might not result in a resource that can be identified by a URI. In this case, either 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) is the appropriate レスポンス status, depending on whether or not the レスポンス includes an entity that describes the result. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 54] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If a resource has been created on the 元のサーバ, the レスポンス SHOULD be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the status of the リクエスト and refers to the new resource, and a Location header (see section 14.30). レスポンスs to this method are not cacheable, unless the レスポンス includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires ヘッダ フィールドs. However, the 303 (See Other) レスポンス can be used to direct the user agent to retrieve a cacheable resource. POST リクエストs MUST obey the message transmission requirements set out in section 8.2. See section 15.1.3 for security considerations. 9.6 PUT The PUT method リクエストs that the enclosed entity be stored under the supplied リクエスト-URI. If the リクエスト-URI refers to an already existing resource, the enclosed entity SHOULD be considered as a modified version of the one residing on the 元のサーバ. If the リクエスト-URI does not point to an existing resource, and that URI is capable of being defined as a new resource by the リクエストing user agent, the 元のサーバ can create the resource with that URI. If a new resource is created, the 元のサーバ MUST inform the user agent via the 201 (Created) レスポンス. If an existing resource is modified, either the 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) レスポンス codes SHOULD be sent to indicate successful completion of the リクエスト. If the resource could not be created or modified with the リクエスト-URI, an appropriate error レスポンス SHOULD be given that reflects the nature of the problem. The recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-* (e.g. Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement and MUST return a 501 (Not Implemented) レスポンス in such cases. If the リクエスト passes through a cache and the リクエスト-URI identifies one or more currently cached entities, those entries SHOULD be treated as stale. レスポンスs to this method are not cacheable. The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT リクエストs is reflected in the different meaning of the リクエスト-URI. The URI in a POST リクエスト identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed entity. That resource might be a data-accepting process, a ゲートウェイ to some other protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In contrast, the URI in a PUT リクエスト identifies the entity enclosed with the リクエスト -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server MUST NOT attempt to apply the リクエスト to some other resource. If the server desires that the リクエスト be applied to a different URI, Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 55] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 it MUST send a 301 (Moved Permanently) レスポンス; the user agent MAY then make its own decision regarding whether or not to redirect the リクエスト. A single resource MAY be identified by many different URIs. For example, an article might have a URI for identifying "the current version" which is separate from the URI identifying each particular version. In this case, a PUT リクエスト on a general URI might result in several other URIs being defined by the 元のサーバ. HTTP/1.1 does not define how a PUT method affects the state of an 元のサーバ. PUT リクエストs MUST obey the message transmission requirements set out in section 8.2. Unless otherwise specified for a particular entity-header, the entity-headers in the PUT リクエスト SHOULD be applied to the resource created or modified by the PUT. 9.7 DELETE The DELETE method リクエストs that the 元のサーバ delete the resource identified by the リクエスト-URI. This method MAY be overridden by human intervention (or other means) on the 元のサーバ. The client cannot be guaranteed that the operation has been carried out, even if the ステータス コード returned from the 元のサーバ indicates that the action has been completed successfully. However, the server SHOULD NOT indicate success unless, at the time the レスポンス is given, it intends to delete the resource or move it to an inaccessible location. A successful レスポンス SHOULD be 200 (OK) if the レスポンス includes an entity describing the status, 202 (Accepted) if the action has not yet been enacted, or 204 (No Content) if the action has been enacted but the レスポンス does not include an entity. If the リクエスト passes through a cache and the リクエスト-URI identifies one or more currently cached entities, those entries SHOULD be treated as stale. レスポンスs to this method are not cacheable. 9.8 TRACE The TRACE method is used to invoke a remote, アプリケーション層 loop- back of the リクエスト message. The final recipient of the リクエスト SHOULD reflect the message received back to the client as the entity-body of a 200 (OK) レスポンス. The final recipient is either the Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 56] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 元のサーバ or the first プロキシ(proxy) or ゲートウェイ to receive a Max-Forwards value of zero (0) in the リクエスト (see section 14.31). A TRACE リクエスト MUST NOT include an entity. TRACE allows the client to see what is being received at the other end of the リクエスト chain and use that data for testing or diagnostic information. The value of the Via ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.45) is of particular interest, since it acts as a trace of the リクエスト chain. Use of the Max-Forwards ヘッダ フィールド allows the client to limit the length of the リクエスト chain, which is useful for testing a chain of プロキシ forwarding messages in an infinite loop. If the リクエスト is valid, the レスポンス SHOULD contain the entire リクエスト message in the entity-body, with a Content-Type of "message/http". レスポンスs to this method MUST NOT be cached. 9.9 CONNECT この仕様書は、メソッド名 CONNECTを予約する for use with a プロキシ(proxy) that can dynamically switch to being a tunnel (e.g. SSL tunneling [44]). 10 ステータスコード定義(ステータス コード Definitions) Each ステータスコード is described below, including a description of which method(s) it can follow and any metainformation required in the レスポンス. 10.1 情報提供 1xx This class of ステータス コード indicates a provisional レスポンス, consisting only of the Status-Line and optional headers, and is terminated by an empty line. There are no required headers for this class of ステータス コード. Since HTTP/1.0 did not define any 1xx status codes, servers MUST NOT send a 1xx レスポンス to an HTTP/1.0 client except under experimental conditions. A client MUST be prepared to accept one or more 1xx status レスポンスs prior to a regular レスポンス, even if the client does not expect a 100 (Continue) status message. Unexpected 1xx status レスポンスs MAY be ignored by a user agent. プロキシ MUST forward 1xx レスポンスs, unless the connection between the プロキシ(proxy) and its client has been closed, or unless the プロキシ(proxy) itself リクエストed the generation of the 1xx レスポンス. (For example, if a Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 57] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 プロキシ(proxy) adds a "Expect: 100-continue" field when it forwards a リクエスト, then it need not forward the corresponding 100 (Continue) レスポンス(s).) 10.1.1 100 Continue The client SHOULD continue with its リクエスト. This interim レスポンス is used to inform the client that the initial part of the リクエスト has been received and has not yet been rejected by the server. The client SHOULD continue by sending the remainder of the リクエスト or, if the リクエスト has already been completed, ignore this レスポンス. The server MUST send a final レスポンス after the リクエスト has been completed. See section 8.2.3 for detailed discussion of the use and handling of this ステータス コード. 10.1.2 101 Switching Protocols The server understands and is willing to comply with the client's リクエスト, via the Upgrade message ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.42), for a change in the アプリケーション protocol being used on this connection. The server will switch protocols to those defined by the レスポンス's Upgrade ヘッダ フィールド immediately after the empty line which terminates the 101 レスポンス. The protocol SHOULD be switched only when it is advantageous to do so. For example, switching to a newer version of HTTP is advantageous over older versions, and switching to a real-time, synchronous protocol might be advantageous when delivering resources that use such features. 10.2 成功 2xx This class of ステータス コード indicates that the client's リクエスト was successfully received, understood, and accepted. 10.2.1 200 OK リクエストの成功. The information returned with the レスポンス is dependent on the method used in the リクエスト, for example: GET an entity corresponding to the リクエストed resource is sent in the レスポンス; HEAD the entity-ヘッダ フィールドs corresponding to the リクエストed resource are sent in the レスポンス without any message-body; POST an entity describing or containing the result of the action; Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 58] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 TRACE an entity containing the リクエスト message as received by the end server. 10.2.2 201 Created The リクエスト has been fulfilled and resulted in a new resource being created. The newly created resource can be referenced by the URI(s) returned in the entity of the レスポンス, with the most specific URI for the resource given by a Location ヘッダ フィールド. The レスポンス SHOULD include an entity containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type ヘッダ フィールド. The origin server MUST create the resource before returning the 201 ステータス コード. If the action cannot be carried out immediately, the server SHOULD respond with 202 (Accepted) レスポンス instead. A 201 レスポンス MAY contain an ETag レスポンス ヘッダ フィールド indicating the current value of the entity tag for the リクエストed variant just created, see section 14.19. 10.2.3 202 認める/受け入れる(Accepted) The リクエスト has been accepted for processing, but the processing has not been completed. The リクエスト might or might not eventually be acted upon, as it might be disallowed when processing actually takes place. There is no facility for re-sending a ステータス コード from an asynchronous operation such as this. The 202 レスポンス is intentionally non-committal. Its purpose is to allow a server to accept a リクエスト for some other process (perhaps a batch-oriented process that is only run once per day) without requiring that the user agent's connection to the server persist until the process is completed. The entity returned with this レスポンス SHOULD include an indication of the リクエスト's current status and either a pointer to a status monitor or some estimate of when the user can expect the リクエスト to be fulfilled. 10.2.4 203 Non-Authoritative Information The returned metainformation in the entity-header is not the definitive set as available from the 元のサーバ, but is gathered from a local or a third-party copy. The set presented MAY be a subset or superset of the original version. For example, including local annotation information about the resource might result in a superset of the metainformation known by the 元のサーバ. Use of this レスポンス code is not required and is only appropriate when the レスポンス would otherwise be 200 (OK). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 59] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 10.2.5 204 No Content The server has fulfilled the リクエスト but does not need to return an entity-body, and might want to return updated metainformation. The レスポンス MAY include new or updated metainformation in the form of entity-headers, which if present SHOULD be associated with the リクエストed variant. If the client is a user agent, it SHOULD NOT change its document view from that which caused the リクエスト to be sent. This レスポンス is primarily intended to allow input for actions to take place without causing a change to the user agent's active document view, although any new or updated metainformation SHOULD be applied to the document currently in the user agent's active view. The 204 レスポンス MUST NOT include a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the ヘッダ フィールドs. 10.2.6 205 Reset Content The server has fulfilled the リクエスト and the user agent SHOULD reset the document view which caused the リクエスト to be sent. This レスポンス is primarily intended to allow input for actions to take place via user input, followed by a clearing of the form in which the input is given so that the user can easily initiate another input action. The レスポンス MUST NOT include an entity. 10.2.7 206 Partial Content The server has fulfilled the partial GET リクエスト for the resource. The リクエスト MUST have included a Range ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.35) indicating the desired range, and MAY have included an If-Range ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.27) to make the リクエスト conditional. The レスポンス MUST include the following ヘッダ フィールドs: - Either a Content-Range ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.16) indicating the range included with this レスポンス, or a multipart/byteranges Content-Type including Content-Range fields for each part. If a Content-Length ヘッダ フィールド is present in the レスポンス, its value MUST match the actual number of OCTETs transmitted in the message-body. - Date - ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200 レスポンス to the same リクエスト Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 60] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 - Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might differ from that sent in any previous レスポンス for the same variant If the 206 レスポンス is the result of an If-Range リクエスト that used a strong cache validator (see section 13.3.3), the レスポンス SHOULD NOT include other entity-headers. If the レスポンス is the result of an If-Range リクエスト that used a weak validator, the レスポンス MUST NOT include other entity-headers; this prevents inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies and updated headers. Otherwise, the レスポンス MUST include all of the entity-headers that would have been returned with a 200 (OK) レスポンス to the same リクエスト. A cache MUST NOT combine a 206 レスポンス with other previously cached content if the ETag or Last-Modified headers do not match exactly, see 13.5.4. A cache that does not support the Range and Content-Range headers MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial) レスポンスs. 10.3 リダイレクション(向け直す) 3xx This class of ステータス コード indicates that further action needs to be taken by the user agent in order to fulfill the リクエスト. The action required MAY be carried out by the user agent without interaction with the user if and only if the method used in the second リクエスト is GET or HEAD. A client SHOULD detect infinite redirection loops, since such loops generate network traffic for each redirection. Note: previous versions of this specification recommended a maximum of five redirections. Content developers should be aware that there might be clients that implement such a fixed limitation. 10.3.1 300 Multiple Choices The リクエストed resource corresponds to any one of a set of representations, each with its own specific location, and agent- driven negotiation information (section 12) is being provided so that the user (or user agent) can select a preferred representation and redirect its リクエスト to that location. Unless it was a HEAD リクエスト, the レスポンス SHOULD include an entity containing a list of resource characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content- Type ヘッダ フィールド. Depending upon the format and the capabilities of Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 61] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 the user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice MAY be performed automatically. However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic selection. If the server has a preferred choice of representation, it SHOULD include the specific URI for that representation in the Location field; user agents MAY use the Location field value for automatic redirection. This レスポンス is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. 10.3.2 301 Moved Permanently The リクエストed resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the リクエスト-URI to one or more of the new references returned by the server, where possible. This レスポンス is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the レスポンス. Unless the リクエスト method was HEAD, the entity of the レスポンス SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). If the 301 ステータス コード is received in レスポンス to a リクエスト other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the リクエスト unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the リクエスト was issued. Note: When automatically redirecting a POST リクエスト after receiving a 301 ステータス コード, some existing HTTP/1.0 user agents will erroneously change it into a GET リクエスト. 10.3.3 302 Found The リクエストed resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the リクエスト-URI for future リクエストs. This レスポンス is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header field. The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the レスポンス. Unless the リクエスト method was HEAD, the entity of the レスポンス SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 62] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If the 302 ステータス コード is received in レスポンス to a リクエスト other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the リクエスト unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the リクエスト was issued. Note: RFC 1945 and RFC 2068 specify that the client is not allowed to change the method on the redirected リクエスト. However, most existing user agent implementations treat 302 as if it were a 303 レスポンス, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless of the original リクエスト method. The ステータス コードs 303 and 307 have been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear which kind of reaction is expected of the client. 10.3.4 303 See Other The レスポンス to the リクエスト can be found under a different URI and SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a substitute reference for the originally リクエストed resource. The 303 レスポンス MUST NOT be cached, but the レスポンス to the second (redirected) リクエスト might be cacheable. The different URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the レスポンス. Unless the リクエスト method was HEAD, the entity of the レスポンス SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s). Note: Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303 status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the 302 ステータス コード may be used instead, since most user agents react to a 302 レスポンス as described here for 303. 10.3.5 304 修正できない(Not Modified) If the client has performed a conditional GET リクエスト and access is allowed, but the document has not been modified, the server SHOULD respond with this ステータス コード. The 304 レスポンス MUST NOT contain a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the ヘッダ フィールドs. The レスポンス MUST include the following ヘッダ フィールドs: - Date, unless its omission is required by section 14.18.1 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 63] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If a clockless 元のサーバ obeys these rules, and プロキシ and clients add their own Date to any レスポンス received without one (as already specified by [RFC 2068], section 14.19), caches will operate correctly. - ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200 レスポンス to the same リクエスト - Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might differ from that sent in any previous レスポンス for the same variant If the conditional GET used a strong cache validator (see section 13.3.3), the レスポンス SHOULD NOT include other entity-headers. Otherwise (i.e., the conditional GET used a weak validator), the レスポンス MUST NOT include other entity-headers; this prevents inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies and updated headers. If a 304 レスポンス indicates an entity not currently cached, then the cache MUST disregard the レスポンス and repeat the リクエスト without the conditional. If a cache uses a received 304 レスポンス to update a cache entry, the cache MUST update the entry to reflect any new field values given in the レスポンス. 10.3.6 305 Use プロキシ(proxy) The リクエストed resource MUST be accessed through the プロキシ(proxy) given by the Location field. The Location field gives the URI of the プロキシ(proxy). The recipient is expected to repeat this single リクエスト via the プロキシ(proxy). 305 レスポンスs MUST only be generated by 元のサーバs. Note: RFC 2068 was not clear that 305 was intended to redirect a single リクエスト, and to be generated by 元のサーバs only. Not observing these limitations has significant security consequences. 10.3.7 306 (未使用) The 306 ステータス コード was used in a previous version of the specification, is no longer used, and the code is reserved. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 64] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 10.3.8 307 Temporary Redirect The リクエストed resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection MAY be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the リクエスト-URI for future リクエストs. This レスポンス is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header field. The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the レスポンス. Unless the リクエスト method was HEAD, the entity of the レスポンス SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s) , since many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 307 status. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the information necessary for a user to repeat the original リクエスト on the new URI. If the 307 ステータス コード is received in レスポンス to a リクエスト other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the リクエスト unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the リクエスト was issued. 10.4 Client Error 4xx The 4xx class of ステータス コード is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred. Except when responding to a HEAD リクエスト, the server SHOULD include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. These ステータス コードs are applicable to any リクエスト method. User agents SHOULD display any included entity to the user. If the client is sending data, a server implementation using TCP SHOULD be careful to ensure that the client acknowledges receipt of the packet(s) containing the レスポンス, before the server closes the input connection. If the client continues sending data to the server after the close, the server's TCP stack will send a reset packet to the client, which may erase the client's unacknowledged input buffers before they can be read and interpreted by the HTTP アプリケーション. 10.4.1 400 正しくないリクエスト(Bad リクエスト) The リクエスト could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the リクエスト without modifications. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 65] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 10.4.2 401 認証されていない(Unauthorized) The リクエスト requires user 認証. The レスポンス MUST include a WWW-Authenticate ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.47) containing a challenge applicable to the リクエストed resource. The client MAY repeat the リクエスト with a suitable Authorization ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.8). If the リクエスト already included Authorization credentials, then the 401 レスポンス indicates that authorization has been refused for those credentials. If the 401 レスポンス contains the same challenge as the prior レスポンス, and the user agent has already attempted 認証 at least once, then the user SHOULD be presented the entity that was given in the レスポンス, since that entity might include relevant diagnostic information. HTTP access 認証 is explained in "HTTP 認証: Basic and Digest Access 認証" [43]. 10.4.3 402 Payment Required This code is reserved for future use. 10.4.4 403 禁止する(Forbidden) The server understood the リクエスト, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help and the リクエスト SHOULD NOT be repeated. If the リクエスト method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make public why the リクエスト has not been fulfilled, it SHOULD describe the reason for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, the ステータス コード 404 (Not Found) can be used instead. 10.4.5 404 存在しない(Not Found) The server has not found anything matching the リクエスト-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent. The 410 (Gone) ステータス コード SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address. This ステータス コード is commonly used when the server does not wish to reveal exactly why the リクエスト has been refused, or when no other レスポンス is applicable. 10.4.6 405 許されないメソッドである(Method Not Allowed) The method specified in the リクエスト-Line is not allowed for the resource identified by the リクエスト-URI. The レスポンス MUST include an Allow header containing a list of valid methods for the リクエストed resource. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 66] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 10.4.7 406 受け入れられない(Not Acceptable) The resource identified by the リクエスト is only capable of generating レスポンス entities which have content characteristics not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the リクエスト. Unless it was a HEAD リクエスト, the レスポンス SHOULD include an entity containing a list of available entity characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type ヘッダ フィールド. Depending upon the format and the capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice MAY be performed automatically. However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic selection. Note: HTTP/1.1 servers are allowed to return レスポンスs which are not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the リクエスト. In some cases, this may even be preferable to sending a 406 レスポンス. User agents are encouraged to inspect the headers of an incoming レスポンス to determine if it is acceptable. If the レスポンス could be unacceptable, a user agent SHOULD temporarily stop receipt of more data and query the user for a decision on further actions. 10.4.8 407 プロキシ認証が必要 This code is similar to 401 (Unauthorized), but indicates that the client must first authenticate itself with the プロキシ(proxy). The プロキシ(proxy) MUST return a プロキシ(proxy)-Authenticate ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.33) containing a challenge applicable to the プロキシ(proxy) for the リクエストed resource. The client MAY repeat the リクエスト with a suitable プロキシ(proxy)-Authorization ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.34). HTTP access 認証 is explained in "HTTP 認証: 基本(Basic)とダイジェスト(Digest)アクセス認証" [43]. 10.4.9 408 リクエスト Timeout The client did not produce a リクエスト within the time that the server was prepared to wait. The client MAY repeat the リクエスト without modifications at any later time. 10.4.10 409 Conflict The リクエスト could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the resource. This code is only allowed in situations where it is expected that the user might be able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the リクエスト. The レスポンス body SHOULD include enough Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 67] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 information for the user to recognize the source of the conflict. Ideally, the レスポンス entity would include enough information for the user or user agent to fix the problem; however, that might not be possible and is not required. Conflicts are most likely to occur in レスポンス to a PUT リクエスト. For example, if versioning were being used and the entity being PUT included changes to a resource which conflict with those made by an earlier (third-party) リクエスト, the server might use the 409 レスポンス to indicate that it can't complete the リクエスト. In this case, the レスポンス entity would likely contain a list of the differences between the two versions in a format defined by the レスポンス Content-Type. 10.4.11 410 Gone The リクエストed resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be considered permanent. Clients with link editing capabilities SHOULD delete references to the リクエスト-URI after user approval. If the server does not know, or has no facility to determine, whether or not the condition is permanent, the ステータス コード 404 (Not Found) SHOULD be used instead. This レスポンス is cacheable unless indicated otherwise. The 410 レスポンス is primarily intended to assist the task of web maintenance by notifying the recipient that the resource is intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that remote links to that resource be removed. Such an event is common for limited-time, promotional services and for resources belonging to individuals no longer working at the server's site. It is not necessary to mark all permanently unavailable resources as "gone" or to keep the mark for any length of time -- that is left to the discretion of the server owner. 10.4.12 411 Length Required The server refuses to accept the リクエスト without a defined Content- Length. The client MAY repeat the リクエスト if it adds a valid Content-Length ヘッダ フィールド containing the length of the message-body in the リクエスト message. 10.4.13 412 Precondition Failed The precondition given in one or more of the リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールドs evaluated to false when it was tested on the server. This レスポンス code allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource metainformation (ヘッダ フィールド data) and thus prevent the リクエストed method from being applied to a resource other than the one intended. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 68] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 10.4.14 413 リクエスト Entity Too Large The server is refusing to process a リクエスト because the リクエスト entity is larger than the server is willing or able to process. The server MAY close the connection to prevent the client from continuing the リクエスト. If the condition is temporary, the server SHOULD include a Retry- After ヘッダ フィールド to indicate that it is temporary and after what time the client MAY try again. 10.4.15 414 要求されたURIは長過ぎる(リクエスト-URI Too Long) The サーバ is refusing to service the リクエスト because the リクエスト-URI is longer than the server is willing to interpret. This rare condition is only likely to occur when a client has improperly converted a POST リクエスト to a GET リクエスト with long query information, when the client has descended into a URI "black hole" of redirection (e.g., a redirected URI prefix that points to a suffix of itself), or when the server is under attack by a client attempting to exploit security holes present in some servers using fixed-length buffers for reading or manipulating the リクエスト-URI. 10.4.16 415 サポートされていないメディアタイプ(Unsupported Media Type) The server is refusing to service the リクエスト because the entity of the リクエスト is in a format not supported by the リクエストed resource for the リクエストed method. 10.4.17 416 リクエストed Range Not Satisfiable A server SHOULD return a レスポンス with this ステータス コード if a リクエスト included a Range リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.35), and none of the range-specifier values in this field overlap the current extent of the selected resource, and the リクエスト did not include an If-Range リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド. (For byte-ranges, this means that the first- byte-pos of all of the byte-range-spec values were greater than the current length of the selected resource.) When this ステータス コード is returned for a byte-range リクエスト, the レスポンス SHOULD include a Content-Range entity-ヘッダ フィールド specifying the current length of the selected resource (see section 14.16). This レスポンス MUST NOT use the multipart/byteranges content- type. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 69] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 10.4.18 417 Expectation Failed The expectation given in an Expect リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド (see section 14.20) could not be met by this server, or, if the server is a プロキシ(proxy), the server has unambiguous evidence that the リクエスト could not be met by the next-hop server. 10.5 Server Error 5xx レスポンス ステータス コードs beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the リクエスト. Except when responding to a HEAD リクエスト, the server SHOULD include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. User agents SHOULD display any included entity to the user. These レスポンス codes are applicable to any リクエスト method. 10.5.1 500 Internal Server Error The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from fulfilling the リクエスト. 10.5.2 501 Not Implemented The server does not support the functionality required to fulfill the リクエスト. This is the appropriate レスポンス when the server does not recognize the リクエスト method and is not capable of supporting it for any resource. 10.5.3 502 Bad Gateway The server, while acting as a ゲートウェイ or プロキシ(proxy), received an invalid レスポンス from the upstream server it accessed in attempting to fulfill the リクエスト. 10.5.4 503 Service Unavailable The server is currently unable to handle the リクエスト due to a temporary overloading or maintenance of the server. The implication is that this is a temporary condition which will be alleviated after some delay. If known, the length of the delay MAY be indicated in a Retry-After header. If no Retry-After is given, the client SHOULD handle the レスポンス as it would for a 500 レスポンス. Note: The existence of the 503 ステータス コード does not imply that a server must use it when becoming overloaded. Some servers may wish to simply refuse the connection. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 70] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 10.5.5 504 ゲートウェイ Timeout The server, while acting as a ゲートウェイ or プロキシ(proxy), did not receive a timely レスポンス from the upstream server specified by the URI (e.g. HTTP, FTP, LDAP) or some other auxiliary server (e.g. DNS) it needed to access in attempting to complete the リクエスト. Note: Note to 実装者: some deployed プロキシ are known to return 400 or 500 when DNS lookups time out. 10.5.6 505 HTTP Version Not Supported The server does not support, or refuses to support, the HTTPプロトコル version that was used in the リクエスト message. The server is indicating that it is unable or unwilling to complete the リクエスト using the same major version as the client, as described in section 3.1, other than with this error message. The レスポンス SHOULD contain an entity describing why that version is not supported and what other protocols are supported by that server. 11 Access 認証 HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-レスポンス 認証 mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client リクエスト and by a client to provide 認証 information. The general framework for access 認証, and the specification of "basic" and "digest" 認証, are specified in "HTTP 認証: Basic and Digest Access 認証" [43]. This specification adopts the definitions of "challenge" and "credentials" from that specification. 12 Content Negotiation Most HTTP レスポンスs include an entity which contains information for interpretation by a human user. Naturally, it is desirable to supply the user with the "best available" entity corresponding to the リクエスト. Unfortunately for servers and caches, not all users have the same preferences for what is "best," and not all user agents are equally capable of rendering all entity types. For that reason, HTTP has provisions for several mechanisms for "content negotiation" -- the process of selecting the best representation for a given レスポンス when there are multiple representations available. Note: This is not called "format negotiation" because the alternate representations may be of the same media type, but use different capabilities of that type, be in different languages, etc. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 71] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Any レスポンス containing an entity-body MAY be subject to negotiation, including error レスポンスs. There are two kinds of content negotiation which are possible in HTTP: server-driven and agent-driven negotiation. These two kinds of negotiation are orthogonal and thus may be used separately or in combination. One method of combination, referred to as transparent negotiation, occurs when a cache uses the agent-driven negotiation information provided by the 元のサーバ in order to provide server-driven negotiation for subsequent リクエストs. 12.1 Server-driven Negotiation If the selection of the best representation for a レスポンス is made by an algorithm located at the server, it is called server-driven negotiation. Selection is based on the available representations of the レスポンス (the dimensions over which it can vary; e.g. language, content-coding, etc.) and the contents of particular ヘッダ フィールドs in the リクエスト message or on other information pertaining to the リクエスト (such as the network address of the client). Server-driven negotiation is advantageous when the algorithm for selecting from among the available representations is difficult to describe to the user agent, or when the server desires to send its "best guess" to the client along with the first レスポンス (hoping to avoid the round-trip delay of a subsequent リクエスト if the "best guess" is good enough for the user). In order to improve the server's guess, the user agent MAY include リクエスト ヘッダ フィールドs (Accept, Accept-Language, Accept-Encoding, etc.) which describe its preferences for such a レスポンス. Server-driven negotiation has disadvantages: 1. It is impossible for the server to accurately determine what might be "best" for any given user, since that would require complete knowledge of both the capabilities of the user agent and the intended use for the レスポンス (e.g., does the user want to view it on screen or print it on paper?). 2. Having the user agent describe its capabilities in every リクエスト can be both very inefficient (given that only a small percentage of レスポンスs have multiple representations) and a potential violation of the user's privacy. 3. It complicates the implementation of an 元のサーバ and the algorithms for generating レスポンスs to a リクエスト. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 72] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 4. It may limit a public cache's ability to use the same レスポンス for multiple user's リクエストs. HTTP/1.1 includes the following リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールドs for enabling server-driven negotiation through description of user agent capabilities and user preferences: Accept (section 14.1), Accept- Charset (section 14.2), Accept-Encoding (section 14.3), Accept- Language (section 14.4), and User-Agent (section 14.43). However, an 元のサーバ is not limited to these dimensions and MAY vary the レスポンス based on any aspect of the リクエスト, including information outside the リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールドs or within extension ヘッダ フィールドs not defined by this specification. The Vary ヘッダ フィールド can be used to express the parameters the server uses to select a representation that is subject to server- driven negotiation. See section 13.6 for use of the Vary ヘッダ フィールド by caches and section 14.44 for use of the Vary ヘッダ フィールド by servers. 12.2 Agent-driven Negotiation With agent-driven negotiation, selection of the best representation for a レスポンス is performed by the user agent after receiving an initial レスポンス from the 元のサーバ. Selection is based on a list of the available representations of the レスポンス included within the ヘッダ フィールドs or entity-body of the initial レスポンス, with each representation identified by its own URI. Selection from among the representations may be performed automatically (if the user agent is capable of doing so) or manually by the user selecting from a generated (possibly hypertext) menu. Agent-driven negotiation is advantageous when the レスポンス would vary over commonly-used dimensions (such as type, language, or encoding), when the 元のサーバ is unable to determine a user agent's capabilities from examining the リクエスト, and generally when public caches are used to distribute server load and reduce network usage. Agent-driven negotiation suffers from the disadvantage of needing a second リクエスト to obtain the best alternate representation. This second リクエスト is only efficient when caching is used. In addition, this specification does not define any mechanism for supporting automatic selection, though it also does not prevent any such mechanism from being developed as an extension and used within HTTP/1.1. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 73] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 HTTP/1.1 defines the 300 (Multiple Choices) and 406 (Not Acceptable) ステータス コードs for enabling agent-driven negotiation when the server is unwilling or unable to provide a varying レスポンス using server-driven negotiation. 12.3 Transparent Negotiation Transparent negotiation is a combination of both server-driven and agent-driven negotiation. When a cache is supplied with a form of the list of available representations of the レスポンス (as in agent-driven negotiation) and the dimensions of variance are completely understood by the cache, then the cache becomes capable of performing server- driven negotiation on behalf of the 元のサーバ for subsequent リクエストs on that resource. Transparent negotiation has the advantage of distributing the negotiation work that would otherwise be required of the origin server and also removing the second リクエスト delay of agent-driven negotiation when the cache is able to correctly guess the right レスポンス. This specification does not define any mechanism for transparent negotiation, though it also does not prevent any such mechanism from being developed as an extension that could be used within HTTP/1.1. 13 Caching in HTTP HTTP is typically used for distributed information systems, where performance can be improved by the use of レスポンス caches. The HTTP/1.1 protocol includes a number of elements intended to make caching work as well as possible. Because these elements are inextricable from other aspects of the protocol, and because they interact with each other, it is useful to describe the basic caching design of HTTP separately from the detailed descriptions of methods, headers, レスポンス codes, etc. Caching would be useless if it did not significantly improve performance. The goal of caching in HTTP/1.1 is to eliminate the need to send リクエストs in many cases, and to eliminate the need to send full レスポンスs in many other cases. The former reduces the number of network round-trips required for many operations; we use an "expiration" mechanism for this purpose (see section 13.2). The latter reduces network バンド幅 requirements; we use a "validation" mechanism for this purpose (see section 13.3). Requirements for performance, availability, and disconnected operation require us to be able to relax the goal of semantic transparency. The HTTP/1.1 protocol allows 元のサーバs, caches, Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 74] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 and clients to explicitly reduce transparency when necessary. However, because non-transparent operation may confuse non-expert users, and might be incompatible with certain server アプリケーションs (such as those for ordering merchandise), the protocol requires that transparency be relaxed - only by an explicit protocol-level リクエスト when relaxed by client or 元のサーバ - only with an explicit warning to the end user when relaxed by cache or client Therefore, the HTTP/1.1 protocol provides these important elements: 1. Protocol features that provide full semantic transparency when this is required by all parties. 2. Protocol features that allow an 元のサーバ or user agent to explicitly リクエスト and control non-transparent operation. 3. Protocol features that allow a cache to attach warnings to レスポンスs that do not preserve the リクエストed approximation of semantic transparency. A basic principle is that it must be possible for the clients to detect any potential relaxation of semantic transparency. Note: The server, cache, or client implementor might be faced with design decisions not explicitly discussed in this specification. If a decision might affect semantic transparency, the implementor ought to err on the side of maintaining transparency unless a careful and complete analysis shows significant benefits in breaking transparency. 13.1.1 Cache Correctness A correct cache MUST respond to a リクエスト with the most up-to-date レスポンス held by the cache that is appropriate to the リクエスト (see sections 13.2.5, 13.2.6, and 13.12) which meets one of the following conditions: 1. It has been checked for equivalence with what the 元のサーバ would have returned by revalidating the レスポンス with the 元のサーバ (section 13.3); Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 75] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 2. It is "fresh enough" (see section 13.2). In the default case, this means it meets the least restrictive freshness requirement of the client, 元のサーバ, and cache (see section 14.9); if the 元のサーバ so specifies, it is the freshness requirement of the 元のサーバ alone. If a stored レスポンス is not "fresh enough" by the most restrictive freshness requirement of both the client and the 元のサーバ, in carefully considered circumstances the cache MAY still return the レスポンス with the appropriate Warning header (see section 13.1.5 and 14.46), unless such a レスポンス is prohibited (e.g., by a "no-store" cache-directive, or by a "no-cache" cache-リクエスト-directive; see section 14.9). 3. It is an appropriate 304 (Not Modified), 305 (プロキシ(proxy) Redirect), or error (4xx or 5xx) レスポンス message. If the cache can not communicate with the 元のサーバ, then a correct cache SHOULD respond as above if the レスポンス can be correctly served from the cache; if not it MUST return an error or warning indicating that there was a コミュニケーション failure. If a cache receives a レスポンス (either an entire レスポンス, or a 304 (Not Modified) レスポンス) that it would normally forward to the リクエストing client, and the received レスポンス is no longer fresh, the cache SHOULD forward it to the リクエストing client without adding a new Warning (but without removing any existing Warning headers). A cache SHOULD NOT attempt to revalidate a レスポンス simply because that レスポンス became stale in transit; this might lead to an infinite loop. A user agent that receives a stale レスポンス without a Warning MAY display a warning indication to the user. 13.1.2 Warnings Whenever a cache returns a レスポンス that is neither first-hand nor "fresh enough" (in the sense of condition 2 in section 13.1.1), it MUST attach a warning to that effect, using a Warning general-header. The Warning header and the currently defined warnings are described in section 14.46. The warning allows clients to take appropriate action. Warnings MAY be used for other purposes, both cache-related and otherwise. The use of a warning, rather than an error ステータス コード, distinguish these レスポンスs from true failures. Warnings are assigned three digit warn-codes. The first digit indicates whether the Warning MUST or MUST NOT be deleted from a stored cache entry after a successful revalidation: Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 76] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 1xx Warnings that describe the freshness or revalidation status of the レスポンス, and so MUST be deleted after a successful revalidation. 1XX warn-codes MAY be generated by a cache only when validating a cached entry. It MUST NOT be generated by clients. 2xx Warnings that describe some aspect of the entity body or entity headers that is not rectified by a revalidation (for example, a lossy compression of the entity bodies) and which MUST NOT be deleted after a successful revalidation. See section 14.46 for the definitions of the codes themselves. HTTP/1.0 caches will cache all Warnings in レスポンスs, without deleting the ones in the first category. Warnings in レスポンスs that are passed to HTTP/1.0 caches carry an extra warning-date field, which prevents a future HTTP/1.1 recipient from believing an erroneously cached Warning. Warnings also carry a warning text. The text MAY be in any appropriate natural language (perhaps based on the client's Accept headers), and include an OPTIONAL indication of what character set is used. Multiple warnings MAY be attached to a レスポンス (either by the origin server or by a cache), including multiple warnings with the same code number. For example, a server might provide the same warning with texts in both English and Basque. When multiple warnings are attached to a レスポンス, it might not be practical or reasonable to display all of them to the user. This version of HTTP does not specify strict priority rules for deciding which warnings to display and in what order, but does suggest some heuristics. 13.1.3 Cache-control Mechanisms The basic cache mechanisms in HTTP/1.1 (server-specified expiration times and validators) are implicit directives to caches. In some cases, a server or client might need to provide explicit directives to the HTTP caches. We use the Cache-Control header for this purpose. The Cache-Control header allows a client or server to transmit a variety of directives in either リクエストs or レスポンスs. These directives typically override the default caching algorithms. As a general rule, if there is any apparent conflict between header values, the most restrictive interpretation is applied (that is, the one that is most likely to preserve semantic transparency). However, Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 77] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 in some cases, cache-control directives are explicitly specified as weakening the approximation of semantic transparency (for example, "max-stale" or "public"). The cache-control directives are described in detail in section 14.9. 13.1.4 Explicit User Agent Warnings Many user agents make it possible for users to override the basic caching mechanisms. For example, the user agent might allow the user to specify that cached entities (even explicitly stale ones) are never validated. Or the user agent might habitually add "Cache- Control: max-stale=3600" to every リクエスト. The user agent SHOULD NOT default to either non-transparent behavior, or behavior that results in abnormally ineffective caching, but MAY be explicitly configured to do so by an explicit action of the user. If the user has overridden the basic caching mechanisms, the user agent SHOULD explicitly indicate to the user whenever this results in the display of information that might not meet the server's transparency requirements (in particular, if the displayed entity is known to be stale). Since the protocol normally allows the user agent to determine if レスポンスs are stale or not, this indication need only be displayed when this actually happens. The indication need not be a dialog box; it could be an icon (for example, a picture of a rotting fish) or some other indicator. If the user has overridden the caching mechanisms in a way that would abnormally reduce the effectiveness of caches, the user agent SHOULD continually indicate this state to the user (for example, by a display of a picture of currency in flames) so that the user does not inadvertently consume excess resources or suffer from excessive latency. 13.1.5 Exceptions to the Rules and Warnings In some cases, the operator of a cache MAY choose to configure it to return stale レスポンスs even when not リクエストed by clients. This decision ought not be made lightly, but may be necessary for reasons of availability or performance, especially when the cache is poorly connected to the 元のサーバ. Whenever a cache returns a stale レスポンス, it MUST mark it as such (using a Warning header) enabling the client software to alert the user that there might be a potential problem. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 78] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 It also allows the user agent to take steps to obtain a first-hand or fresh レスポンス. For this reason, a cache SHOULD NOT return a stale レスポンス if the client explicitly リクエストs a first-hand or fresh one, unless it is impossible to comply for technical or policy reasons. 13.1.6 Client-controlled Behavior While the 元のサーバ (and to a lesser extent, intermediate caches, by their contribution to the age of a レスポンス) are the primary source of expiration information, in some cases the client might need to control a cache's decision about whether to return a cached レスポンス without validating it. Clients do this using several directives of the Cache-Control header. A client's リクエスト MAY specify the maximum age it is willing to accept of an unvalidated レスポンス; specifying a value of zero forces the cache(s) to revalidate all レスポンスs. A client MAY also specify the minimum time remaining before a レスポンス expires. Both of these options increase constraints on the behavior of caches, and so cannot further relax the cache's approximation of semantic transparency. A client MAY also specify that it will accept stale レスポンスs, up to some maximum amount of staleness. This loosens the constraints on the caches, and so might violate the 元のサーバ's specified constraints on semantic transparency, but might be necessary to support disconnected operation, or high availability in the face of poor connectivity. 13.2 Expiration Model 13.2.1 Server-Specified Expiration HTTP caching works best when caches can entirely avoid making リクエストs to the 元のサーバ. The primary mechanism for avoiding リクエストs is for an 元のサーバ to provide an explicit expiration time in the future, indicating that a レスポンス MAY be used to satisfy subsequent リクエストs. In other words, a cache can return a fresh レスポンス without first contacting the server. Our expectation is that servers will assign future explicit expiration times to レスポンスs in the belief that the entity is not likely to change, in a semantically significant way, before the expiration time is reached. This normally preserves semantic transparency, as long as the server's expiration times are carefully chosen. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 79] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The expiration mechanism applies only to レスポンスs taken from a cache and not to first-hand レスポンスs forwarded immediately to the リクエストing client. If an 元のサーバ wishes to force a semantically transparent cache to validate every リクエスト, it MAY assign an explicit expiration time in the past. This means that the レスポンス is always stale, and so the cache SHOULD validate it before using it for subsequent リクエストs. See section 14.9.4 for a more restrictive way to force revalidation. If an 元のサーバ wishes to force any HTTP/1.1 cache, no matter how it is configured, to validate every リクエスト, it SHOULD use the "must- revalidate" cache-control directive (see section 14.9). Servers specify explicit expiration times using either the Expires header, or the max-age directive of the Cache-Control header. An expiration time cannot be used to force a user agent to refresh its display or reload a resource; its semantics apply only to caching mechanisms, and such mechanisms need only check a resource's expiration status when a new リクエスト for that resource is initiated. See section 13.13 for an explanation of the difference between caches and history mechanisms. 13.2.2 Heuristic Expiration Since 元のサーバs do not always provide explicit expiration times, HTTP caches typically assign heuristic expiration times, employing algorithms that use other header values (such as the Last-Modified time) to estimate a plausible expiration time. The HTTP/1.1 specification does not provide specific algorithms, but does impose worst-case constraints on their results. Since heuristic expiration times might compromise semantic transparency, they ought to used cautiously, and we encourage 元のサーバs to provide explicit expiration times as much as possible. 13.2.3 Age Calculations In order to know if a cached entry is fresh, a cache needs to know if its age exceeds its freshness lifetime. We discuss how to calculate the latter in section 13.2.4; this section describes how to calculate the age of a レスポンス or cache entry. In this discussion, we use the term "now" to mean "the current value of the clock at the host performing the calculation." Hosts that use HTTP, but especially hosts running 元のサーバs and caches, SHOULD use NTP [28] or some similar protocol to synchronize their clocks to a globally accurate time standard. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 80] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 HTTP/1.1 requires 元のサーバs to send a Date header, if possible, with every レスポンス, giving the time at which the レスポンス was generated (see section 14.18). We use the term "date_value" to denote the value of the Date header, in a form appropriate for arithmetic operations. HTTP/1.1 uses the Age レスポンス-header to convey the estimated age of the レスポンス message when obtained from a cache. The Age field value is the cache's estimate of the amount of time since the レスポンス was generated or revalidated by the 元のサーバ. In essence, the Age value is the sum of the time that the レスポンス has been resident in each of the caches along the path from the 元のサーバ, plus the amount of time it has been in transit along network paths. We use the term "age_value" to denote the value of the Age header, in a form appropriate for arithmetic operations. A レスポンス's age can be calculated in two entirely independent ways: 1. now minus date_value, if the local clock is reasonably well synchronized to the 元のサーバ's clock. If the result is negative, the result is replaced by zero. 2. age_value, if all of the caches along the レスポンス path implement HTTP/1.1. Given that we have two independent ways to compute the age of a レスポンス when it is received, we can combine these as corrected_received_age = max(now - date_value, age_value) and as long as we have either nearly synchronized clocks or all- HTTP/1.1 paths, one gets a reliable (conservative) result. Because of network-imposed delays, some significant interval might pass between the time that a server generates a レスポンス and the time it is received at the next outbound cache or client. If uncorrected, this delay could result in improperly low ages. Because the リクエスト that resulted in the returned Age value must have been initiated prior to that Age value's generation, we can correct for delays imposed by the network by recording the time at which the リクエスト was initiated. Then, when an Age value is received, it MUST be interpreted relative to the time the リクエスト was initiated, not Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 81] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 the time that the レスポンス was received. This algorithm results in conservative behavior no matter how much delay is experienced. So, we compute: corrected_initial_age = corrected_received_age + (now - リクエスト_time) where "リクエスト_time" is the time (according to the local clock) when the リクエスト that elicited this レスポンス was sent. Summary of age calculation algorithm, when a cache receives a レスポンス: /* * age_value * is the value of Age: header received by the cache with * this レスポンス. * date_value * is the value of the 元のサーバ's Date: header * リクエスト_time * is the (local) time when the cache made the リクエスト * that resulted in this cached レスポンス * レスポンス_time * is the (local) time when the cache received the * レスポンス * now * is the current (local) time */ apparent_age = max(0, レスポンス_time - date_value); corrected_received_age = max(apparent_age, age_value); レスポンス_delay = レスポンス_time - リクエスト_time; corrected_initial_age = corrected_received_age + レスポンス_delay; resident_time = now - レスポンス_time; current_age = corrected_initial_age + resident_time; The current_age of a cache entry is calculated by adding the amount of time (in seconds) since the cache entry was last validated by the 元のサーバ to the corrected_initial_age. When a レスポンス is generated from a cache entry, the cache MUST include a single Age ヘッダ フィールド in the レスポンス with a value equal to the cache entry's current_age. The presence of an Age ヘッダ フィールド in a レスポンス implies that a レスポンス is not first-hand. However, the converse is not true, since the lack of an Age ヘッダ フィールド in a レスポンス does not imply that the Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 82] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 レスポンス is first-hand unless all caches along the リクエスト path are compliant with HTTP/1.1 (i.e., older HTTP caches did not implement the Age ヘッダ フィールド). 13.2.4 Expiration Calculations In order to decide whether a レスポンス is fresh or stale, we need to compare its freshness lifetime to its age. The age is calculated as described in section 13.2.3; this section describes how to calculate the freshness lifetime, and to determine if a レスポンス has expired. In the discussion below, the values can be represented in any form appropriate for arithmetic operations. We use the term "expires_value" to denote the value of the Expires header. We use the term "max_age_value" to denote an appropriate value of the number of seconds carried by the "max-age" directive of the Cache-Control header in a レスポンス (see section 14.9.3). The max-age directive takes priority over Expires, so if max-age is present in a レスポンス, the calculation is simply: freshness_lifetime = max_age_value Otherwise, if Expires is present in the レスポンス, the calculation is: freshness_lifetime = expires_value - date_value Note that neither of these calculations is vulnerable to clock skew, since all of the information comes from the 元のサーバ. If none of Expires, Cache-Control: max-age, or Cache-Control: s- maxage (see section 14.9.3) appears in the レスポンス, and the レスポンス does not include other restrictions on caching, the cache MAY compute a freshness lifetime using a heuristic. The cache MUST attach Warning 113 to any レスポンス whose age is more than 24 hours if such warning has not already been added. Also, if the レスポンス does have a Last-Modified time, the heuristic expiration value SHOULD be no more than some fraction of the interval since that time. A typical setting of this fraction might be 10%. The calculation to determine if a レスポンス has expired is quite simple: レスポンス_is_fresh = (freshness_lifetime > current_age) Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 83] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 13.2.5 Disambiguating Expiration Values Because expiration values are assigned optimistically, it is possible for two caches to contain fresh values for the same resource that are different. If a client performing a retrieval receives a non-first-hand レスポンス for a リクエスト that was already fresh in its own cache, and the Date header in its existing cache entry is newer than the Date on the new レスポンス, then the client MAY ignore the レスポンス. If so, it MAY retry the リクエスト with a "Cache-Control: max-age=0" directive (see section 14.9), to force a check with the 元のサーバ. If a cache has two fresh レスポンスs for the same representation with different validators, it MUST use the one with the more recent Date header. This situation might arise because the cache is pooling レスポンスs from other caches, or because a client has asked for a reload or a revalidation of an apparently fresh cache entry. 13.2.6 Disambiguating Multiple レスポンスs Because a client might be receiving レスポンスs via multiple paths, so that some レスポンスs flow through one set of caches and other レスポンスs flow through a different set of caches, a client might receive レスポンスs in an order different from that in which the origin server sent them. We would like the client to use the most recently generated レスポンス, even if older レスポンスs are still apparently fresh. Neither the entity tag nor the expiration value can impose an ordering on レスポンスs, since it is possible that a later レスポンス intentionally carries an earlier expiration time. The Date values are ordered to a granularity of one second. When a client tries to revalidate a cache entry, and the レスポンス it receives contains a Date header that appears to be older than the one for the existing entry, then the client SHOULD repeat the リクエスト unconditionally, and include Cache-Control: max-age=0 to force any intermediate caches to validate their copies directly with the 元のサーバ, or Cache-Control: no-cache to force any intermediate caches to obtain a new copy from the origin server. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 84] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If the Date values are equal, then the client MAY use either レスポンス (or MAY, if it is being extremely prudent, リクエスト a new レスポンス). Servers MUST NOT depend on clients being able to choose deterministically between レスポンスs generated during the same second, if their expiration times overlap. 13.3 Validation Model When a cache has a stale entry that it would like to use as a レスポンス to a client's リクエスト, it first has to check with the origin server (or possibly an intermediate cache with a fresh レスポンス) to see if its cached entry is still usable. We call this "validating" the cache entry. Since we do not want to have to pay the overhead of retransmitting the full レスポンス if the cached entry is good, and we do not want to pay the overhead of an extra round trip if the cached entry is invalid, the HTTP/1.1 protocol supports the use of conditional methods. The key protocol features for supporting conditional methods are those concerned with "cache validators." When an 元のサーバ generates a full レスポンス, it attaches some sort of validator to it, which is kept with the cache entry. When a client (user agent or プロキシ(proxy) cache) makes a conditional リクエスト for a resource for which it has a cache entry, it includes the associated validator in the リクエスト. The server then checks that validator against the current validator for the entity, and, if they match (see section 13.3.3), it responds with a special ステータス コード (usually, 304 (Not Modified)) and no entity-body. Otherwise, it returns a full レスポンス (including entity-body). Thus, we avoid transmitting the full レスポンス if the validator matches, and we avoid an extra round trip if it does not match. In HTTP/1.1, a conditional リクエスト looks exactly the same as a normal リクエスト for the same resource, except that it carries a special header (which includes the validator) that implicitly turns the method (usually, GET) into a conditional. The protocol includes both positive and negative senses of cache- validating conditions. That is, it is possible to リクエスト either that a method be performed if and only if a validator matches or if and only if no validators match. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 85] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Note: a レスポンス that lacks a validator may still be cached, and served from cache until it expires, unless this is explicitly prohibited by a cache-control directive. However, a cache cannot do a conditional retrieval if it does not have a validator for the entity, which means it will not be refreshable after it expires. 13.3.1 Last-Modified Dates The Last-Modified entity-ヘッダ フィールド value is often used as a cache validator. In simple terms, a cache entry is considered to be valid if the entity has not been modified since the Last-Modified value. 13.3.2 Entity Tag Cache Validators The ETag レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド value, an entity tag, provides for an "opaque" cache validator. This might allow more reliable validation in situations where it is inconvenient to store modification dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date values is not sufficient, or where the 元のサーバ wishes to avoid certain paradoxes that might arise from the use of modification dates. Entity Tags are described in section 3.11. The headers used with entity tags are described in sections 14.19, 14.24, 14.26 and 14.44. 13.3.3 Weak and Strong Validators Since both 元のサーバs and caches will compare two validators to decide if they represent the same or different entities, one normally would expect that if the entity (the entity-body or any entity- headers) changes in any way, then the associated validator would change as well. If this is true, then we call this validator a "strong validator." However, there might be cases when a server prefers to change the validator only on semantically significant changes, and not when insignificant aspects of the entity change. A validator that does not always change when the resource changes is a "weak validator." Entity tags are normally "strong validators," but the protocol provides a mechanism to tag an entity tag as "weak." One can think of a strong validator as one that changes whenever the bits of an entity changes, while a weak value changes whenever the meaning of an entity changes. Alternatively, one can think of a strong validator as part of an identifier for a specific entity, while a weak validator is part of an identifier for a set of semantically equivalent entities. Note: One example of a strong validator is an integer that is incremented in stable storage every time an entity is changed. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 86] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 An entity's modification time, if represented with one-second resolution, could be a weak validator, since it is possible that the resource might be modified twice during a single second. Support for weak validators is optional. However, weak validators allow for more efficient caching of equivalent objects; for example, a hit counter on a site is probably good enough if it is updated every few days or weeks, and any value during that period is likely "good enough" to be equivalent. A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a リクエスト and includes the validator in a validating ヘッダ フィールド, or when a server compares two validators. Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality of an entity. For example, either kind is usable for a conditional GET of a full entity. However, only a strong validator is usable for a sub-range retrieval, since otherwise the client might end up with an internally inconsistent entity. Clients MAY issue simple (non-subrange) GET リクエストs with either weak validators or strong validators. Clients MUST NOT use weak validators in other forms of リクエスト. The only function that the HTTP/1.1 protocol defines on validators is comparison. There are two validator comparison functions, depending on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators or not: - The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both validators MUST be identical in every way, and both MUST NOT be weak. - The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both validators MUST be identical in every way, but either or both of them MAY be tagged as "weak" without affecting the result. An entity tag is strong unless it is explicitly tagged as weak. Section 3.11 gives the syntax for entity tags. A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a リクエスト, is implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is strong, using the following rules: - The validator is being compared by an 元のサーバ to the actual current validator for the entity and, Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 87] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 - That 元のサーバ reliably knows that the associated entity did not change twice during the second covered by the presented validator. or - The validator is about to be used by a client in an If- Modified-Since or If-Unmodified-Since header, because the client has a cache entry for the associated entity, and - That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the 元のサーバ sent the original レスポンス, and - The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value. or - The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the validator stored in its cache entry for the entity, and - That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the 元のサーバ sent the original レスポンス, and - The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value. This method relies on the fact that if two different レスポンスs were sent by the 元のサーバ during the same second, but both had the same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those レスポンスs would have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified time. The arbitrary 60- second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last- Modified values are generated from different clocks, or at somewhat different times during the preparation of the レスポンス. An implementation MAY use a value larger than 60 seconds, if it is believed that 60 seconds is too short. If a client wishes to perform a sub-range retrieval on a value for which it has only a Last-Modified time and no opaque validator, it MAY do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense described here. A cache or 元のサーバ receiving a conditional リクエスト, other than a full-body GET リクエスト, MUST use the strong comparison function to evaluate the condition. These rules allow HTTP/1.1 caches and clients to safely perform sub- range retrievals on values that have been obtained from HTTP/1.0 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 88] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 servers. 13.3.4 Rules for When to Use Entity Tags and Last-Modified Dates We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for 元のサーバs, clients, and caches regarding when various validator types ought to be used, and for what purposes. HTTP/1.1 元のサーバs: - SHOULD send an entity tag validator unless it is not feasible to generate one. - MAY send a weak entity tag instead of a strong entity tag, if performance considerations support the use of weak entity tags, or if it is unfeasible to send a strong entity tag. - SHOULD send a Last-Modified value if it is feasible to send one, unless the risk of a breakdown in semantic transparency that could result from using this date in an If-Modified-Since header would lead to serious problems. In other words, the preferred behavior for an HTTP/1.1 元のサーバ is to send both a strong entity tag and a Last-Modified value. In order to be legal, a strong entity tag MUST change whenever the associated entity value changes in any way. A weak entity tag SHOULD change whenever the associated entity changes in a semantically significant way. Note: in order to provide semantically transparent caching, an 元のサーバ must avoid reusing a specific strong entity tag value for two different entities, or reusing a specific weak entity tag value for two semantically different entities. Cache entries might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of expiration times, so it might be inappropriate to expect that a cache will never again attempt to validate an entry using a validator that it obtained at some point in the past. HTTP/1.1 clients: - If an entity tag has been provided by the 元のサーバ, MUST use that entity tag in any cache-conditional リクエスト (using If- Match or If-None-Match). - If only a Last-Modified value has been provided by the origin server, SHOULD use that value in non-subrange cache-conditional リクエストs (using If-Modified-Since). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 89] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 - If only a Last-Modified value has been provided by an HTTP/1.0 元のサーバ, MAY use that value in subrange cache-conditional リクエストs (using If-Unmodified-Since:). The user agent SHOULD provide a way to disable this, in case of difficulty. - If both an entity tag and a Last-Modified value have been provided by the 元のサーバ, SHOULD use both validators in cache-conditional リクエストs. This allows both HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 caches to respond appropriately. An HTTP/1.1 元のサーバ, upon receiving a conditional リクエスト that includes both a Last-Modified date (e.g., in an If-Modified-Since or If-Unmodified-Since ヘッダ フィールド) and one or more entity tags (e.g., in an If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range ヘッダ フィールド) as cache validators, MUST NOT return a レスポンス status of 304 (Not Modified) unless doing so is consistent with all of the conditional header fields in the リクエスト. An HTTP/1.1 caching プロキシ(proxy), upon receiving a conditional リクエスト that includes both a Last-Modified date and one or more entity tags as cache validators, MUST NOT return a locally cached レスポンス to the client unless that cached レスポンス is consistent with all of the conditional ヘッダ フィールドs in the リクエスト. Note: The general principle behind these rules is that HTTP/1.1 servers and clients should transmit as much non-redundant information as is available in their レスポンスs and リクエストs. HTTP/1.1 systems receiving this information will make the most conservative assumptions about the validators they receive. HTTP/1.0 clients and caches will ignore entity tags. Generally, last-modified values received or used by these systems will support transparent and efficient caching, and so HTTP/1.1 origin servers should provide Last-Modified values. In those rare cases where the use of a Last-Modified value as a validator by an HTTP/1.0 system could result in a serious problem, then HTTP/1.1 元のサーバs should not provide one. 13.3.5 Non-validating Conditionals The principle behind entity tags is that only the service author knows the semantics of a resource well enough to select an appropriate cache validation mechanism, and the specification of any validator comparison function more complex than byte-equality would open up a can of worms. Thus, comparisons of any other headers (except Last-Modified, for compatibility with HTTP/1.0) are never used for purposes of validating a cache entry. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 90] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 13.4 レスポンス Cacheability Unless specifically constrained by a cache-control (section 14.9) directive, a caching system MAY always store a successful レスポンス (see section 13.8) as a cache entry, MAY return it without validation if it is fresh, and MAY return it after successful validation. If there is neither a cache validator nor an explicit expiration time associated with a レスポンス, we do not expect it to be cached, but certain caches MAY violate this expectation (for example, when little or no network connectivity is available). A client can usually detect that such a レスポンス was taken from a cache by comparing the Date header to the current time. Note: some HTTP/1.0 caches are known to violate this expectation without providing any Warning. However, in some cases it might be inappropriate for a cache to retain an entity, or to return it in レスポンス to a subsequent リクエスト. This might be because absolute semantic transparency is deemed necessary by the service author, or because of security or privacy considerations. Certain cache-control directives are therefore provided so that the server can indicate that certain resource entities, or portions thereof, are not to be cached regardless of other considerations. Note that section 14.8 normally prevents a shared cache from saving and returning a レスポンス to a previous リクエスト if that リクエスト included an Authorization header. A レスポンス received with a ステータス コード of 200, 203, 206, 300, 301 or 410 MAY be stored by a cache and used in reply to a subsequent リクエスト, subject to the expiration mechanism, unless a cache-control directive prohibits caching. However, a cache that does not support the Range and Content-Range headers MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial Content) レスポンスs. A レスポンス received with any other ステータス コード (e.g. ステータス コードs 302 and 307) MUST NOT be returned in a reply to a subsequent リクエスト unless there are cache-control directives or another header(s) that explicitly allow it. For example, these include the following: an Expires header (section 14.21); a "max-age", "s-maxage", "must- revalidate", "プロキシ(proxy)-revalidate", "public" or "private" cache-control directive (section 14.9). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 91] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 13.5 Constructing レスポンスs From Caches The purpose of an HTTP cache is to store information received in レスポンス to リクエストs for use in responding to future リクエストs. In many cases, a cache simply returns the appropriate parts of a レスポンス to the リクエストer. However, if the cache holds a cache entry based on a previous レスポンス, it might have to combine parts of a new レスポンス with what is held in the cache entry. 13.5.1 End-to-end and Hop-by-hop Headers For the purpose of defining the behavior of caches and non-caching プロキシ, we divide HTTP headers into two categories: - End-to-end headers, which are transmitted to the ultimate recipient of a リクエスト or レスポンス. End-to-end headers in レスポンスs MUST be stored as part of a cache entry and MUST be transmitted in any レスポンス formed from a cache entry. - Hop-by-hop headers, which are meaningful only for a single transport-level connection, and are not stored by caches or forwarded by プロキシ. The following HTTP/1.1 headers are hop-by-hop headers: - Connection - Keep-Alive - Proxy-Authenticate - Proxy-Authorization - TE - Trailers - Transfer-Encoding - Upgrade All other headers defined by HTTP/1.1 are end-to-end headers. Other hop-by-hop headers MUST be listed in a Connection header, (section 14.10) to be introduced into HTTP/1.1 (or later). 13.5.2 Non-modifiable Headers Some features of the HTTP/1.1 protocol, such as Digest 認証, depend on the value of certain end-to-end headers. A transparent プロキシ SHOULD NOT modify an end-to-end header unless the definition of that header requires or specifically allows that. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 92] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 A transparent プロキシ MUST NOT modify any of the following fields in a リクエスト or レスポンス, and it MUST NOT add any of these fields if not already present: - Content-Location - Content-MD5 - ETag - Last-Modified A transparent プロキシ MUST NOT modify any of the following fields in a レスポンス: - Expires but it MAY add any of these fields if not already present. If an Expires header is added, it MUST be given a field-value identical to that of the Date header in that レスポンス. A プロキシ(proxy) MUST NOT modify or add any of the following fields in a message that contains the no-transform cache-control directive, or in any リクエスト: - Content-Encoding - Content-Range - Content-Type A non-transparent プロキシ MAY modify or add these fields to a message that does not include no-transform, but if it does so, it MUST add a Warning 214 (Transformation applied) if one does not already appear in the message (see section 14.46). Warning: unnecessary modification of end-to-end headers might cause 認証 failures if stronger 認証 mechanisms are introduced in later versions of HTTP. Such 認証 mechanisms MAY rely on the values of ヘッダ フィールドs not listed here. The Content-Length field of a リクエスト or レスポンス is added or deleted according to the rules in section 4.4. A transparent プロキシ MUST preserve the entity-length (section 7.2.2) of the entity-body, although it MAY change the transfer-length (section 4.4). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 93] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 13.5.3 Combining Headers When a cache makes a validating リクエスト to a server, and the server provides a 304 (Not Modified) レスポンス or a 206 (Partial Content) レスポンス, the cache then constructs a レスポンス to send to the リクエストing client. If the ステータス コード is 304 (Not Modified), the cache uses the entity- body stored in the cache entry as the entity-body of this outgoing レスポンス. If the ステータス コード is 206 (Partial Content) and the ETag or Last-Modified headers match exactly, the cache MAY combine the contents stored in the cache entry with the new contents received in the レスポンス and use the result as the entity-body of this outgoing レスポンス, (see 13.5.4). The end-to-end headers stored in the cache entry are used for the constructed レスポンス, except that - any stored Warning headers with warn-code 1xx (see section 14.46) MUST be deleted from the cache entry and the forwarded レスポンス. - any stored Warning headers with warn-code 2xx MUST be retained in the cache entry and the forwarded レスポンス. - any end-to-end headers provided in the 304 or 206 レスポンス MUST replace the corresponding headers from the cache entry. Unless the cache decides to remove the cache entry, it MUST also replace the end-to-end headers stored with the cache entry with corresponding headers received in the incoming レスポンス, except for Warning headers as described immediately above. If a ヘッダ フィールド- name in the incoming レスポンス matches more than one header in the cache entry, all such old headers MUST be replaced. In other words, the set of end-to-end headers received in the incoming レスポンス overrides all corresponding end-to-end headers stored with the cache entry (except for stored Warning headers with warn-code 1xx, which are deleted even if not overridden). Note: this rule allows an 元のサーバ to use a 304 (Not Modified) or a 206 (Partial Content) レスポンス to update any header associated with a previous レスポンス for the same entity or sub- ranges thereof, although it might not always be meaningful or correct to do so. This rule does not allow an 元のサーバ to use a 304 (Not Modified) or a 206 (Partial Content) レスポンス to entirely delete a header that it had provided with a previous レスポンス. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 94] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 13.5.4 Combining Byte Ranges A レスポンス might transfer only a subrange of the bytes of an entity- body, either because the リクエスト included one or more Range specifications, or because a connection was broken prematurely. After several such transfers, a cache might have received several ranges of the same entity-body. If a cache has a stored non-empty set of subranges for an entity, and an incoming レスポンス transfers another subrange, the cache MAY combine the new subrange with the existing set if both the following conditions are met: - Both the incoming レスポンス and the cache entry have a cache validator. - The two cache validators match using the strong comparison function (see section 13.3.3). If either requirement is not met, the cache MUST use only the most recent partial レスポンス (based on the Date values transmitted with every レスポンス, and using the incoming レスポンス if these values are equal or missing), and MUST discard the other partial information. 13.6 Caching Negotiated レスポンスs Use of server-driven content negotiation (section 12.1), as indicated by the presence of a Vary ヘッダ フィールド in a レスポンス, alters the conditions and procedure by which a cache can use the レスポンス for subsequent リクエストs. See section 14.44 for use of the Vary header field by servers. A server SHOULD use the Vary ヘッダ フィールド to inform a cache of what リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールドs were used to select among multiple representations of a cacheable レスポンス subject to server-driven negotiation. The set of ヘッダ フィールドs named by the Vary field value is known as the "selecting" リクエスト-headers. When the cache receives a subsequent リクエスト whose リクエスト-URI specifies one or more cache entries including a Vary ヘッダ フィールド, the cache MUST NOT use such a cache entry to construct a レスポンス to the new リクエスト unless all of the selecting リクエスト-headers present in the new リクエスト match the corresponding stored リクエスト-headers in the original リクエスト. The selecting リクエスト-headers from two リクエストs are defined to match if and only if the selecting リクエスト-headers in the first リクエスト can be transformed to the selecting リクエスト-headers in the second リクエスト Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 95] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 by adding or removing linear white space (LWS) at places where this is allowed by the corresponding BNF, and/or combining multiple message-ヘッダ フィールドs with the same field name following the rules about message headers in section 4.2. A Vary ヘッダ フィールド-value of "*" always fails to match and subsequent リクエストs on that resource can only be properly interpreted by the 元のサーバ. If the selecting リクエスト ヘッダ フィールドs for the cached entry do not match the selecting リクエスト ヘッダ フィールドs of the new リクエスト, then the cache MUST NOT use a cached entry to satisfy the リクエスト unless it first relays the new リクエスト to the 元のサーバ in a conditional リクエスト and the server responds with 304 (Not Modified), including an entity tag or Content-Location that indicates the entity to be used. If an entity tag was assigned to a cached representation, the forwarded リクエスト SHOULD be conditional and include the entity tags in an If-None-Match ヘッダ フィールド from all its cache entries for the resource. This conveys to the server the set of entities currently held by the cache, so that if any one of these entities matches the リクエストed entity, the server can use the ETag ヘッダ フィールド in its 304 (Not Modified) レスポンス to tell the cache which entry is appropriate. If the entity-tag of the new レスポンス matches that of an existing entry, the new レスポンス SHOULD be used to update the ヘッダ フィールドs of the existing entry, and the result MUST be returned to the client. If any of the existing cache entries contains only partial content for the associated entity, its entity-tag SHOULD NOT be included in the If-None-Match ヘッダ フィールド unless the リクエスト is for a range that would be fully satisfied by that entry. If a cache receives a successful レスポンス whose Content-Location field matches that of an existing cache entry for the same リクエスト- ]URI, whose entity-tag differs from that of the existing entry, and whose Date is more recent than that of the existing entry, the existing entry SHOULD NOT be returned in レスポンス to future リクエストs and SHOULD be deleted from the cache. 13.7 Shared and Non-Shared Caches For reasons of security and privacy, it is necessary to make a distinction between "shared" and "non-shared" caches. A non-shared cache is one that is accessible only to a single user. Accessibility in this case SHOULD be enforced by appropriate security mechanisms. All other caches are considered to be "shared." Other sections of Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 96] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 this specification place certain constraints on the operation of shared caches in order to prevent loss of privacy or failure of access controls. 13.8 Errors or Incomplete レスポンス Cache Behavior A cache that receives an incomplete レスポンス (for example, with fewer bytes of data than specified in a Content-Length header) MAY store the レスポンス. However, the cache MUST treat this as a partial レスポンス. Partial レスポンスs MAY be combined as described in section 13.5.4; the result might be a full レスポンス or might still be partial. A cache MUST NOT return a partial レスポンス to a client without explicitly marking it as such, using the 206 (Partial Content) ステータス コード. A cache MUST NOT return a partial レスポンス using a ステータス コード of 200 (OK). If a cache receives a 5xx レスポンス while attempting to revalidate an entry, it MAY either forward this レスポンス to the リクエストing client, or act as if the server failed to respond. In the latter case, it MAY return a previously received レスポンス unless the cached entry includes the "must-revalidate" cache-control directive (see section 14.9). 13.9 Side Effects of GET and HEAD Unless the 元のサーバ explicitly prohibits the caching of their レスポンスs, the アプリケーション of GET and HEAD methods to any resources SHOULD NOT have side effects that would lead to erroneous behavior if these レスポンスs are taken from a cache. They MAY still have side effects, but a cache is not required to consider such side effects in its caching decisions. Caches are always expected to observe an 元のサーバ's explicit restrictions on caching. We note one exception to this rule: since some アプリケーションs have traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a "?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side effects, caches MUST NOT treat レスポンスs to such URIs as fresh unless the server provides an explicit expiration time. This specifically means that レスポンスs from HTTP/1.0 servers for such URIs SHOULD NOT be taken from a cache. See section 9.1.1 for related information. 13.10 Invalidation After Updates or Deletions The effect of certain methods performed on a resource at the origin server might cause one or more existing cache entries to become non- transparently invalid. That is, although they might continue to be "fresh," they do not accurately reflect what the 元のサーバ would return for a new リクエスト on that resource. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 97] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 There is no way for the HTTPプロトコル to guarantee that all such cache entries are marked invalid. For example, the リクエスト that caused the change at the 元のサーバ might not have gone through the プロキシ(proxy) where a cache entry is stored. However, several rules help reduce the likelihood of erroneous behavior. In this section, the phrase "invalidate an entity" means that the cache will either remove all instances of that entity from its storage, or will mark these as "invalid" and in need of a mandatory revalidation before they can be returned in レスポンス to a subsequent リクエスト. Some HTTP methods MUST cause a cache to invalidate an entity. This is either the entity referred to by the リクエスト-URI, or by the Location or Content-Location headers (if present). These methods are: - PUT - DELETE - POST In order to prevent denial of service attacks, an invalidation based on the URI in a Location or Content-Location header MUST only be performed if the host part is the same as in the リクエスト-URI. A cache that passes through リクエストs for methods it does not understand SHOULD invalidate any entities referred to by the リクエスト-URI. 13.11 Write-Through Mandatory All methods that might be expected to cause modifications to the 元のサーバ's resources MUST be written through to the origin server. This currently includes all methods except for GET and HEAD. A cache MUST NOT reply to such a リクエスト from a client before having transmitted the リクエスト to the inbound server, and having received a corresponding レスポンス from the inbound server. This does not prevent a プロキシ(proxy) cache from sending a 100 (Continue) レスポンス before the inbound server has sent its final reply. The alternative (known as "write-back" or "copy-back" caching) is not allowed in HTTP/1.1, due to the difficulty of providing consistent updates and the problems arising from server, cache, or network failure prior to write-back. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 98] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 13.12 Cache Replacement If a new cacheable (see sections 14.9.2, 13.2.5, 13.2.6 and 13.8) レスポンス is received from a resource while any existing レスポンスs for the same resource are cached, the cache SHOULD use the new レスポンス to reply to the current リクエスト. It MAY insert it into cache storage and MAY, if it meets all other requirements, use it to respond to any future リクエストs that would previously have caused the old レスポンス to be returned. If it inserts the new レスポンス into cache storage the rules in section 13.5.3 apply. Note: a new レスポンス that has an older Date header value than existing cached レスポンスs is not cacheable. 13.13 History Lists User agents often have history mechanisms, such as "Back" buttons and history lists, which can be used to redisplay an entity retrieved earlier in a session. History mechanisms and caches are different. In particular history mechanisms SHOULD NOT try to show a semantically transparent view of the current state of a resource. Rather, a history mechanism is meant to show exactly what the user saw at the time when the resource was retrieved. By default, an expiration time does not apply to history mechanisms. If the entity is still in storage, a history mechanism SHOULD display it even if the entity has expired, unless the user has specifically configured the agent to refresh expired history documents. This is not to be construed to prohibit the history mechanism from telling the user that a view might be stale. Note: if history list mechanisms unnecessarily prevent users from viewing stale resources, this will tend to force service authors to avoid using HTTP expiration controls and cache controls when they would otherwise like to. Service authors may consider it important that users not be presented with error messages or warning messages when they use navigation controls (such as BACK) to view previously fetched resources. Even though sometimes such resources ought not to cached, or ought to expire quickly, user interface considerations may force service authors to resort to other means of preventing caching (e.g. "once-only" URLs) in order not to suffer the effects of improperly functioning history mechanisms. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 99] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 14 ヘッダ フィールド Definitions This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard HTTP/1.1 ヘッダ フィールドs. For entity-ヘッダ フィールドs, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who receives the entity. 14.1 Accept The Accept リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド can be used to specify certain media types which are acceptable for the レスポンス. Accept headers can be used to indicate that the リクエスト is specifically limited to a small set of desired types, as in the case of a リクエスト for an in-line image. Accept = "Accept" ":" #( media-range [ accept-params ] ) media-range = ( "*/*" | ( type "/" "*" ) | ( type "/" subtype ) ) *( ";" parameter ) accept-params = ";" "q" "=" qvalue *( accept-extension ) accept-extension = ";" token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ] The asterisk "*" character is used to group media types into ranges, with "*/*" indicating all media types and "type/*" indicating all subtypes of that type. The media-range MAY include media type parameters that are applicable to that range. Each media-range MAY be followed by one or more accept-params, beginning with the "q" parameter for indicating a relative quality factor. The first "q" parameter (if any) separates the media-range parameter(s) from the accept-params. Quality factors allow the user or user agent to indicate the relative degree of preference for that media-range, using the qvalue scale from 0 to 1 (section 3.9). The default value is q=1. Note: Use of the "q" parameter name to separate media type parameters from Accept extension parameters is due to historical practice. Although this prevents any media type parameter named "q" from being used with a media range, such an event is believed to be unlikely given the lack of any "q" parameters in the IANA media type registry and the rare usage of any media type parameters in Accept. Future media types are discouraged from registering any parameter named "q". Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 100] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The example Accept: audio/*; q=0.2, audio/basic SHOULD be interpreted as "I prefer audio/basic, but send me any audio type if it is the best available after an 80% mark-down in quality." If no Accept ヘッダ フィールド is present, then it is assumed that the client accepts all media types. If an Accept ヘッダ フィールド is present, and if the server cannot send a レスポンス which is acceptable according to the combined Accept field value, then the server SHOULD send a 406 (not acceptable) レスポンス. A more elaborate example is Accept: text/plain; q=0.5, text/html, text/x-dvi; q=0.8, text/x-c Verbally, this would be interpreted as "text/html and text/x-c are the preferred media types, but if they do not exist, then send the text/x-dvi entity, and if that does not exist, send the text/plain entity." Media ranges can be overridden by more specific media ranges or specific media types. If more than one media range applies to a given type, the most specific reference has precedence. For example, Accept: text/*, text/html, text/html;level=1, */* have the following precedence: 1) text/html;level=1 2) text/html 3) text/* 4) */* The media type quality factor associated with a given type is determined by finding the media range with the highest precedence which matches that type. For example, Accept: text/*;q=0.3, text/html;q=0.7, text/html;level=1, text/html;level=2;q=0.4, */*;q=0.5 would cause the following values to be associated: text/html;level=1 = 1 text/html = 0.7 text/plain = 0.3 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 101] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 image/jpeg = 0.5 text/html;level=2 = 0.4 text/html;level=3 = 0.7 Note: A user agent might be provided with a default set of quality values for certain media ranges. However, unless the user agent is a closed system which cannot interact with other rendering agents, this default set ought to be configurable by the user. 14.2 Accept-Charset The Accept-Charset リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド can be used to indicate what character sets are acceptable for the レスポンス. This field allows clients capable of understanding more comprehensive or special- purpose character sets to signal that capability to a server which is capable of representing documents in those character sets. Accept-Charset = "Accept-Charset" ":" 1#( ( charset | "*" )[ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] ) Character set values are described in section 3.4. Each charset MAY be given an associated quality value which represents the user's preference for that charset. The default value is q=1. An example is Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.8 The special value "*", if present in the Accept-Charset field, matches every character set (including ISO-8859-1) which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Accept-Charset field. If no "*" is present in an Accept-Charset field, then all character sets not explicitly mentioned get a quality value of 0, except for ISO-8859-1, which gets a quality value of 1 if not explicitly mentioned. If no Accept-Charset header is present, the default is that any character set is acceptable. If an Accept-Charset header is present, and if the server cannot send a レスポンス which is acceptable according to the Accept-Charset header, then the server SHOULD send an error レスポンス with the 406 (not acceptable) ステータス コード, though the sending of an unacceptable レスポンス is also allowed. 14.3 Accept-Encoding The Accept-Encoding リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド is similar to Accept, but restricts the content-codings (section 3.5) that are acceptable in the レスポンス. Accept-Encoding = "Accept-Encoding" ":" Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 102] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 1#( codings [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] ) codings = ( content-coding | "*" ) Examples of its use are: Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip Accept-Encoding: Accept-Encoding: * Accept-Encoding: compress;q=0.5, gzip;q=1.0 Accept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0 A server tests whether a content-coding is acceptable, according to an Accept-Encoding field, using these rules: 1. If the content-coding is one of the content-codings listed in the Accept-Encoding field, then it is acceptable, unless it is accompanied by a qvalue of 0. (As defined in section 3.9, a qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable.") 2. The special "*" symbol in an Accept-Encoding field matches any available content-coding not explicitly listed in the header field. 3. If multiple content-codings are acceptable, then the acceptable content-coding with the highest non-zero qvalue is preferred. 4. The "identity" content-coding is always acceptable, unless specifically refused because the Accept-Encoding field includes "identity;q=0", or because the field includes "*;q=0" and does not explicitly include the "identity" content-coding. If the Accept-Encoding field-value is empty, then only the "identity" encoding is acceptable. If an Accept-Encoding field is present in a リクエスト, and if the server cannot send a レスポンス which is acceptable according to the Accept-Encoding header, then the server SHOULD send an error レスポンス with the 406 (Not Acceptable) ステータス コード. If no Accept-Encoding field is present in a リクエスト, the server MAY assume that the client will accept any content coding. In this case, if "identity" is one of the available content-codings, then the server SHOULD use the "identity" content-coding, unless it has additional information that a different content-coding is meaningful to the client. Note: If the リクエスト does not include an Accept-Encoding field, and if the "identity" content-coding is unavailable, then content-codings commonly understood by HTTP/1.0 clients (i.e., Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 103] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 "gzip" and "compress") are preferred; some older clients improperly display messages sent with other content-codings. The server might also make this decision based on information about the particular user-agent or client. Note: Most HTTP/1.0 アプリケーションs do not recognize or obey qvalues associated with content-codings. This means that qvalues will not work and are not permitted with x-gzip or x-compress. 14.4 Accept-Language The Accept-Language リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド is similar to Accept, but restricts the set of natural languages that are preferred as a レスポンス to the リクエスト. Language tags are defined in section 3.10. Accept-Language = "Accept-Language" ":" 1#( language-range [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] ) language-range = ( ( 1*8ALPHA *( "-" 1*8ALPHA ) ) | "*" ) Each language-range MAY be given an associated quality value which represents an estimate of the user's preference for the languages specified by that range. The quality value defaults to "q=1". For example, Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7 would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and other types of English." A language-range matches a language-tag if it exactly equals the tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix of the tag such that the first tag character following the prefix is "-". The special range "*", if present in the Accept-Language field, matches every tag not matched by any other range present in the Accept-Language field. Note: This use of a prefix matching rule does not imply that language tags are assigned to languages in such a way that it is always true that if a user understands a language with a certain tag, then this user will also understand all languages with tags for which this tag is a prefix. The prefix rule simply allows the use of prefix tags if this is the case. The language quality factor assigned to a language-tag by the Accept-Language field is the quality value of the longest language- range in the field that matches the language-tag. If no language- range in the field matches the tag, the language quality factor assigned is 0. If no Accept-Language header is present in the リクエスト, the server Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 104] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 SHOULD assume that all languages are equally acceptable. If an Accept-Language header is present, then all languages which are assigned a quality factor greater than 0 are acceptable. It might be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send an Accept-Language header with the complete linguistic preferences of the user in every リクエスト. For a discussion of this issue, see section 15.1.4. As intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, it is recommended that client アプリケーションs make the choice of linguistic preference available to the user. If the choice is not made available, then the Accept-Language ヘッダ フィールド MUST NOT be given in the リクエスト. Note: When making the choice of linguistic preference available to the user, we remind 実装者 of the fact that users are not familiar with the details of language matching as described above, and should provide appropriate guidance. As an example, users might assume that on selecting "en-gb", they will be served any kind of English document if British English is not available. A user agent might suggest in such a case to add "en" to get the best matching behavior. 14.5 Accept-Ranges The Accept-Ranges レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド allows the server to indicate its acceptance of range リクエストs for a resource: Accept-Ranges = "Accept-Ranges" ":" acceptable-ranges acceptable-ranges = 1#range-unit | "none" 元のサーバs that accept byte-range リクエストs MAY send Accept-Ranges: bytes but are not required to do so. Clients MAY generate byte-range リクエストs without having received this header for the resource involved. Range units are defined in section 3.12. Servers that do not accept any kind of range リクエスト for a resource MAY send Accept-Ranges: none to advise the client not to attempt a range リクエスト. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 105] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 14.6 Age The Age レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド conveys the sender's estimate of the amount of time since the レスポンス (or its revalidation) was generated at the 元のサーバ. A cached レスポンス is "fresh" if its age does not exceed its freshness lifetime. Age values are calculated as specified in section 13.2.3. Age = "Age" ":" age-value age-value = delta-seconds Age values are non-negative decimal integers, representing time in seconds. If a cache receives a value larger than the largest positive integer it can represent, or if any of its age calculations overflows, it MUST transmit an Age header with a value of 2147483648 (2^31). An HTTP/1.1 server that includes a cache MUST include an Age ヘッダ フィールド in every レスポンス generated from its own cache. Caches SHOULD use an arithmetic type of at least 31 bits of range. 14.7 Allow The Allow entity-ヘッダ フィールド lists the set of methods supported by the resource identified by the リクエスト-URI. The purpose of this field is strictly to inform the recipient of valid methods associated with the resource. An Allow ヘッダ フィールド MUST be present in a 405 (Method Not Allowed) レスポンス. Allow = "Allow" ":" #Method Example of use: Allow: GET, HEAD, PUT This field cannot prevent a client from trying other methods. However, the indications given by the Allow ヘッダ フィールド value SHOULD be followed. The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the 元のサーバ at the time of each リクエスト. The Allow ヘッダ フィールド MAY be provided with a PUT リクエスト to recommend the methods to be supported by the new or modified resource. The server is not required to support these methods and SHOULD include an Allow header in the レスポンス giving the actual supported methods. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 106] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 A プロキシ(proxy) MUST NOT modify the Allow ヘッダ フィールド even if it does not understand all the methods specified, since the user agent might have other means of communicating with the 元のサーバ. 14.8 Authorization A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with a server-- usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 レスポンス--does so by including an Authorization リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド with the リクエスト. The Authorization field value consists of credentials containing the 認証 information of the user agent for the realm of the resource being リクエストed. Authorization = "Authorization" ":" credentials HTTP access 認証 is described in "HTTP 認証: Basic and Digest Access 認証" [43]. If a リクエスト is authenticated and a realm specified, the same credentials SHOULD be valid for all other リクエストs within this realm (assuming that the 認証 scheme itself does not require otherwise, such as credentials that vary according to a challenge value or using synchronized clocks). When a shared cache (see section 13.7) receives a リクエスト containing an Authorization field, it MUST NOT return the corresponding レスポンス as a reply to any other リクエスト, unless one of the following specific exceptions holds: 1. If the レスポンス includes the "s-maxage" cache-control directive, the cache MAY use that レスポンス in replying to a subsequent リクエスト. But (if the specified maximum age has passed) a プロキシ cache MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the リクエスト-headers from the new リクエスト to allow the 元のサーバ to authenticate the new リクエスト. (This is the defined behavior for s-maxage.) If the レスポンス includes "s- maxage=0", the プロキシ MUST always revalidate it before re-using it. 2. If the レスポンス includes the "must-revalidate" cache-control directive, the cache MAY use that レスポンス in replying to a subsequent リクエスト. But if the レスポンス is stale, all caches MUST first revalidate it with the 元のサーバ, using the リクエスト-headers from the new リクエスト to allow the 元のサーバ to authenticate the new リクエスト. 3. If the レスポンス includes the "public" cache-control directive, it MAY be returned in reply to any subsequent リクエスト. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 107] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 14.9 Cache-Control The Cache-Control general-ヘッダ フィールド is used to specify directives that MUST be obeyed by all caching mechanisms along the リクエスト/レスポンス chain. The directives specify behavior intended to prevent caches from adversely interfering with the リクエスト or レスポンス. These directives typically override the default caching algorithms. Cache directives are unidirectional in that the presence of a directive in a リクエスト does not imply that the same directive is to be given in the レスポンス. Note that HTTP/1.0 caches might not implement Cache-Control and might only implement Pragma: no-cache (see section 14.32). Cache directives MUST be passed through by a プロキシ or gateway アプリケーション, regardless of their significance to that アプリケーション, since the directives might be applicable to all recipients along the リクエスト/レスポンス chain. It is not possible to specify a cache- directive for a specific cache. Cache-Control = "Cache-Control" ":" 1#cache-directive cache-directive = cache-リクエスト-directive | cache-レスポンス-directive cache-リクエスト-directive = "no-cache" ; Section 14.9.1 | "no-store" ; Section 14.9.2 | "max-age" "=" delta-seconds ; Section 14.9.3, 14.9.4 | "max-stale" [ "=" delta-seconds ] ; Section 14.9.3 | "min-fresh" "=" delta-seconds ; Section 14.9.3 | "no-transform" ; Section 14.9.5 | "only-if-cached" ; Section 14.9.4 | cache-extension ; Section 14.9.6 cache-レスポンス-directive = "public" ; Section 14.9.1 | "private" [ "=" <"> 1#field-name <"> ] ; Section 14.9.1 | "no-cache" [ "=" <"> 1#field-name <"> ]; Section 14.9.1 | "no-store" ; Section 14.9.2 | "no-transform" ; Section 14.9.5 | "must-revalidate" ; Section 14.9.4 | "プロキシ(proxy)-revalidate" ; Section 14.9.4 | "max-age" "=" delta-seconds ; Section 14.9.3 | "s-maxage" "=" delta-seconds ; Section 14.9.3 | cache-extension ; Section 14.9.6 cache-extension = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ] Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 108] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 When a directive appears without any 1#field-name parameter, the directive applies to the entire リクエスト or レスポンス. When such a directive appears with a 1#field-name parameter, it applies only to the named field or fields, and not to the rest of the リクエスト or レスポンス. This mechanism supports extensibility; implementations of future versions of the HTTPプロトコル might apply these directives to ヘッダ フィールドs not defined in HTTP/1.1. The cache-control directives can be broken down into these general categories: - Restrictions on what are cacheable; these may only be imposed by the 元のサーバ. - Restrictions on what may be stored by a cache; these may be imposed by either the 元のサーバ or the user agent. - Modifications of the basic expiration mechanism; these may be imposed by either the 元のサーバ or the user agent. - Controls over cache revalidation and reload; these may only be imposed by a user agent. - Control over transformation of entities. - Extensions to the caching system. 14.9.1 What is Cacheable By default, a レスポンス is cacheable if the requirements of the リクエスト method, リクエスト ヘッダ フィールドs, and the レスポンス status indicate that it is cacheable. Section 13.4 summarizes these defaults for cacheability. The following Cache-Control レスポンス directives allow an 元のサーバ to override the default cacheability of a レスポンス: public Indicates that the レスポンス MAY be cached by any cache, even if it would normally be non-cacheable or cacheable only within a non- shared cache. (See also Authorization, section 14.8, for additional details.) private Indicates that all or part of the レスポンス message is intended for a single user and MUST NOT be cached by a shared cache. This allows an 元のサーバ to state that the specified parts of the Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 109] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 レスポンス are intended for only one user and are not a valid レスポンス for リクエストs by other users. A private (non-shared) cache MAY cache the レスポンス. Note: This usage of the word private only controls where the レスポンス may be cached, and cannot ensure the privacy of the message content. no-cache If the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the レスポンス to satisfy a subsequent リクエスト without successful revalidation with the 元のサーバ. This allows an 元のサーバ to prevent caching even by caches that have been configured to return stale レスポンスs to client リクエストs. If the no-cache directive does specify one or more field-names, then a cache MAY use the レスポンス to satisfy a subsequent リクエスト, subject to any other restrictions on caching. However, the specified field-name(s) MUST NOT be sent in the レスポンス to a subsequent リクエスト without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an 元のサーバ to prevent the re-use of certain ヘッダ フィールドs in a レスポンス, while still allowing caching of the rest of the レスポンス. Note: Most HTTP/1.0 caches will not recognize or obey this directive. 14.9.2 What May be Stored by Caches no-store The purpose of the no-store directive is to prevent the inadvertent release or retention of sensitive information (for example, on backup tapes). The no-store directive applies to the entire message, and MAY be sent either in a レスポンス or in a リクエスト. If sent in a リクエスト, a cache MUST NOT store any part of either this リクエスト or any レスポンス to it. If sent in a レスポンス, a cache MUST NOT store any part of either this レスポンス or the リクエスト that elicited it. This directive applies to both non- shared and shared caches. "MUST NOT store" in this context means that the cache MUST NOT intentionally store the information in non-volatile storage, and MUST make a best-effort attempt to remove the information from volatile storage as promptly as possible after forwarding it. Even when this directive is associated with a レスポンス, users might explicitly store such a レスポンス outside of the caching system (e.g., with a "Save As" dialog). History buffers MAY store such レスポンスs as part of their normal operation. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 110] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The purpose of this directive is to meet the stated requirements of certain users and service authors who are concerned about accidental releases of information via unanticipated accesses to cache data structures. While the use of this directive might improve privacy in some cases, we caution that it is NOT in any way a reliable or sufficient mechanism for ensuring privacy. In particular, malicious or compromised caches might not recognize or obey this directive, and コミュニケーションs networks might be vulnerable to eavesdropping. 14.9.3 Modifications of the Basic Expiration Mechanism The expiration time of an entity MAY be specified by the origin server using the Expires header (see section 14.21). Alternatively, it MAY be specified using the max-age directive in a レスポンス. When the max-age cache-control directive is present in a cached レスポンス, the レスポンス is stale if its current age is greater than the age value given (in seconds) at the time of a new リクエスト for that resource. The max-age directive on a レスポンス implies that the レスポンス is cacheable (i.e., "public") unless some other, more restrictive cache directive is also present. If a レスポンス includes both an Expires header and a max-age directive, the max-age directive overrides the Expires header, even if the Expires header is more restrictive. This rule allows an origin server to provide, for a given レスポンス, a longer expiration time to an HTTP/1.1 (or later) cache than to an HTTP/1.0 cache. This might be useful if certain HTTP/1.0 caches improperly calculate ages or expiration times, perhaps due to desynchronized clocks. Many HTTP/1.0 cache implementations will treat an Expires value that is less than or equal to the レスポンス Date value as being equivalent to the Cache-Control レスポンス directive "no-cache". If an HTTP/1.1 cache receives such a レスポンス, and the レスポンス does not include a Cache-Control ヘッダ フィールド, it SHOULD consider the レスポンス to be non-cacheable in order to retain compatibility with HTTP/1.0 servers. Note: An 元のサーバ might wish to use a relatively new HTTP cache control feature, such as the "private" directive, on a network including older caches that do not understand that feature. The 元のサーバ will need to combine the new feature with an Expires field whose value is less than or equal to the Date value. This will prevent older caches from improperly caching the レスポンス. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 111] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 s-maxage If a レスポンス includes an s-maxage directive, then for a shared cache (but not for a private cache), the maximum age specified by this directive overrides the maximum age specified by either the max-age directive or the Expires header. The s-maxage directive also implies the semantics of the プロキシ(proxy)-revalidate directive (see section 14.9.4), i.e., that the shared cache must not use the entry after it becomes stale to respond to a subsequent リクエスト without first revalidating it with the 元のサーバ. The s- maxage directive is always ignored by a private cache. Note that most older caches, not compliant with this specification, do not implement any cache-control directives. An 元のサーバ wishing to use a cache-control directive that restricts, but does not prevent, caching by an HTTP/1.1-compliant cache MAY exploit the requirement that the max-age directive overrides the Expires header, and the fact that pre-HTTP/1.1-compliant caches do not observe the max-age directive. Other directives allow a user agent to modify the basic expiration mechanism. These directives MAY be specified on a リクエスト: max-age Indicates that the client is willing to accept a レスポンス whose age is no greater than the specified time in seconds. Unless max- stale directive is also included, the client is not willing to accept a stale レスポンス. min-fresh Indicates that the client is willing to accept a レスポンス whose freshness lifetime is no less than its current age plus the specified time in seconds. That is, the client wants a レスポンス that will still be fresh for at least the specified number of seconds. max-stale Indicates that the client is willing to accept a レスポンス that has exceeded its expiration time. If max-stale is assigned a value, then the client is willing to accept a レスポンス that has exceeded its expiration time by no more than the specified number of seconds. If no value is assigned to max-stale, then the client is willing to accept a stale レスポンス of any age. If a cache returns a stale レスポンス, either because of a max-stale directive on a リクエスト, or because the cache is configured to override the expiration time of a レスポンス, the cache MUST attach a Warning header to the stale レスポンス, using Warning 110 (レスポンス is stale). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 112] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 A cache MAY be configured to return stale レスポンスs without validation, but only if this does not conflict with any "MUST"-level requirements concerning cache validation (e.g., a "must-revalidate" cache-control directive). If both the new リクエスト and the cached entry include "max-age" directives, then the lesser of the two values is used for determining the freshness of the cached entry for that リクエスト. 14.9.4 Cache Revalidation and Reload Controls Sometimes a user agent might want or need to insist that a cache revalidate its cache entry with the 元のサーバ (and not just with the next cache along the path to the 元のサーバ), or to reload its cache entry from the 元のサーバ. End-to-end revalidation might be necessary if either the cache or the 元のサーバ has overestimated the expiration time of the cached レスポンス. End-to-end reload may be necessary if the cache entry has become corrupted for some reason. End-to-end revalidation may be リクエストed either when the client does not have its own local cached copy, in which case we call it "unspecified end-to-end revalidation", or when the client does have a local cached copy, in which case we call it "specific end-to-end revalidation." The client can specify these three kinds of action using Cache- Control リクエスト directives: End-to-end reload The リクエスト includes a "no-cache" cache-control directive or, for compatibility with HTTP/1.0 clients, "Pragma: no-cache". Field names MUST NOT be included with the no-cache directive in a リクエスト. The server MUST NOT use a cached copy when responding to such a リクエスト. Specific end-to-end revalidation The リクエスト includes a "max-age=0" cache-control directive, which forces each cache along the path to the 元のサーバ to revalidate its own entry, if any, with the next cache or server. The initial リクエスト includes a cache-validating conditional with the client's current validator. Unspecified end-to-end revalidation The リクエスト includes "max-age=0" cache-control directive, which forces each cache along the path to the 元のサーバ to revalidate its own entry, if any, with the next cache or server. The initial リクエスト does not include a cache-validating Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 113] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 conditional; the first cache along the path (if any) that holds a cache entry for this resource includes a cache-validating conditional with its current validator. max-age When an intermediate cache is forced, by means of a max-age=0 directive, to revalidate its own cache entry, and the client has supplied its own validator in the リクエスト, the supplied validator might differ from the validator currently stored with the cache entry. In this case, the cache MAY use either validator in making its own リクエスト without affecting semantic transparency. However, the choice of validator might affect performance. The best approach is for the intermediate cache to use its own validator when making its リクエスト. If the server replies with 304 (Not Modified), then the cache can return its now validated copy to the client with a 200 (OK) レスポンス. If the server replies with a new entity and cache validator, however, the intermediate cache can compare the returned validator with the one provided in the client's リクエスト, using the strong comparison function. If the client's validator is equal to the 元のサーバ's, then the intermediate cache simply returns 304 (Not Modified). Otherwise, it returns the new entity with a 200 (OK) レスポンス. If a リクエスト includes the no-cache directive, it SHOULD NOT include min-fresh, max-stale, or max-age. only-if-cached In some cases, such as times of extremely poor network connectivity, a client may want a cache to return only those レスポンスs that it currently has stored, and not to reload or revalidate with the 元のサーバ. To do this, the client may include the only-if-cached directive in a リクエスト. If it receives this directive, a cache SHOULD either respond using a cached entry that is consistent with the other constraints of the リクエスト, or respond with a 504 (ゲートウェイ Timeout) status. However, if a group of caches is being operated as a unified system with good internal connectivity, such a リクエスト MAY be forwarded within that group of caches. must-revalidate Because a cache MAY be configured to ignore a server's specified expiration time, and because a client リクエスト MAY include a max- stale directive (which has a similar effect), the protocol also includes a mechanism for the 元のサーバ to require revalidation of a cache entry on any subsequent use. When the must-revalidate directive is present in a レスポンス received by a cache, that cache MUST NOT use the entry after it becomes stale to respond to a Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 114] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 subsequent リクエスト without first revalidating it with the origin server. (I.e., the cache MUST do an end-to-end revalidation every time, if, based solely on the 元のサーバ's Expires or max-age value, the cached レスポンス is stale.) The must-revalidate directive is necessary to support reliable operation for certain protocol features. In all circumstances an HTTP/1.1 cache MUST obey the must-revalidate directive; in particular, if the cache cannot reach the 元のサーバ for any reason, it MUST generate a 504 (ゲートウェイ Timeout) レスポンス. Servers SHOULD send the must-revalidate directive if and only if failure to revalidate a リクエスト on the entity could result in incorrect operation, such as a silently unexecuted financial transaction. Recipients MUST NOT take any automated action that violates this directive, and MUST NOT automatically provide an unvalidated copy of the entity if revalidation fails. Although this is not recommended, user agents operating under severe connectivity constraints MAY violate this directive but, if so, MUST explicitly warn the user that an unvalidated レスポンス has been provided. The warning MUST be provided on each unvalidated access, and SHOULD require explicit user confirmation. プロキシ(proxy)-revalidate The プロキシ(proxy)-revalidate directive has the same meaning as the must- revalidate directive, except that it does not apply to non-shared user agent caches. It can be used on a レスポンス to an authenticated リクエスト to permit the user's cache to store and later return the レスポンス without needing to revalidate it (since it has already been authenticated once by that user), while still requiring プロキシ that service many users to revalidate each time (in order to make sure that each user has been authenticated). Note that such authenticated レスポンスs also need the public cache control directive in order to allow them to be cached at all. 14.9.5 No-Transform Directive no-transform 実装者 of intermediate caches (プロキシ) have found it useful to convert the media type of certain entity bodies. A non- transparent プロキシ(proxy) might, for example, convert between image formats in order to save cache space or to reduce the amount of traffic on a slow link. Serious operational problems occur, however, when these transformations are applied to entity bodies intended for certain kinds of アプリケーションs. For example, アプリケーションs for medical Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 115] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 imaging, scientific data analysis and those using end-to-end 認証, all depend on receiving an entity body that is bit for bit identical to the original entity-body. Therefore, if a message includes the no-transform directive, an intermediate cache or プロキシ(proxy) MUST NOT change those headers that are listed in section 13.5.2 as being subject to the no-transform directive. This implies that the cache or プロキシ(proxy) MUST NOT change any aspect of the entity-body that is specified by these headers, including the value of the entity-body itself. 14.9.6 Cache Control Extensions The Cache-Control ヘッダ フィールド can be extended through the use of one or more cache-extension tokens, each with an optional assigned value. Informational extensions (those which do not require a change in cache behavior) MAY be added without changing the semantics of other directives. Behavioral extensions are designed to work by acting as modifiers to the existing base of cache directives. Both the new directive and the standard directive are supplied, such that アプリケーションs which do not understand the new directive will default to the behavior specified by the standard directive, and those that understand the new directive will recognize it as modifying the requirements associated with the standard directive. In this way, extensions to the cache-control directives can be made without requiring changes to the base protocol. This extension mechanism depends on an HTTP cache obeying all of the cache-control directives defined for its native HTTP-version, obeying certain extensions, and ignoring all directives that it does not understand. For example, consider a hypothetical new レスポンス directive called community which acts as a modifier to the private directive. We define this new directive to mean that, in addition to any non-shared cache, any cache which is shared only by members of the community named within its value may cache the レスポンス. An 元のサーバ wishing to allow the UCI community to use an otherwise private レスポンス in their shared cache(s) could do so by including Cache-Control: private, community="UCI" A cache seeing this ヘッダ フィールド will act correctly even if the cache does not understand the community cache-extension, since it will also see and understand the private directive and thus default to the safe behavior. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 116] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Unrecognized cache-directives MUST be ignored; it is assumed that any cache-directive likely to be unrecognized by an HTTP/1.1 cache will be combined with standard directives (or the レスポンス's default cacheability) such that the cache behavior will remain minimally correct even if the cache does not understand the extension(s). 14.10 Connection The Connection general-ヘッダ フィールド allows the sender to specify options that are desired for that particular connection and MUST NOT be communicated by プロキシ over further connections. The Connection header has the following grammar: Connection = "Connection" ":" 1#(connection-token) connection-token = token HTTP/1.1 プロキシ MUST parse the Connection ヘッダ フィールド before a message is forwarded and, for each connection-token in this field, remove any ヘッダ フィールド(s) from the message with the same name as the connection-token. Connection options are signaled by the presence of a connection-token in the Connection ヘッダ フィールド, not by any corresponding additional ヘッダ フィールド(s), since the additional header field may not be sent if there are no parameters associated with that connection option. Message headers listed in the Connection header MUST NOT include end-to-end headers, such as Cache-Control. HTTP/1.1 defines the "close" connection option for the sender to signal that the connection will be closed after completion of the レスポンス. For example, Connection: close in either the リクエスト or the レスポンス ヘッダ フィールドs indicates that the connection SHOULD NOT be considered `persistent' (section 8.1) after the current リクエスト/レスポンス is complete. HTTP/1.1 アプリケーションs that do not support persistent connections MUST include the "close" connection option in every message. A system receiving an HTTP/1.0 (or lower-version) message that includes a Connection header MUST, for each connection-token in this field, remove and ignore any ヘッダ フィールド(s) from the message with the same name as the connection-token. This protects against mistaken forwarding of such ヘッダ フィールドs by pre-HTTP/1.1 プロキシ. See section 19.6.2. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 117] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 14.11 Content-Encoding The Content-Encoding entity-ヘッダ フィールド is used as a modifier to the media-type. When present, its value indicates what additional content codings have been applied to the entity-body, and thus what decoding mechanisms must be applied in order to obtain the media-type referenced by the Content-Type ヘッダ フィールド. Content-Encoding is primarily used to allow a document to be compressed without losing the identity of its underlying media type. Content-Encoding = "Content-Encoding" ":" 1#content-coding Content codings are defined in section 3.5. An example of its use is Content-Encoding: gzip The content-coding is a characteristic of the entity identified by the リクエスト-URI. Typically, the entity-body is stored with this encoding and is only decoded before rendering or analogous usage. However, a non-transparent プロキシ(proxy) MAY modify the content-coding if the new coding is known to be acceptable to the recipient, unless the "no-transform" cache-control directive is present in the message. If the content-coding of an entity is not "identity", then the レスポンス MUST include a Content-Encoding entity-header (section 14.11) that lists the non-identity content-coding(s) used. If the content-coding of an entity in a リクエスト message is not acceptable to the 元のサーバ, the server SHOULD respond with a ステータス コード of 415 (Unsupported Media Type). If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied. Additional information about the encoding parameters MAY be provided by other entity-ヘッダ フィールドs not defined by this specification. 14.12 Content-Language The Content-Language entity-ヘッダ フィールド describes the natural language(s) of the intended audience for the enclosed entity. Note that this might not be equivalent to all the languages used within the entity-body. Content-Language = "Content-Language" ":" 1#language-tag Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 118] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Language tags are defined in section 3.10. The primary purpose of Content-Language is to allow a user to identify and differentiate entities according to the user's own preferred language. Thus, if the body content is intended only for a Danish-literate audience, the appropriate field is Content-Language: da If no Content-Language is specified, the default is that the content is intended for all language audiences. This might mean that the sender does not consider it to be specific to any natural language, or that the sender does not know for which language it is intended. Multiple languages MAY be listed for content that is intended for multiple audiences. For example, a rendition of the "Treaty of Waitangi," presented simultaneously in the original Maori and English versions, would call for Content-Language: mi, en However, just because multiple languages are present within an entity does not mean that it is intended for multiple linguistic audiences. An example would be a beginner's language primer, such as "A First Lesson in Latin," which is clearly intended to be used by an English-literate audience. In this case, the Content-Language would properly only include "en". Content-Language MAY be applied to any media type -- it is not limited to textual documents. 14.13 Content-Length The Content-Length entity-ヘッダ フィールド indicates the size of the entity-body, in decimal number of OCTETs, sent to the recipient or, in the case of the HEAD method, the size of the entity-body that would have been sent had the リクエスト been a GET. Content-Length = "Content-Length" ":" 1*DIGIT An example is Content-Length: 3495 アプリケーションs SHOULD use this field to indicate the transfer-length of the message-body, unless this is prohibited by the rules in section 4.4. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 119] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Any Content-Length greater than or equal to zero is a valid value. Section 4.4 describes how to determine the length of a message-body if a Content-Length is not given. Note that the meaning of this field is significantly different from the corresponding definition in MIME, where it is an optional field used within the "message/external-body" content-type. In HTTP, it SHOULD be sent whenever the message's length can be determined prior to being transferred, unless this is prohibited by the rules in section 4.4. 14.14 Content-Location The Content-Location entity-ヘッダ フィールド MAY be used to supply the resource location for the entity enclosed in the message when that entity is accessible from a location separate from the リクエストed resource's URI. A server SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the variant corresponding to the レスポンス entity; especially in the case where a resource has multiple entities associated with it, and those entities actually have separate locations by which they might be individually accessed, the server SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the particular variant which is returned. Content-Location = "Content-Location" ":" ( absoluteURI | relativeURI ) The value of Content-Location also defines the base URI for the entity. The Content-Location value is not a replacement for the original リクエストed URI; it is only a statement of the location of the resource corresponding to this particular entity at the time of the リクエスト. Future リクエストs MAY specify the Content-Location URI as the リクエスト- URI if the desire is to identify the source of that particular entity. A cache cannot assume that an entity with a Content-Location different from the URI used to retrieve it can be used to respond to later リクエストs on that Content-Location URI. However, the Content- Location can be used to differentiate between multiple entities retrieved from a single リクエストed resource, as described in section 13.6. If the Content-Location is a relative URI, the relative URI is interpreted relative to the リクエスト-URI. The meaning of the Content-Location header in PUT or POST リクエストs is undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those cases. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 120] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 14.15 Content-MD5 The Content-MD5 entity-ヘッダ フィールド, as defined in RFC 1864 [23], is an MD5 digest of the entity-body for the purpose of providing an end-to-end message integrity check (MIC) of the entity-body. (Note: a MIC is good for detecting accidental modification of the entity-body in transit, but is not proof against malicious attacks.) Content-MD5 = "Content-MD5" ":" md5-digest md5-digest = The Content-MD5 ヘッダ フィールド MAY be generated by an 元のサーバ or client to function as an integrity check of the entity-body. Only 元のサーバs or clients MAY generate the Content-MD5 ヘッダ フィールド; プロキシ and gateways MUST NOT generate it, as this would defeat its value as an end-to-end integrity check. Any recipient of the entity- body, including gateways and プロキシ, MAY check that the digest value in this ヘッダ フィールド matches that of the entity-body as received. The MD5 digest is computed based on the content of the entity-body, including any content-coding that has been applied, but not including any transfer-encoding applied to the message-body. If the message is received with a transfer-encoding, that encoding MUST be removed prior to checking the Content-MD5 value against the received entity. This has the result that the digest is computed on the octets of the entity-body exactly as, and in the order that, they would be sent if no transfer-encoding were being applied. HTTP extends RFC 1864 to permit the digest to be computed for MIME composite media-types (e.g., multipart/* and message/rfc822), but this does not change how the digest is computed as defined in the preceding paragraph. There are several consequences of this. The entity-body for composite types MAY contain many body-parts, each with its own MIME and HTTP headers (including Content-MD5, Content-Transfer-Encoding, and Content-Encoding headers). If a body-part has a Content-Transfer- Encoding or Content-Encoding header, it is assumed that the content of the body-part has had the encoding applied, and the body-part is included in the Content-MD5 digest as is -- i.e., after the アプリケーション. The Transfer-Encoding ヘッダ フィールド is not allowed within body-parts. Conversion of all line breaks to CRLF MUST NOT be done before computing or checking the digest: the line break convention used in the text actually transmitted MUST be left unaltered when computing the digest. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 121] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Note: while the definition of Content-MD5 is exactly the same for HTTP as in RFC 1864 for MIME entity-bodies, there are several ways in which the アプリケーション of Content-MD5 to HTTP entity-bodies differs from its アプリケーション to MIME entity-bodies. One is that HTTP, unlike MIME, does not use Content-Transfer-Encoding, and does use Transfer-Encoding and Content-Encoding. Another is that HTTP more frequently uses binary content types than MIME, so it is worth noting that, in such cases, the byte order used to compute the digest is the transmission byte order defined for the type. Lastly, HTTP allows transmission of text types with any of several line break conventions and not just the canonical form using CRLF. 14.16 Content-Range The Content-Range entity-header is sent with a partial entity-body to specify where in the full entity-body the partial body should be applied. Range units are defined in section 3.12. Content-Range = "Content-Range" ":" content-range-spec content-range-spec = byte-content-range-spec byte-content-range-spec = bytes-unit SP byte-range-resp-spec "/" ( instance-length | "*" ) byte-range-resp-spec = (first-byte-pos "-" last-byte-pos) | "*" instance-length = 1*DIGIT The header SHOULD indicate the total length of the full entity-body, unless this length is unknown or difficult to determine. The asterisk "*" character means that the instance-length is unknown at the time when the レスポンス was generated. Unlike byte-ranges-specifier values (see section 14.35.1), a byte- range-resp-spec MUST only specify one range, and MUST contain absolute byte positions for both the first and last byte of the range. A byte-content-range-spec with a byte-range-resp-spec whose last- byte-pos value is less than its first-byte-pos value, or whose instance-length value is less than or equal to its last-byte-pos value, is invalid. The recipient of an invalid byte-content-range- spec MUST ignore it and any content transferred along with it. A server sending a レスポンス with ステータス コード 416 (リクエストed range not satisfiable) SHOULD include a Content-Range field with a byte-range- resp-spec of "*". The instance-length specifies the current length of Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 122] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 the selected resource. A レスポンス with ステータス コード 206 (Partial Content) MUST NOT include a Content-Range field with a byte-range- resp-spec of "*". Examples of byte-content-range-spec values, assuming that the entity contains a total of 1234 bytes: . The first 500 bytes: bytes 0-499/1234 . The second 500 bytes: bytes 500-999/1234 . All except for the first 500 bytes: bytes 500-1233/1234 . The last 500 bytes: bytes 734-1233/1234 When an HTTP message includes the content of a single range (for example, a レスポンス to a リクエスト for a single range, or to a リクエスト for a set of ranges that overlap without any holes), this content is transmitted with a Content-Range header, and a Content-Length header showing the number of bytes actually transferred. For example, HTTP/1.1 206 Partial content Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT Content-Range: bytes 21010-47021/47022 Content-Length: 26012 Content-Type: image/gif When an HTTP message includes the content of multiple ranges (for example, a レスポンス to a リクエスト for multiple non-overlapping ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message. The multipart media type used for this purpose is "multipart/byteranges" as defined in appendix 19.2. See appendix 19.6.3 for a compatibility issue. A レスポンス to a リクエスト for a single range MUST NOT be sent using the multipart/byteranges media type. A レスポンス to a リクエスト for multiple ranges, whose result is a single range, MAY be sent as a multipart/byteranges media type with one part. A client that cannot decode a multipart/byteranges message MUST NOT ask for multiple byte-ranges in a single リクエスト. When a client リクエストs multiple byte-ranges in one リクエスト, the server SHOULD return them in the order that they appeared in the リクエスト. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 123] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If the server ignores a byte-range-spec because it is syntactically invalid, the server SHOULD treat the リクエスト as if the invalid Range ヘッダ フィールド did not exist. (Normally, this means return a 200 レスポンス containing the full entity). If the server receives a リクエスト (other than one including an If- Range リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド) with an unsatisfiable Range リクエスト- ヘッダ フィールド (that is, all of whose byte-range-spec values have a first-byte-pos value greater than the current length of the selected resource), it SHOULD return a レスポンス code of 416 (リクエストed range not satisfiable) (section 10.4.17). Note: clients cannot depend on servers to send a 416 (リクエストed range not satisfiable) レスポンス instead of a 200 (OK) レスポンス for an unsatisfiable Range リクエスト-header, since not all servers implement this リクエスト-header. 14.17 Content-Type The Content-Type entity-ヘッダ フィールド indicates the media type of the entity-body sent to the recipient or, in the case of the HEAD method, the media type that would have been sent had the リクエスト been a GET. Content-Type = "Content-Type" ":" media-type Media types are defined in section 3.7. An example of the field is Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4 Further discussion of methods for identifying the media type of an entity is provided in section 7.2.1. 14.18 Date The Date general-ヘッダ フィールド represents the date and time at which the message was originated, having the same semantics as orig-date in RFC 822. The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section 3.3.1; it MUST be sent in RFC 1123 [8]-date format. Date = "Date" ":" HTTP-date An example is Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:12:31 GMT 元のサーバs MUST include a Date ヘッダ フィールド in all レスポンスs, except in these cases: Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 124] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 1. If the レスポンス ステータス コード is 100 (Continue) or 101 (Switching Protocols), the レスポンス MAY include a Date ヘッダ フィールド, at the server's option. 2. If the レスポンス ステータス コード conveys a server error, e.g. 500 (Internal Server Error) or 503 (Service Unavailable), and it is inconvenient or impossible to generate a valid Date. 3. If the server does not have a clock that can provide a reasonable approximation of the current time, its レスポンスs MUST NOT include a Date ヘッダ フィールド. In this case, the rules in section 14.18.1 MUST be followed. A received message that does not have a Date ヘッダ フィールド MUST be assigned one by the recipient if the message will be cached by that recipient or gatewayed via a protocol which requires a Date. An HTTP implementation without a clock MUST NOT cache レスポンスs without revalidating them on every use. An HTTP cache, especially a shared cache, SHOULD use a mechanism, such as NTP [28], to synchronize its clock with a reliable external standard. Clients SHOULD only send a Date ヘッダ フィールド in messages that include an entity-body, as in the case of the PUT and POST リクエストs, and even then it is optional. A client without a clock MUST NOT send a Date ヘッダ フィールド in a リクエスト. The HTTP-date sent in a Date header SHOULD NOT represent a date and time subsequent to the generation of the message. It SHOULD represent the best available approximation of the date and time of message generation, unless the implementation has no means of generating a reasonably accurate date and time. In theory, the date ought to represent the moment just before the entity is generated. In practice, the date can be generated at any time during the message origination without affecting its semantic value. 14.18.1 Clockless 元のサーバ Operation Some 元のサーバ implementations might not have a clock available. An 元のサーバ without a clock MUST NOT assign Expires or Last- Modified values to a レスポンス, unless these values were associated with the resource by a system or user with a reliable clock. It MAY assign an Expires value that is known, at or before server configuration time, to be in the past (this allows "pre-expiration" of レスポンスs without storing separate Expires values for each resource). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 125] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 14.19 ETag The ETag レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド provides the current value of the entity tag for the リクエストed variant. The headers used with entity tags are described in sections 14.24, 14.26 and 14.44. The entity tag MAY be used for comparison with other entities from the same resource (see section 13.3.3). ETag = "ETag" ":" entity-tag Examples: ETag: "xyzzy" ETag: W/"xyzzy" ETag: "" 14.20 Expect The Expect リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド is used to indicate that particular server behaviors are required by the client. Expect = "Expect" ":" 1#expectation expectation = "100-continue" | expectation-extension expectation-extension = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) *expect-params ] expect-params = ";" token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ] A server that does not understand or is unable to comply with any of the expectation values in the Expect field of a リクエスト MUST respond with appropriate error status. The server MUST respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if any of the expectations cannot be met or, if there are other problems with the リクエスト, some other 4xx status. This ヘッダ フィールド is defined with extensible syntax to allow for future extensions. If a server receives a リクエスト containing an Expect field that includes an expectation-extension that it does not support, it MUST respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status. Comparison of expectation values is case-insensitive for unquoted tokens (including the 100-continue token), and is case-sensitive for quoted-string expectation-extensions. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 126] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The Expect mechanism is hop-by-hop: that is, an HTTP/1.1 プロキシ(proxy) MUST return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a リクエスト with an expectation that it cannot meet. However, the Expect リクエスト-header itself is end-to-end; it MUST be forwarded if the リクエスト is forwarded. Many older HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 アプリケーションs do not understand the Expect header. See section 8.2.3 for the use of the 100 (continue) status. 14.21 Expires The Expires entity-ヘッダ フィールド gives the date/time after which the レスポンス is considered stale. A stale cache entry may not normally be returned by a cache (either a プロキシ(proxy) cache or a user agent cache) unless it is first validated with the 元のサーバ (or with an intermediate cache that has a fresh copy of the entity). See section 13.2 for further discussion of the expiration model. The presence of an Expires field does not imply that the original resource will change or cease to exist at, before, or after that time. The format is an absolute date and time as defined by HTTP-date in section 3.3.1; it MUST be in RFC 1123 date format: Expires = "Expires" ":" HTTP-date An example of its use is Expires: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT Note: if a レスポンス includes a Cache-Control field with the max- age directive (see section 14.9.3), that directive overrides the Expires field. HTTP/1.1 clients and caches MUST treat other invalid date formats, especially including the value "0", as in the past (i.e., "already expired"). To mark a レスポンス as "already expired," an 元のサーバ sends an Expires date that is equal to the Date header value. (See the rules for expiration calculations in section 13.2.4.) Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 127] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 To mark a レスポンス as "never expires," an 元のサーバ sends an Expires date approximately one year from the time the レスポンス is sent. HTTP/1.1 servers SHOULD NOT send Expires dates more than one year in the future. The presence of an Expires ヘッダ フィールド with a date value of some time in the future on a レスポンス that otherwise would by default be non-cacheable indicates that the レスポンス is cacheable, unless indicated otherwise by a Cache-Control ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.9). 14.22 From The From リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド, if given, SHOULD contain an Internet e-mail address for the human user who controls the リクエストing user agent. The address SHOULD be machine-usable, as defined by "mailbox" in RFC 822 [9] as updated by RFC 1123 [8]: From = "From" ":" mailbox An example is: From: webmaster@w3.org This ヘッダ フィールド MAY be used for logging purposes and as a means for identifying the source of invalid or unwanted リクエストs. It SHOULD NOT be used as an insecure form of access protection. The interpretation of this field is that the リクエスト is being performed on behalf of the person given, who accepts responsibility for the method performed. In particular, robot agents SHOULD include this header so that the person responsible for running the robot can be contacted if problems occur on the receiving end. The Internet e-mail address in this field MAY be separate from the Internet host which issued the リクエスト. For example, when a リクエスト is passed through a プロキシ(proxy) the original issuer's address SHOULD be used. The client SHOULD NOT send the From ヘッダ フィールド without the user's approval, as it might conflict with the user's privacy interests or their site's security policy. It is strongly recommended that the user be able to disable, enable, and modify the value of this field at any time prior to a リクエスト. 14.23 Host The Host リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド specifies the Internet host and port number of the resource being リクエストed, as obtained from the original URI given by the user or referring resource (generally an HTTP URL, Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 128] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 as described in section 3.2.2). The Host field value MUST represent the naming authority of the 元のサーバ or ゲートウェイ given by the original URL. This allows the 元のサーバ or ゲートウェイ to differentiate between internally-ambiguous URLs, such as the root "/" URL of a server for multiple host names on a single IPアドレス. Host = "Host" ":" host [ ":" port ] ; Section 3.2.2 A "host" without any trailing port information implies the default port for the service リクエストed (e.g., "80" for an HTTP URL). For example, a リクエスト on the 元のサーバ for would properly include: GET /pub/WWW/ HTTP/1.1 Host: www.w3.org A client MUST include a Host ヘッダ フィールド in all HTTP/1.1 リクエスト messages . If the リクエストed URI does not include an Internet host name for the service being リクエストed, then the Host ヘッダ フィールド MUST be given with an empty value. An HTTP/1.1 プロキシ(proxy) MUST ensure that any リクエスト message it forwards does contain an appropriate Host header field that identifies the service being リクエストed by the プロキシ(proxy). All Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a 400 (Bad リクエスト) ステータス コード to any HTTP/1.1 リクエスト message which lacks a Host header field. See sections 5.2 and 19.6.1.1 for other requirements relating to Host. 14.24 If-Match The If-Match リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド is used with a method to make it conditional. A client that has one or more entities previously obtained from the resource can verify that one of those entities is current by including a list of their associated entity tags in the If-Match ヘッダ フィールド. Entity tags are defined in section 3.11. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. It is also used, on updating リクエストs, to prevent inadvertent modification of the wrong version of a resource. As a special case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource. If-Match = "If-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#entity-tag ) If any of the entity tags match the entity tag of the entity that would have been returned in the レスポンス to a similar GET リクエスト (without the If-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 129] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 and any current entity exists for that resource, then the server MAY perform the リクエストed method as if the If-Match ヘッダ フィールド did not exist. A server MUST use the strong comparison function (see section 13.3.3) to compare the entity tags in If-Match. If none of the entity tags match, or if "*" is given and no current entity exists, the server MUST NOT perform the リクエストed method, and MUST return a 412 (Precondition Failed) レスポンス. This behavior is most useful when the client wants to prevent an updating method, such as PUT, from modifying a resource that has changed since the client last retrieved it. If the リクエスト would, without the If-Match ヘッダ フィールド, result in anything other than a 2xx or 412 status, then the If-Match header MUST be ignored. The meaning of "If-Match: *" is that the method SHOULD be performed if the representation selected by the 元のサーバ (or by a cache, possibly using the Vary mechanism, see section 14.44) exists, and MUST NOT be performed if the representation does not exist. A リクエスト intended to update a resource (e.g., a PUT) MAY include an If-Match ヘッダ フィールド to signal that the リクエスト method MUST NOT be applied if the entity corresponding to the If-Match value (a single entity tag) is no longer a representation of that resource. This allows the user to indicate that they do not wish the リクエスト to be successful if the resource has been changed without their knowledge. Examples: If-Match: "xyzzy" If-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz" If-Match: * The result of a リクエスト having both an If-Match ヘッダ フィールド and either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since ヘッダ フィールドs is undefined by this specification. 14.25 If-Modified-Since The If-Modified-Since リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド is used with a method to make it conditional: if the リクエストed variant has not been modified since the time specified in this field, an entity will not be returned from the server; instead, a 304 (not modified) レスポンス will be returned without any message-body. If-Modified-Since = "If-Modified-Since" ":" HTTP-date Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 130] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 An example of the field is: If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header and no Range header リクエストs that the identified entity be transferred only if it has been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header. The algorithm for determining this includes the following cases: a) If the リクエスト would normally result in anything other than a 200 (OK) status, or if the passed If-Modified-Since date is invalid, the レスポンス is exactly the same as for a normal GET. A date which is later than the server's current time is invalid. b) If the variant has been modified since the If-Modified-Since date, the レスポンス is exactly the same as for a normal GET. c) If the variant has not been modified since a valid If- Modified-Since date, the server SHOULD return a 304 (Not Modified) レスポンス. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. Note: The Range リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド modifies the meaning of If- Modified-Since; see section 14.35 for full details. Note: If-Modified-Since times are interpreted by the server, whose clock might not be synchronized with the client. Note: When handling an If-Modified-Since ヘッダ フィールド, some servers will use an exact date comparison function, rather than a less-than function, for deciding whether to send a 304 (Not Modified) レスポンス. To get best results when sending an If- Modified-Since ヘッダ フィールド for cache validation, clients are advised to use the exact date string received in a previous Last- Modified ヘッダ フィールド whenever possible. Note: If a client uses an arbitrary date in the If-Modified-Since header instead of a date taken from the Last-Modified header for the same リクエスト, the client should be aware of the fact that this date is interpreted in the server's understanding of time. The client should consider unsynchronized clocks and rounding problems due to the different encodings of time between the client and server. This includes the possibility of race conditions if the document has changed between the time it was first リクエストed and the If-Modified-Since date of a subsequent リクエスト, and the Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 131] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 possibility of clock-skew-related problems if the If-Modified- Since date is derived from the client's clock without correction to the server's clock. Corrections for different time bases between client and server are at best approximate due to network latency. The result of a リクエスト having both an If-Modified-Since ヘッダ フィールド and either an If-Match or an If-Unmodified-Since ヘッダ フィールドs is undefined by this specification. 14.26 If-None-Match The If-None-Match リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド is used with a method to make it conditional. A client that has one or more entities previously obtained from the resource can verify that none of those entities is current by including a list of their associated entity tags in the If-None-Match ヘッダ フィールド. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. It is also used to prevent a method (e.g. PUT) from inadvertently modifying an existing resource when the client believes that the resource does not exist. As a special case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource. If-None-Match = "If-None-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#entity-tag ) If any of the entity tags match the entity tag of the entity that would have been returned in the レスポンス to a similar GET リクエスト (without the If-None-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource, then the server MUST NOT perform the リクエストed method, unless required to do so because the resource's modification date fails to match that supplied in an If-Modified-Since ヘッダ フィールド in the リクエスト. Instead, if the リクエスト method was GET or HEAD, the server SHOULD respond with a 304 (Not Modified) レスポンス, including the cache- related ヘッダ フィールドs (particularly ETag) of one of the entities that matched. For all other リクエスト methods, the server MUST respond with a status of 412 (Precondition Failed). See section 13.3.3 for rules on how to determine if two entities tags match. The weak comparison function can only be used with GET or HEAD リクエストs. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 132] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If none of the entity tags match, then the server MAY perform the リクエストed method as if the If-None-Match ヘッダ フィールド did not exist, but MUST also ignore any If-Modified-Since ヘッダ フィールド(s) in the リクエスト. That is, if no entity tags match, then the server MUST NOT return a 304 (Not Modified) レスポンス. If the リクエスト would, without the If-None-Match ヘッダ フィールド, result in anything other than a 2xx or 304 status, then the If-None-Match header MUST be ignored. (See section 13.3.4 for a discussion of server behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear in the same リクエスト.) The meaning of "If-None-Match: *" is that the method MUST NOT be performed if the representation selected by the 元のサーバ (or by a cache, possibly using the Vary mechanism, see section 14.44) exists, and SHOULD be performed if the representation does not exist. This feature is intended to be useful in preventing races between PUT operations. Examples: If-None-Match: "xyzzy" If-None-Match: W/"xyzzy" If-None-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz" If-None-Match: W/"xyzzy", W/"r2d2xxxx", W/"c3piozzzz" If-None-Match: * The result of a リクエスト having both an If-None-Match ヘッダ フィールド and either an If-Match or an If-Unmodified-Since ヘッダ フィールドs is undefined by this specification. 14.27 If-Range If a client has a partial copy of an entity in its cache, and wishes to have an up-to-date copy of the entire entity in its cache, it could use the Range リクエスト-header with a conditional GET (using either or both of If-Unmodified-Since and If-Match.) However, if the condition fails because the entity has been modified, the client would then have to make a second リクエスト to obtain the entire current entity-body. The If-Range header allows a client to "short-circuit" the second リクエスト. Informally, its meaning is `if the entity is unchanged, send me the part(s) that I am missing; otherwise, send me the entire new entity'. If-Range = "If-Range" ":" ( entity-tag | HTTP-date ) Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 133] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If the client has no entity tag for an entity, but does have a Last- Modified date, it MAY use that date in an If-Range header. (The server can distinguish between a valid HTTP-date and any form of entity-tag by examining no more than two characters.) The If-Range header SHOULD only be used together with a Range header, and MUST be ignored if the リクエスト does not include a Range header, or if the server does not support the sub-range operation. If the entity tag given in the If-Range header matches the current entity tag for the entity, then the server SHOULD provide the specified sub-range of the entity using a 206 (Partial content) レスポンス. If the entity tag does not match, then the server SHOULD return the entire entity using a 200 (OK) レスポンス. 14.28 If-Unmodified-Since The If-Unmodified-Since リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド is used with a method to make it conditional. If the リクエストed resource has not been modified since the time specified in this field, the server SHOULD perform the リクエストed operation as if the If-Unmodified-Since header were not present. If the リクエストed variant has been modified since the specified time, the server MUST NOT perform the リクエストed operation, and MUST return a 412 (Precondition Failed). If-Unmodified-Since = "If-Unmodified-Since" ":" HTTP-date An example of the field is: If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT If the リクエスト normally (i.e., without the If-Unmodified-Since header) would result in anything other than a 2xx or 412 status, the If-Unmodified-Since header SHOULD be ignored. If the specified date is invalid, the header is ignored. The result of a リクエスト having both an If-Unmodified-Since header field and either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since header fields is undefined by this specification. 14.29 Last-Modified The Last-Modified entity-ヘッダ フィールド indicates the date and time at which the 元のサーバ believes the variant was last modified. Last-Modified = "Last-Modified" ":" HTTP-date Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 134] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 An example of its use is Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT The exact meaning of this ヘッダ フィールド depends on the implementation of the 元のサーバ and the nature of the original resource. For files, it may be just the file system last-modified time. For entities with dynamically included parts, it may be the most recent of the set of last-modify times for its component parts. For database gateways, it may be the last-update time stamp of the record. For virtual objects, it may be the last time the internal state changed. An 元のサーバ MUST NOT send a Last-Modified date which is later than the server's time of message origination. In such cases, where the resource's last modification would indicate some time in the future, the server MUST replace that date with the message origination date. An 元のサーバ SHOULD obtain the Last-Modified value of the entity as close as possible to the time that it generates the Date value of its レスポンス. This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment of the entity's modification time, especially if the entity changes near the time that the レスポンス is generated. HTTP/1.1 servers SHOULD send Last-Modified whenever feasible. 14.30 Location The Location レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド is used to redirect the recipient to a location other than the リクエスト-URI for completion of the リクエスト or identification of a new resource. For 201 (Created) レスポンスs, the Location is that of the new resource which was created by the リクエスト. For 3xx レスポンスs, the location SHOULD indicate the server's preferred URI for automatic redirection to the resource. The field value consists of a single absolute URI. Location = "Location" ":" absoluteURI An example is: Location: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/People.html Note: The Content-Location ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.14) differs from Location in that the Content-Location identifies the original location of the entity enclosed in the リクエスト. It is therefore possible for a レスポンス to contain ヘッダ フィールドs for both Location and Content-Location. Also see section 13.10 for cache requirements of some methods. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 135] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 14.31 Max-Forwards The Max-Forwards リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド provides a mechanism with the TRACE (section 9.8) and OPTIONS (section 9.2) methods to limit the number of プロキシ or gateways that can forward the リクエスト to the next inbound server. This can be useful when the client is attempting to trace a リクエスト chain which appears to be failing or looping in mid-chain. Max-Forwards = "Max-Forwards" ":" 1*DIGIT The Max-Forwards value is a decimal integer indicating the remaining number of times this リクエスト message may be forwarded. Each プロキシ(proxy) or ゲートウェイ recipient of a TRACE or OPTIONS リクエスト containing a Max-Forwards ヘッダ フィールド MUST check and update its value prior to forwarding the リクエスト. If the received value is zero (0), the recipient MUST NOT forward the リクエスト; instead, it MUST respond as the final recipient. If the received Max-Forwards value is greater than zero, then the forwarded message MUST contain an updated Max-Forwards field with a value decremented by one (1). The Max-Forwards ヘッダ フィールド MAY be ignored for all other methods defined by this specification and for any extension methods for which it is not explicitly referred to as part of that method definition. 14.32 Pragma The Pragma general-ヘッダ フィールド is used to include implementation- specific directives that might apply to any recipient along the リクエスト/レスポンス chain. All pragma directives specify optional behavior from the viewpoint of the protocol; however, some systems MAY require that behavior be consistent with the directives. Pragma = "Pragma" ":" 1#pragma-directive pragma-directive = "no-cache" | extension-pragma extension-pragma = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ] When the no-cache directive is present in a リクエスト message, an アプリケーション SHOULD forward the リクエスト toward the 元のサーバ even if it has a cached copy of what is being リクエストed. This pragma directive has the same semantics as the no-cache cache-directive (see section 14.9) and is defined here for backward compatibility with HTTP/1.0. Clients SHOULD include both ヘッダ フィールドs when a no-cache リクエスト is sent to a server not known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 136] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Pragma directives MUST be passed through by a プロキシ(proxy) or gateway アプリケーション, regardless of their significance to that アプリケーション, since the directives might be applicable to all recipients along the リクエスト/レスポンス chain. It is not possible to specify a pragma for a specific recipient; however, any pragma directive not relevant to a recipient SHOULD be ignored by that recipient. HTTP/1.1 caches SHOULD treat "Pragma: no-cache" as if the client had sent "Cache-Control: no-cache". No new Pragma directives will be defined in HTTP. Note: because the meaning of "Pragma: no-cache as a レスポンス ヘッダ フィールド is not actually specified, it does not provide a reliable replacement for "Cache-Control: no-cache" in a レスポンス 14.33 プロキシ(proxy)-Authenticate The プロキシ(proxy)-Authenticate レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド MUST be included as part of a 407 (プロキシ(proxy) 認証 Required) レスポンス. The field value consists of a challenge that indicates the 認証 scheme and parameters applicable to the プロキシ(proxy) for this リクエスト-URI. プロキシ(proxy)-Authenticate = "プロキシ(proxy)-Authenticate" ":" 1#challenge The HTTP access 認証 process is described in "HTTP 認証: Basic and Digest Access 認証" [43]. Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the プロキシ(proxy)-Authenticate ヘッダ フィールド applies only to the current connection and SHOULD NOT be passed on to downstream clients. However, an intermediate プロキシ(proxy) might need to obtain its own credentials by リクエストing them from the downstream client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the プロキシ(proxy) is forwarding the プロキシ(proxy)-Authenticate ヘッダ フィールド. 14.34 プロキシ(proxy)-Authorization The プロキシ(proxy)-Authorization リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド allows the client to identify itself (or its user) to a プロキシ(proxy) which requires 認証. The プロキシ(proxy)-Authorization field value consists of credentials containing the 認証 information of the user agent for the プロキシ(proxy) and/or realm of the resource being リクエストed. プロキシ(proxy)-Authorization = "プロキシ(proxy)-Authorization" ":" credentials The HTTP access 認証 process is described in "HTTP 認証: Basic and Digest Access 認証" [43] . Unlike Authorization, the プロキシ(proxy)-Authorization ヘッダ フィールド applies only to the next outbound プロキシ(proxy) that demanded 認証 using the プロキシ(proxy)- Authenticate field. When multiple プロキシ are used in a chain, the Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 137] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 プロキシ(proxy)-Authorization ヘッダ フィールド is consumed by the first outbound プロキシ(proxy) that was expecting to receive credentials. A プロキシ(proxy) MAY relay the credentials from the client リクエスト to the next プロキシ(proxy) if that is the mechanism by which the プロキシ cooperatively authenticate a given リクエスト. 14.35 Range 14.35.1 Byte Ranges Since all HTTP entities are represented in HTTP messages as sequences of bytes, the concept of a byte range is meaningful for any HTTP entity. (However, not all clients and servers need to support byte- range operations.) Byte range specifications in HTTP apply to the sequence of bytes in the entity-body (not necessarily the same as the message-body). A byte range operation MAY specify a single range of bytes, or a set of ranges within a single entity. ranges-specifier = byte-ranges-specifier byte-ranges-specifier = bytes-unit "=" byte-range-set byte-range-set = 1#( byte-range-spec | suffix-byte-range-spec ) byte-range-spec = first-byte-pos "-" [last-byte-pos] first-byte-pos = 1*DIGIT last-byte-pos = 1*DIGIT The first-byte-pos value in a byte-range-spec gives the byte-offset of the first byte in a range. The last-byte-pos value gives the byte-offset of the last byte in the range; that is, the byte positions specified are inclusive. Byte offsets start at zero. If the last-byte-pos value is present, it MUST be greater than or equal to the first-byte-pos in that byte-range-spec, or the byte- range-spec is syntactically invalid. The recipient of a byte-range- set that includes one or more syntactically invalid byte-range-spec values MUST ignore the ヘッダ フィールド that includes that byte-range- set. If the last-byte-pos value is absent, or if the value is greater than or equal to the current length of the entity-body, last-byte-pos is taken to be equal to one less than the current length of the entity- body in bytes. By its choice of last-byte-pos, a client can limit the number of bytes retrieved without knowing the size of the entity. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 138] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 suffix-byte-range-spec = "-" suffix-length suffix-length = 1*DIGIT A suffix-byte-range-spec is used to specify the suffix of the entity-body, of a length given by the suffix-length value. (That is, this form specifies the last N bytes of an entity-body.) If the entity is shorter than the specified suffix-length, the entire entity-body is used. If a syntactically valid byte-range-set includes at least one byte- range-spec whose first-byte-pos is less than the current length of the entity-body, or at least one suffix-byte-range-spec with a non- zero suffix-length, then the byte-range-set is satisfiable. Otherwise, the byte-range-set is unsatisfiable. If the byte-range-set is unsatisfiable, the server SHOULD return a レスポンス with a status of 416 (リクエストed range not satisfiable). Otherwise, the server SHOULD return a レスポンス with a status of 206 (Partial Content) containing the satisfiable ranges of the entity-body. Examples of byte-ranges-specifier values (assuming an entity-body of length 10000): - The first 500 bytes (byte offsets 0-499, inclusive): bytes=0- 499 - The second 500 bytes (byte offsets 500-999, inclusive): bytes=500-999 - The final 500 bytes (byte offsets 9500-9999, inclusive): bytes=-500 - Or bytes=9500- - The first and last bytes only (bytes 0 and 9999): bytes=0-0,-1 - Several legal but not canonical specifications of the second 500 bytes (byte offsets 500-999, inclusive): bytes=500-600,601-999 bytes=500-700,601-999 14.35.2 Range Retrieval リクエストs HTTP retrieval リクエストs using conditional or unconditional GET methods MAY リクエスト one or more sub-ranges of the entity, instead of the entire entity, using the Range リクエスト header, which applies to the entity returned as the result of the リクエスト: Range = "Range" ":" ranges-specifier Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 139] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 A server MAY ignore the Range header. However, HTTP/1.1 origin servers and intermediate caches ought to support byte ranges when possible, since Range supports efficient recovery from partially failed transfers, and supports efficient partial retrieval of large entities. If the server supports the Range header and the specified range or ranges are appropriate for the entity: - The presence of a Range header in an unconditional GET modifies what is returned if the GET is otherwise successful. In other words, the レスポンス carries a ステータス コード of 206 (Partial Content) instead of 200 (OK). - The presence of a Range header in a conditional GET (a リクエスト using one or both of If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match, or one or both of If-Unmodified-Since and If-Match) modifies what is returned if the GET is otherwise successful and the condition is true. It does not affect the 304 (Not Modified) レスポンス returned if the conditional is false. In some cases, it might be more appropriate to use the If-Range header (see section 14.27) in addition to the Range header. If a プロキシ(proxy) that supports ranges receives a Range リクエスト, forwards the リクエスト to an inbound server, and receives an entire entity in reply, it SHOULD only return the リクエストed range to its client. It SHOULD store the entire received レスポンス in its cache if that is consistent with its cache allocation policies. 14.36 Referer The Referer[sic] リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド allows the client to specify, for the server's benefit, the address (URI) of the resource from which the リクエスト-URI was obtained (the "referrer", although the ヘッダ フィールド is misspelled.) The Referer リクエスト-header allows a server to generate lists of back-links to resources for interest, logging, optimized caching, etc. It also allows obsolete or mistyped links to be traced for maintenance. The Referer field MUST NOT be sent if the リクエスト-URI was obtained from a source that does not have its own URI, such as input from the user keyboard. Referer = "Referer" ":" ( absoluteURI | relativeURI ) Example: Referer: http://www.w3.org/hypertext/DataSources/Overview.html Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 140] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If the field value is a relative URI, it SHOULD be interpreted relative to the リクエスト-URI. The URI MUST NOT include a fragment. See section 15.1.3 for security considerations. 14.37 Retry-After The Retry-After レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド can be used with a 503 (Service Unavailable) レスポンス to indicate how long the service is expected to be unavailable to the リクエストing client. This field MAY also be used with any 3xx (Redirection) レスポンス to indicate the minimum time the user-agent is asked wait before issuing the redirected リクエスト. The value of this field can be either an HTTP-date or an integer number of seconds (in decimal) after the time of the レスポンス. Retry-After = "Retry-After" ":" ( HTTP-date | delta-seconds ) Two examples of its use are Retry-After: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 23:59:59 GMT Retry-After: 120 In the latter example, the delay is 2 minutes. 14.38 Server The Server レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド contains information about the software used by the 元のサーバ to handle the リクエスト. The field can contain multiple product tokens (section 3.8) and comments identifying the server and any significant subproducts. The product tokens are listed in order of their significance for identifying the アプリケーション. Server = "Server" ":" 1*( product | comment ) Example: Server: CERN/3.0 libwww/2.17 If the レスポンス is being forwarded through a プロキシ(proxy), the プロキシ(proxy) アプリケーション MUST NOT modify the Server レスポンス-header. Instead, it SHOULD include a Via field (as described in section 14.45). Note: Revealing the specific software version of the server might allow the server machine to become more vulnerable to attacks against software that is known to contain security holes. Server 実装者 are encouraged to make this field a configurable option. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 141] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 14.39 TE The TE リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド indicates what extension transfer-codings it is willing to accept in the レスポンス and whether or not it is willing to accept trailer fields in a chunked transfer-coding. Its value may consist of the keyword "trailers" and/or a comma-separated list of extension transfer-coding names with optional accept parameters (as described in section 3.6). TE = "TE" ":" #( t-codings ) t-codings = "trailers" | ( transfer-extension [ accept-params ] ) The presence of the keyword "trailers" indicates that the client is willing to accept trailer fields in a chunked transfer-coding, as defined in section 3.6.1. This keyword is reserved for use with transfer-coding values even though it does not itself represent a transfer-coding. Examples of its use are: TE: deflate TE: TE: trailers, deflate;q=0.5 The TE ヘッダ フィールド only applies to the immediate connection. Therefore, the keyword MUST be supplied within a Connection header field (section 14.10) whenever TE is present in an HTTP/1.1 message. A server tests whether a transfer-coding is acceptable, according to a TE field, using these rules: 1. The "chunked" transfer-coding is always acceptable. If the keyword "trailers" is listed, the client indicates that it is willing to accept trailer fields in the chunked レスポンス on behalf of itself and any downstream clients. The implication is that, if given, the client is stating that either all downstream clients are willing to accept trailer fields in the forwarded レスポンス, or that it will attempt to buffer the レスポンス on behalf of downstream recipients. Note: HTTP/1.1 does not define any means to limit the size of a chunked レスポンス such that a client can be assured of buffering the entire レスポンス. 2. If the transfer-coding being tested is one of the transfer- codings listed in the TE field, then it is acceptable unless it is accompanied by a qvalue of 0. (As defined in section 3.9, a qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable.") Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 142] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 3. If multiple transfer-codings are acceptable, then the acceptable transfer-coding with the highest non-zero qvalue is preferred. The "chunked" transfer-coding always has a qvalue of 1. If the TE field-value is empty or if no TE field is present, the only transfer-coding is "chunked". A message with no transfer-coding is always acceptable. 14.40 Trailer The Trailer general field value indicates that the given set of ヘッダ フィールドs is present in the trailer of a message encoded with chunked transfer-coding. Trailer = "Trailer" ":" 1#field-name An HTTP/1.1 message SHOULD include a Trailer ヘッダ フィールド in a message using chunked transfer-coding with a non-empty trailer. Doing so allows the recipient to know which ヘッダ フィールドs to expect in the trailer. If no Trailer ヘッダ フィールド is present, the trailer SHOULD NOT include any ヘッダ フィールドs. See section 3.6.1 for restrictions on the use of trailer fields in a "chunked" transfer-coding. Message ヘッダ フィールドs listed in the Trailer ヘッダ フィールド MUST NOT include the following ヘッダ フィールドs: . Transfer-Encoding . Content-Length . Trailer 14.41 Transfer-Encoding The Transfer-Encoding general-ヘッダ フィールド indicates what (if any) type of transformation has been applied to the message body in order to safely transfer it between the sender and the recipient. This differs from the content-coding in that the transfer-coding is a property of the message, not of the entity. Transfer-Encoding = "Transfer-Encoding" ":" 1#transfer-coding Transfer-codings are defined in section 3.6. An example is: Transfer-Encoding: chunked Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 143] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the transfer- codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied. Additional information about the encoding parameters MAY be provided by other entity-ヘッダ フィールドs not defined by this specification. Many older HTTP/1.0 アプリケーションs do not understand the Transfer- Encoding header. 14.42 Upgrade The Upgrade general-header allows the client to specify what additional コミュニケーション protocols it supports and would like to use if the server finds it appropriate to switch protocols. The server MUST use the Upgrade ヘッダ フィールド within a 101 (Switching Protocols) レスポンス to indicate which protocol(s) are being switched. Upgrade = "Upgrade" ":" 1#product For example, Upgrade: HTTP/2.0, SHTTP/1.3, IRC/6.9, RTA/x11 The Upgrade ヘッダ フィールド is intended to provide a simple mechanism for transition from HTTP/1.1 to some other, incompatible protocol. It does so by allowing the client to advertise its desire to use another protocol, such as a later version of HTTP with a higher major version number, even though the current リクエスト has been made using HTTP/1.1. This eases the difficult transition between incompatible protocols by allowing the client to initiate a リクエスト in the more commonly supported protocol while indicating to the server that it would like to use a "better" protocol if available (where "better" is determined by the server, possibly according to the nature of the method and/or resource being リクエストed). The Upgrade ヘッダ フィールド only applies to switching アプリケーション層 protocols upon the existing transport-layer connection. Upgrade cannot be used to insist on a protocol change; its acceptance and use by the server is optional. The capabilities and nature of the アプリケーション層 コミュニケーション after the protocol change is entirely dependent upon the new protocol chosen, although the first action after changing the protocol MUST be a レスポンス to the initial HTTP リクエスト containing the Upgrade ヘッダ フィールド. The Upgrade ヘッダ フィールド only applies to the immediate connection. Therefore, the upgrade keyword MUST be supplied within a Connection ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.10) whenever Upgrade is present in an HTTP/1.1 message. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 144] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The Upgrade ヘッダ フィールド cannot be used to indicate a switch to a protocol on a different connection. For that purpose, it is more appropriate to use a 301, 302, 303, or 305 redirection レスポンス. This specification only defines the protocol name "HTTP" for use by the family of Hypertext Transfer Protocols, as defined by the HTTP version rules of section 3.1 and future updates to this specification. Any token can be used as a protocol name; however, it will only be useful if both the client and server associate the name with the same protocol. 14.43 User-Agent The User-Agent リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド contains information about the user agent originating the リクエスト. This is for statistical purposes, the tracing of protocol violations, and automated recognition of user agents for the sake of tailoring レスポンスs to avoid particular user agent limitations. User agents SHOULD include this field with リクエストs. The field can contain multiple product tokens (section 3.8) and comments identifying the agent and any subproducts which form a significant part of the user agent. By convention, the product tokens are listed in order of their significance for identifying the アプリケーション. User-Agent = "User-Agent" ":" 1*( product | comment ) Example: User-Agent: CERN-LineMode/2.15 libwww/2.17b3 14.44 Vary The Vary field value indicates the set of リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールドs that fully determines, while the レスポンス is fresh, whether a cache is permitted to use the レスポンス to reply to a subsequent リクエスト without revalidation. For uncacheable or stale レスポンスs, the Vary field value advises the user agent about the criteria that were used to select the representation. A Vary field value of "*" implies that a cache cannot determine from the リクエスト headers of a subsequent リクエスト whether this レスポンス is the appropriate representation. See section 13.6 for use of the Vary ヘッダ フィールド by caches. Vary = "Vary" ":" ( "*" | 1#field-name ) An HTTP/1.1 server SHOULD include a Vary ヘッダ フィールド with any cacheable レスポンス that is subject to server-driven negotiation. Doing so allows a cache to properly interpret future リクエストs on that resource and informs the user agent about the presence of negotiation Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 145] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 on that resource. A server MAY include a Vary ヘッダ フィールド with a non-cacheable レスポンス that is subject to server-driven negotiation, since this might provide the user agent with useful information about the dimensions over which the レスポンス varies at the time of the レスポンス. A Vary field value consisting of a list of field-names signals that the representation selected for the レスポンス is based on a selection algorithm which considers ONLY the listed リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールド values in selecting the most appropriate representation. A cache MAY assume that the same selection will be made for future リクエストs with the same values for the listed field names, for the duration of time for which the レスポンス is fresh. The field-names given are not limited to the set of standard リクエスト-ヘッダ フィールドs defined by this specification. Field names are case-insensitive. A Vary field value of "*" signals that unspecified parameters not limited to the リクエスト-headers (e.g., the network address of the client), play a role in the selection of the レスポンス representation. The "*" value MUST NOT be generated by a プロキシ(proxy) server; it may only be generated by an 元のサーバ. 14.45 Via The Via general-ヘッダ フィールド MUST be used by ゲートウェイとプロキシ to indicate the intermediate protocols and recipients between the user agent and the server on リクエストs, and between the 元のサーバ and the client on レスポンスs. It is analogous to the "Received" field of RFC 822 [9] and is intended to be used for tracking message forwards, avoiding リクエスト loops, and identifying the protocol capabilities of all senders along the リクエスト/レスポンス chain. Via = "Via" ":" 1#( received-protocol received-by [ comment ] ) received-protocol = [ protocol-name "/" ] protocol-version protocol-name = token protocol-version = token received-by = ( host [ ":" port ] ) | pseudonym pseudonym = token The received-protocol indicates the protocol version of the message received by the server or client along each segment of the リクエスト/レスポンス chain. The received-protocol version is appended to the Via field value when the message is forwarded so that information about the protocol capabilities of upstream アプリケーションs remains visible to all recipients. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 146] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The プロトコル名 is optional if and only if it would be "HTTP". The received-by field is normally the host and optional port number of a recipient server or client that subsequently forwarded the message. However, if the real host is considered to be sensitive information, it MAY be replaced by a pseudonym. If the port is not given, it MAY be assumed to be the default port of the received-protocol. Multiple Via field values represents each プロキシ(proxy) or ゲートウェイ that has forwarded the message. Each recipient MUST append its information such that the end result is ordered according to the sequence of forwarding アプリケーションs. Comments MAY be used in the Via ヘッダ フィールド to identify the software of the recipient プロキシ(proxy) or gateway, analogous to the User-Agent and Server ヘッダ フィールドs. However, all comments in the Via field are optional and MAY be removed by any recipient prior to forwarding the message. For example, a リクエスト message could be sent from an HTTP/1.0 user agent to an internal プロキシ(proxy) code-named "fred", which uses HTTP/1.1 to forward the リクエスト to a public プロキシ(proxy) at nowhere.com, which completes the リクエスト by forwarding it to the 元のサーバ at www.ics.uci.edu. The リクエスト received by www.ics.uci.edu would then have the following Via ヘッダ フィールド: Via: 1.0 fred, 1.1 nowhere.com (Apache/1.1) プロキシ and gateways used as a portal through a network firewall SHOULD NOT, by default, forward the names and ports of hosts within the firewall region. This information SHOULD only be propagated if explicitly enabled. If not enabled, the received-by host of any host behind the firewall SHOULD be replaced by an appropriate pseudonym for that host. For organizations that have strong privacy requirements for hiding internal structures, a プロキシ(proxy) MAY combine an ordered subsequence of Via ヘッダ フィールド entries with identical received-protocol values into a single such entry. For example, Via: 1.0 ricky, 1.1 ethel, 1.1 fred, 1.0 lucy could be collapsed to Via: 1.0 ricky, 1.1 mertz, 1.0 lucy Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 147] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 アプリケーションs SHOULD NOT combine multiple entries unless they are all under the same organizational control and the hosts have already been replaced by pseudonyms. アプリケーションs MUST NOT combine entries which have different received-protocol values. 14.46 Warning The Warning general-ヘッダ フィールド is used to carry additional information about the status or transformation of a message which might not be reflected in the message. This information is typically used to warn about a possible lack of semantic transparency from caching operations or transformations applied to the entity body of the message. Warning headers are sent with レスポンスs using: Warning = "Warning" ":" 1#warning-value warning-value = warn-code SP warn-agent SP warn-text [SP warn-date] warn-code = 3DIGIT warn-agent = ( host [ ":" port ] ) | pseudonym ; the name or pseudonym of the server adding ; the Warning header, for use in debugging warn-text = quoted-string warn-date = <"> HTTP-date <"> A レスポンス MAY carry more than one Warning header. The warn-text SHOULD be in a natural language and character set that is most likely to be intelligible to the human user receiving the レスポンス. This decision MAY be based on any available knowledge, such as the location of the cache or user, the Accept-Language field in a リクエスト, the Content-Language field in a レスポンス, etc. The default language is English and the default character set is ISO-8859-1. If a character set other than ISO-8859-1 is used, it MUST be encoded in the warn-text using the method described in RFC 2047 [14]. Warning headers can in general be applied to any message, however some specific warn-codes are specific to caches and can only be applied to レスポンス messages. New Warning headers SHOULD be added after any existing Warning headers. A cache MUST NOT delete any Warning header that it received with a message. However, if a cache successfully validates a cache entry, it SHOULD remove any Warning headers previously attached to that entry except as specified for Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 148] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 specific Warning codes. It MUST then add any Warning headers received in the validating レスポンス. In other words, Warning headers are those that would be attached to the most recent relevant レスポンス. When multiple Warning headers are attached to a レスポンス, the user agent ought to inform the user of as many of them as possible, in the order that they appear in the レスポンス. If it is not possible to inform the user of all of the warnings, the user agent SHOULD follow these heuristics: - Warnings that appear early in the レスポンス take priority over those appearing later in the レスポンス. - Warnings in the user's preferred character set take priority over warnings in other character sets but with identical warn- codes and warn-agents. Systems that generate multiple Warning headers SHOULD order them with this user agent behavior in mind. Requirements for the behavior of caches with respect to Warnings are stated in section 13.1.2. This is a list of the currently-defined warn-codes, each with a recommended warn-text in English, and a description of its meaning. 110 レスポンス is stale MUST be included whenever the returned レスポンス is stale. 111 Revalidation failed MUST be included if a cache returns a stale レスポンス because an attempt to revalidate the レスポンス failed, due to an inability to reach the server. 112 Disconnected operation SHOULD be included if the cache is intentionally disconnected from the rest of the network for a period of time. 113 Heuristic expiration MUST be included if the cache heuristically chose a freshness lifetime greater than 24 hours and the レスポンス's age is greater than 24 hours. 199 Miscellaneous warning The warning text MAY include arbitrary information to be presented to a human user, or logged. A system receiving this warning MUST NOT take any automated action, besides presenting the warning to the user. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 149] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 214 Transformation applied MUST be added by an intermediate キャッシュ or プロキシ if it applies any transformation changing the content-coding (as specified in the Content-Encoding header) or media-type (as specified in the Content-Type header) of the レスポンス, or the entity-body of the レスポンス, unless this Warning code already appears in the レスポンス. 299 Miscellaneous persistent warning The warning text MAY include arbitrary information to be presented to a human user, or logged. A system receiving this warning MUST NOT take any automated action. If an implementation sends a message with one or more Warning headers whose version is HTTP/1.0 or lower, then the sender MUST include in each warning-value a warn-date that matches the date in the レスポンス. If an implementation receives a message with a warning-value that includes a warn-date, and that warn-date is different from the Date value in the レスポンス, then that warning-value MUST be deleted from the message before storing, forwarding, or using it. (This prevents bad consequences of naive caching of Warning ヘッダ フィールドs.) If all of the warning-values are deleted for this reason, the Warning header MUST be deleted as well. 14.47 WWW-Authenticate The WWW-Authenticate レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド MUST be included in 401 (Unauthorized) レスポンス messages. The field value consists of at least one challenge that indicates the 認証 scheme(s) and parameters applicable to the リクエスト-URI. WWW-Authenticate = "WWW-Authenticate" ":" 1#challenge The HTTP access 認証プロセス is described in "HTTP 認証: Basic and Digest Access 認証" [43]. User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW- Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge, or if more than one WWW-Authenticate ヘッダ フィールド is provided, the contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of 認証 parameters. 15 セキュリティの考慮すべきこと This section is meant to inform アプリケーション開発者, 情報供給者, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as described by this document. The discussion does not include definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make some suggestions for reducing security risks. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 150] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 15.1 個人情報 HTTP クライアントは、often privy to large amounts of personal information (e.g. the user's name, location, mail address, passwords, encryption keys, etc.), and SHOULD be very careful to prevent unintentional leakage of this information via the HTTPプロトコル to other sources. We very strongly recommend that a convenient interface be provided for the user to control dissemination of such information, and that designers and 実装者 be particularly careful in this area. History shows that errors in this area often create serious security and/or privacy problems and generate highly adverse publicity for the implementor's company. 15.1.1 Abuse of Server Log Information A server is in the position to save personal data about a user's リクエストs which might identify their reading patterns or subjects of interest. This information is clearly confidential in nature and its handling can be constrained by law in certain countries. People using the HTTPプロトコル to provide data are responsible for ensuring that such material is not distributed without the permission of any individuals that are identifiable by the published results. 15.1.2 Transfer of Sensitive Information Like any generic data transfer protocol, HTTP cannot regulate the content of the data that is transferred, nor is there any a priori method of determining the sensitivity of any particular piece of information within the context of any given リクエスト. Therefore, アプリケーションs SHOULD supply as much control over this information as possible to the provider of that information. Four ヘッダ フィールドs are worth special mention in this context: Server, Via, Referer and From. Revealing the specific software version of the server might allow the server machine to become more vulnerable to attacks against software that is known to contain security holes. 実装者 SHOULD make the Server ヘッダ フィールド a configurable option. プロキシ which serve as a portal through a network firewall SHOULD take special precautions regarding the transfer of header information that identifies the hosts behind the firewall. In particular, they SHOULD remove, or replace with sanitized versions, any Via fields generated behind the firewall. The Referer header allows reading patterns to be studied and reverse links drawn. Although it can be very useful, its power can be abused if user details are not separated from the information contained in Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 151] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 the Referer. Even when the personal information has been removed, the Referer header might indicate a private document's URI whose publication would be inappropriate. The information sent in the From field might conflict with the user's privacy interests or their site's security policy, and hence it SHOULD NOT be transmitted without the user being able to disable, enable, and modify the contents of the field. The user MUST be able to set the contents of this field within a user preference or アプリケーション defaults configuration. We suggest, though do not require, that a convenient toggle interface be provided for the user to enable or disable the sending of From and Referer information. The User-Agent (section 14.43) or Server (section 14.38) header fields can sometimes be used to determine that a specific client or server have a particular security hole which might be exploited. Unfortunately, this same information is often used for other valuable purposes for which HTTP currently has no better mechanism. 15.1.3 Encoding Sensitive Information in URI's Because the source of a link might be private information or might reveal an otherwise private information source, it is strongly recommended that the user be able to select whether or not the Referer field is sent. For example, a browser client could have a toggle switch for browsing openly/anonymously, which would respectively enable/disable the sending of Referer and From information. Clients SHOULD NOT include a Referer ヘッダ フィールド in a (non-secure) HTTPリクエスト if the referring page was transferred with a secure protocol. Authors of services which use the HTTPプロトコル SHOULD NOT use GET based forms for the submission of sensitive data, because this will cause this data to be encoded in the リクエスト-URI. Many existing servers, プロキシ, and user agents will log the リクエスト URI in some place where it might be visible to third parties. Servers can use POST-based form submission instead 15.1.4 Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers Accept リクエスト-headers can reveal information about the user to all servers which are accessed. The Accept-Language header in particular can reveal information the user would consider to be of a private nature, because the understanding of particular languages is often Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 152] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 strongly correlated to the membership of a particular ethnic group. User agents which offer the option to configure the contents of an Accept-Language header to be sent in every リクエスト are strongly encouraged to let the configuration process include a message which makes the user aware of the loss of privacy involved. An approach that limits the loss of privacy would be for a user agent to omit the sending of Accept-Language headers by default, and to ask the user whether or not to start sending Accept-Language headers to a server if it detects, by looking for any Vary レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールドs generated by the server, that such sending could improve the quality of service. Elaborate user-customized accept ヘッダ フィールドs sent in every リクエスト, in particular if these include quality values, can be used by servers as relatively reliable and long-lived user identifiers. Such user identifiers would allow content providers to do click-trail tracking, and would allow collaborating content providers to match cross-server click-trails or form submissions of individual users. Note that for many users not behind a プロキシ(proxy), the network address of the host running the user agent will also serve as a long-lived user identifier. In environments where プロキシ are used to enhance privacy, user agents ought to be conservative in offering accept header configuration options to end users. As an extreme privacy measure, プロキシ could filter the accept headers in relayed リクエストs. General purpose user agents which provide a high degree of header configurability SHOULD warn users about the loss of privacy which can be involved. 15.2 Attacks Based On File and Path Names Implementations of HTTP 元のサーバs SHOULD be careful to restrict the documents returned by HTTPリクエストs to be only those that were intended by the server administrators. If an HTTP server translates HTTP URIs directly into file system calls, the server MUST take special care not to serve files that were not intended to be delivered to HTTP clients. For example, UNIX, Microsoft Windows, and other operating systems use ".." as a path component to indicate a directory level above the current one. On such a system, an HTTP server MUST disallow any such construct in the リクエスト-URI if it would otherwise allow access to a resource outside those intended to be accessible via the HTTP server. Similarly, files intended for reference only internally to the server (such as access control files, configuration files, and script code) MUST be protected from inappropriate retrieval, since they might contain sensitive information. Experience has shown that minor bugs in such HTTP server implementations have turned into security risks. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 153] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 15.3 DNS Spoofing Clients using HTTP rely heavily on the Domain Name Service, and are thus generally prone to security attacks based on the deliberate mis-association of IPアドレスes and DNS names. Clients need to be cautious in assuming the continuing validity of an IP number/DNS name association. In particular, HTTP clients SHOULD rely on their name resolver for confirmation of an IP number/DNS name association, rather than caching the result of previous host name lookups. Many platforms already can cache host name lookups locally when appropriate, and they SHOULD be configured to do so. It is proper for these lookups to be cached, however, only when the TTL (Time To Live) information reported by the name server makes it likely that the cached information will remain useful. If HTTP clients cache the results of host name lookups in order to achieve a performance improvement, they MUST observe the TTL information reported by DNS. If HTTP clients do not observe this rule, they could be spoofed when a previously-accessed server's IPアドレス changes. As network renumbering is expected to become increasingly common [24], the possibility of this form of attack will grow. Observing this requirement thus reduces this potential security vulnerability. This requirement also improves the load-balancing behavior of clients for replicated servers using the same DNS name and reduces the likelihood of a user's experiencing failure in accessing sites which use that strategy. 15.4 Location Headers and Spoofing If a single server supports multiple organizations that do not trust one another, then it MUST check the values of Location and Content- Location headers in レスポンスs that are generated under control of said organizations to make sure that they do not attempt to invalidate resources over which they have no authority. 15.5 Content-Disposition Issues RFC 1806 [35], from which the often implemented Content-Disposition (see section 19.5.1) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very serious security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for 実装者. See RFC 2183 [49] (which updates RFC 1806) for details. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 154] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 15.6 認証 Credentials and Idle Clients Existing HTTP クライアント and user agents typically retain 認証 information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1. does not provide a method for a server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP. Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the アプリケーション's security model include but are not limited to: - Clients which have been idle for an extended period following which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the user for credentials. - アプリケーションs which include a session termination indication (such as a `logout' or `commit' button on a page) after which the server side of the アプリケーション `knows' that there is no further reason for the client to retain the credentials. This is currently under separate study. There are a number of work- arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this problem. In particular, user agents which cache credentials are encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding cached credentials under user control. 15.7 プロキシ and Caching By their very nature, HTTP プロキシ are men-in-the-middle, and represent an opportunity for man-in-the-middle attacks. Compromise of the systems on which the プロキシ run can result in serious security and privacy problems. プロキシ have access to security-related information, personal information about individual users and organizations, and proprietary information belonging to users and content providers. A compromised プロキシ, or a プロキシ implemented or configured without regard to security and privacy considerations, might be used in the commission of a wide range of potential attacks. プロキシ operators should protect the systems on which プロキシ run as they would protect any system that contains or transports sensitive information. In particular, log information gathered at プロキシ often contains highly sensitive personal information, and/or information about organizations. Log information should be carefully guarded, and appropriate guidelines for use developed and followed. (Section 15.1.1). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 155] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Caching プロキシ provide additional potential vulnerabilities, since the contents of the cache represent an attractive target for malicious exploitation. Because cache contents persist after an HTTP リクエスト is complete, an attack on the cache can reveal information long after a user believes that the information has been removed from the network. Therefore, cache contents should be protected as sensitive information. プロキシ 実装者 should consider the privacy and security implications of their design and coding decisions, and of the configuration options they provide to プロキシ(proxy) operators (especially the default configuration). Users of a プロキシ need to be aware that they are no trustworthier than the people who run the プロキシ; HTTP itself cannot solve this problem. The judicious use of cryptography, when appropriate, may suffice to protect against a broad range of security and privacy attacks. Such cryptography is beyond the scope of the HTTP/1.1 specification. 15.7.1 Denial of Service Attacks on プロキシ They exist. They are hard to defend against. Research continues. Beware. 16 謝辞(Acknowledgments) この仕様書 makes heavy use of the augmented BNF and generic constructs defined by David H. Crocker for RFC 822 [9]. Similarly, it reuses many of the definitions provided by Nathaniel Borenstein and Ned Freed for MIME [7]. We hope that their inclusion in this specification will help reduce past confusion over the relationship between HTTP and Internet mail message formats. The HTTPプロトコル has evolved considerably over the years. It has benefited from a large and active developer community--the many people who have participated on the www-talk mailing list--and it is that community which has been most responsible for the success of HTTP and of the World-Wide Web in general. Marc Andreessen, Robert Cailliau, Daniel W. Connolly, Bob Denny, John Franks, Jean-Francois Groff, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Hakon W. Lie, Ari Luotonen, Rob McCool, Lou Montulli, Dave Raggett, Tony Sanders, and Marc VanHeyningen deserve special recognition for their efforts in defining early aspects of the protocol. This document has benefited greatly from the comments of all those participating in the HTTP-WG. In addition to those already mentioned, the following individuals have contributed to this specification: Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 156] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Gary Adams Ross Patterson Harald Tveit Alvestrand Albert Lunde Keith Ball John C. Mallery Brian Behlendorf Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin Paul Burchard Mitra Maurizio Codogno David Morris Mike Cowlishaw Gavin Nicol Roman Czyborra Bill Perry Michael A. Dolan Jeffrey Perry David J. Fiander Scott Powers Alan Freier Owen Rees Marc Hedlund Luigi Rizzo Greg Herlihy David Robinson Koen Holtman Marc Salomon Alex Hopmann Rich Salz Bob Jernigan Allan M. Schiffman Shel Kaphan Jim Seidman Rohit Khare Chuck Shotton John Klensin Eric W. Sink Martijn Koster Simon E. Spero Alexei Kosut Richard N. Taylor David M. Kristol Robert S. Thau Daniel LaLiberte Bill (BearHeart) Weinman Ben Laurie Francois Yergeau Paul J. Leach Mary Ellen Zurko Daniel DuBois Josh Cohen Much of the content and presentation of the caching design is due to suggestions and comments from individuals including: Shel Kaphan, Paul Leach, Koen Holtman, David Morris, and Larry Masinter. Most of the specification of ranges is based on work originally done by Ari Luotonen and John Franks, with additional input from Steve Zilles. Thanks to the "cave men" of Palo Alto. You know who you are. Jim Gettys (the current editor of this document) wishes particularly to thank Roy Fielding, the previous editor of this document, along with John Klensin, Jeff Mogul, Paul Leach, Dave Kristol, Koen Holtman, John Franks, Josh Cohen, Alex Hopmann, Scott Lawrence, and Larry Masinter for their help. And thanks go particularly to Jeff Mogul and Scott Lawrence for performing the "MUST/MAY/SHOULD" audit. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 157] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 The Apache グループ, Anselm Baird-Smith, author of Jigsaw, and Henrik Frystyk implemented RFC 2068 early, and we wish to thank them for the discovery of many of the problems that this document attempts to rectify. 17 References [1] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC 1766, 1995年3月. [2] Anklesaria, F., McCahill, M., Lindner, P., Johnson, D., Torrey, D. and B. Alberti, "The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)", RFC 1436, March 1993. [3] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW", RFC 1630, 1994年6月. [4] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994. [5] Berners-Lee, T. and D. Connolly, "Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0", RFC 1866, November 1995. [6] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and H. Frystyk, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, 1996年5月. [7] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, 1996年11月. [8] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- コミュニケーション Layers", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. [9] Crocker, D., "Standard for The Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982. [10] Davis, F., Kahle, B., Morris, H., Salem, J., Shen, T., Wang, R., Sui, J., and M. Grinbaum, "WAIS Interface Protocol Prototype Functional Specification," (v1.5), Thinking Machines Corporation, April 1990. [11] Fielding, R., "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 1808, June 1995. [12] Horton, M. and R. Adams, "Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages", RFC 1036, December 1987. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 158] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 [13] Kantor, B. and P. Lapsley, "Network News Transfer Protocol", RFC 977, February 1986. [14] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996. [15] Nebel, E. and L. Masinter, "Form-based File Upload in HTML", RFC 1867, November 1995. [16] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, August 1982. [17] Postel, J., "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590, November 1996. [18] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985. [19] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700, October 1994. [20] Sollins, K. and L. Masinter, "Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994. [21] US-ASCII. Coded Character Set - 7-Bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange. Standard ANSI X3.4-1986, ANSI, 1986. [22] ISO-8859. 国際標準 -- 情報処理 -- 8-bit Single-Byte Coded Graphic Character Sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1, ISO-8859-1:1987. Part 2: Latin alphabet No. 2, ISO-8859-2, 1987. Part 3: Latin alphabet No. 3, ISO-8859-3, 1988. Part 4: Latin alphabet No. 4, ISO-8859-4, 1988. Part 5: Latin/Cyrillic alphabet, ISO-8859-5, 1988. Part 6: Latin/Arabic alphabet, ISO-8859-6, 1987. Part 7: Latin/Greek alphabet, ISO-8859-7, 1987. Part 8: Latin/Hebrew alphabet, ISO-8859-8, 1988. Part 9: Latin alphabet No. 5, ISO-8859-9, 1990. [23] Meyers, J. and M. Rose, "The Content-MD5 ヘッダ フィールド", RFC 1864, October 1995. [24] Carpenter, B. and Y. Rekhter, "Renumbering Needs Work", RFC 1900, February 1996. [25] Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3", RFC 1952, May 1996. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 159] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 [26] Venkata N. Padmanabhan, and Jeffrey C. Mogul. "Improving HTTP Latency", Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, v. 28, pp. 25-35, Dec. 1995. Slightly revised version of paper in Proc. 2nd International WWW Conference '94: Mosaic and the Web, Oct. 1994, which is available at http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/DDay/mogul/HTTPLat ency.html. [27] Joe Touch, John Heidemann, and Katia Obraczka. "Analysis of HTTP Performance", , ISI Research Report ISI/RR-98-463, (original report dated Aug. 1996), USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1998. [28] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation and Analysis", RFC 1305, March 1992. [29] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996. [30] S. Spero, "Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems," http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdma-release/http-prob.html. [31] Deutsch, P. and J. Gailly, "ZLIB 圧縮データ・フォーマット 仕様書 version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996. [32] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., Sink, E. and L. Stewart, "An Extension to HTTP: Digest Access 認証", RFC 2069, January 1997. [33] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2068, January 1997. [34] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [35] Troost, R. and Dorner, S., "Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header", RFC 1806, June 1995. [36] Mogul, J., Fielding, R., Gettys, J. and H. Frystyk, "Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers", RFC 2145, May 1997. [jg639] [37] Palme, J., "Common Internet Message Headers", RFC 2076, February 1997. [jg640] Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 160] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 [38] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, UnicodeとISO-10646の変形フォーマット", RFC 2279, 1998年1月. [jg641] [39] Nielsen, H.F., Gettys, J., Baird-Smith, A., Prud'hommeaux, E., Lie, H., and C. Lilley. "Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG," Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '97, Cannes France, 1997年9月.[jg642] [40] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996. [jg643] [41] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998. [jg644] [42] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics", RFC 2396, August 1998. [jg645] [43] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., Sink, E. and L. Stewart, "HTTP 認証: Basic and Digest Access 認証", RFC 2617, 1999年6月. [jg646] [44] Luotonen, A., "Tunneling TCP based protocols through Web プロキシ(proxy) servers," Work in Progress. [jg647] [45] Palme, J. and A. Hopmann, "MIME E-mail Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", RFC 2110, March 1997. [46] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [47] Masinter, L., "ハイパーテキスト コーヒーポット制御プロトコル (HTCPCP/1.0)", RFC 2324, 1998年4月1日. [48] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996. [49] Troost, R., Dorner, S. and K. Moore, "Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 161] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 18 Authors' Addresses Roy T. Fielding カリフォルニア情報 and コンピュータ科学大学 , Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3425, USA Fax: +1 (949) 824-1715 EMail: fielding@ics.uci.edu James Gettys World Wide Web コンソーシアム MIT Laboratory for Computer Science 545 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Fax: +1 (617) 258 8682 EMail: jg@w3.org Jeffrey C. Mogul Western Research Laboratory Compaqコンピュータ株式会社 250 University Avenue Palo Alto, California, 94305, USA EMail: mogul@wrl.dec.com Henrik Frystyk Nielsen World Wide Web コンソーシアム MIT Laboratory for Computer Science 545 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Fax: +1 (617) 258 8682 EMail: frystyk@w3.org Larry Masinter ゼロックス株式会社 3333 Coyote Hill Road Palo Alto, CA 94034, USA EMail: masinter@parc.xerox.com Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 162] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Paul J. Leach マイクロソフト株式会社 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052, USA EMail: paulle@microsoft.com Tim Berners-Lee World Wide Web コンソーシアム, ディレクター MIT Laboratory for Computer Science 545 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Fax: +1 (617) 258 8682 EMail: timbl@w3.org Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 163] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 19 付録 19.1 インターネット・メディア・タイプ message/http and application/http In addition to defining the HTTP/1.1 protocol, this document serves as the specification for the Internet media type "message/http" and "アプリケーション/http". The message/http type can be used to enclose a single HTTPリクエスト or レスポンス message, provided that it obeys the MIME restrictions for all "message" types regarding line length and encodings. The アプリケーション/http type can be used to enclose a pipeline of one or more HTTPリクエスト or レスポンス messages (not intermixed). The following is to be registered with IANA [17]. Media Type name: message Media subtype name: http Required parameters: none Optional parameters: version, msgtype version: The HTTP-Version number of the enclosed message (e.g., "1.1"). If not present, the version can be determined from the first line of the body. msgtype: The message type -- "リクエスト" or "レスポンス". If not present, the type can be determined from the first line of the body. Encoding considerations: only "7bit", "8bit", or "binary" are permitted Security considerations: none Media Type name: アプリケーション Media subtype name: http Required parameters: none Optional parameters: version, msgtype version: The HTTP-Version number of the enclosed messages (e.g., "1.1"). If not present, the version can be determined from the first line of the body. msgtype: The message type -- "リクエスト" or "レスポンス". If not present, the type can be determined from the first line of the body. Encoding considerations: HTTP messages enclosed by this type are in "binary" format; use of an appropriate Content-Transfer-Encoding is required when transmitted via E-mail. Security considerations: none Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 164] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 19.2 Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges When an HTTP 206 (Partial Content) レスポンス message includes the content of multiple ranges (a レスポンス to a リクエスト for multiple non-overlapping ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message-body. The media type for this purpose is called "multipart/byteranges". The multipart/byteranges media type includes two or more parts, each with its own Content-Type and Content-Range fields. The required boundary parameter specifies the boundary string used to separate each body-part. Media Type name: multipart Media subtype name: byteranges Required parameters: boundary Optional parameters: none Encoding considerations: only "7bit", "8bit", or "binary" are permitted Security considerations: none たとえば: HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT Content-type: multipart/byteranges; boundary=THIS_STRING_SEPARATES --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES Content-type: application/pdf Content-range: bytes 500-999/8000 ...the first range... --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES Content-type: application/pdf Content-range: bytes 7000-7999/8000 ...the second range --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES-- Notes: 1) Additional CRLFs may precede the first boundary string in the entity. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 165] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 2) Although RFC 2046 [40] permits the boundary string to be quoted, some existing implementations handle a quoted boundary string incorrectly. 3) A number of browsers and servers were coded to an early draft of the byteranges specification to use a media type of multipart/x-byteranges, which is almost, but not quite compatible with the version documented in HTTP/1.1. 19.3 Tolerant アプリケーションs Although this document specifies the requirements for the generation of HTTP/1.1 messages, not all アプリケーションs will be correct in their implementation. We therefore recommend that operational アプリケーションs be tolerant of deviations whenever those deviations can be interpreted unambiguously. Clients SHOULD be tolerant in parsing the Status-Line and servers tolerant when parsing the リクエスト-Line. In particular, they SHOULD accept any amount of SP or HT characters between fields, even though only a single SP is required. The line terminator for message-ヘッダ フィールドs is the sequence CRLF. However, we recommend that アプリケーションs, when parsing such headers, recognize a single LF as a line terminator and ignore the leading CR. The character set of an entity-body SHOULD be labeled as the lowest common denominator of the character codes used within that body, with the exception that not labeling the entity is preferred over labeling the entity with the labels US-ASCII or ISO-8859-1. See section 3.7.1 and 3.4.1. Additional rules for requirements on parsing and encoding of dates and other potential problems with date encodings include: - HTTP/1.1 clients and caches SHOULD assume that an RFC-850 date which appears to be more than 50 years in the future is in fact in the past (this helps solve the "year 2000" problem). - An HTTP/1.1 implementation MAY internally represent a parsed Expires date as earlier than the proper value, but MUST NOT internally represent a parsed Expires date as later than the proper value. - All expiration-related calculations MUST be done in GMT. The local time zone MUST NOT influence the calculation or comparison of an age or expiration time. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 166] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 - If an HTTP header incorrectly carries a date value with a time zone other than GMT, it MUST be converted into GMT using the most conservative possible conversion. 19.4 Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities HTTP/1.1 uses many of the constructs defined for Internet Mail (RFC 822 [9]) and the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME [7]) to allow entities to be transmitted in an open variety of representations and with extensible mechanisms. However, RFC 2045 discusses mail, and HTTP has a few features that are different from those described in RFC 2045. These differences were carefully chosen to optimize performance over binary connections, to allow greater freedom in the use of new media types, to make date comparisons easier, and to acknowledge the practice of some early HTTP servers and clients. This appendix describes specific areas where HTTP differs from RFC 2045. プロキシ and gateways to strict MIME environments SHOULD be aware of these differences and provide the appropriate conversions where necessary. プロキシ and gateways from MIME environments to HTTP also need to be aware of the differences because some conversions might be required. 19.4.1 MIME-Version HTTP is not a MIME-compliant protocol. However, HTTP/1.1 messages MAY include a single MIME-Version general-ヘッダ フィールド to indicate what version of the MIME protocol was used to construct the message. Use of the MIME-Version ヘッダ フィールド indicates that the message is in full compliance with the MIME protocol (as defined in RFC 2045[7]). プロキシ/gateways are responsible for ensuring full compliance (where possible) when exporting HTTP messages to strict MIME environments. MIME-Version = "MIME-Version" ":" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT MIME version "1.0" is the default for use in HTTP/1.1. However, HTTP/1.1 message parsing and semantics are defined by this document and not the MIME specification. 19.4.2 Conversion to Canonical Form RFC 2045 [7] requires that an Internet mail entity be converted to canonical form prior to being transferred, as described in section 4 of RFC 2049 [48]. Section 3.7.1 of this document describes the forms allowed for subtypes of the "text" media type when transmitted over HTTP. RFC 2046 requires that content with a type of "text" represent line breaks as CRLF and forbids the use of CR or LF outside of line Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 167] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 break sequences. HTTP allows CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF to indicate a line break within text content when a message is transmitted over HTTP. Where it is possible, a プロキシ(proxy) or ゲートウェイ from HTTP to a strict MIME environment SHOULD translate all line breaks within the text media types described in section 3.7.1 of this document to the RFC 2049 canonical form of CRLF. Note, however, that this might be complicated by the presence of a Content-Encoding and by the fact that HTTP allows the use of some character sets which do not use octets 13 and 10 to represent CR and LF, as is the case for some multi-byte character sets. 実装者 should note that conversion will break any cryptographic checksums applied to the original content unless the original content is already in canonical form. Therefore, the canonical form is recommended for any content that uses such checksums in HTTP. 19.4.3 Conversion of Date Formats HTTP/1.1 uses a restricted set of date formats (section 3.3.1) to simplify the process of date comparison. プロキシ and gateways from other protocols SHOULD ensure that any Date ヘッダ フィールド present in a message conforms to one of the HTTP/1.1 formats and rewrite the date if necessary. 19.4.4 Introduction of Content-Encoding RFC 2045 does not include any concept equivalent to HTTP/1.1's Content-Encoding ヘッダ フィールド. Since this acts as a modifier on the media type, プロキシ and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols MUST either change the value of the Content-Type header field or decode the entity-body before forwarding the message. (Some experimental アプリケーションs of Content-Type for Internet mail have used a media-type parameter of ";conversions=" to perform a function equivalent to Content-Encoding. However, this parameter is not part of RFC 2045.) 19.4.5 No Content-Transfer-Encoding HTTP does not use the Content-Transfer-Encoding (CTE) field of RFC 2045. プロキシ and gateways from MIME-compliant protocols to HTTP MUST remove any non-identity CTE ("quoted-printable" or "base64") encoding prior to delivering the レスポンス message to an HTTP client. プロキシ and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols are responsible for ensuring that the message is in the correct format and encoding for safe transport on that protocol, where "safe Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 168] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 transport" is defined by the limitations of the protocol being used. Such a プロキシ(proxy) or ゲートウェイ SHOULD label the data with an appropriate Content-Transfer-Encoding if doing so will improve the likelihood of safe transport over the destination protocol. 19.4.6 Introduction of Transfer-Encoding HTTP/1.1 introduces the Transfer-Encoding ヘッダ フィールド (section 14.41). プロキシ/gateways MUST remove any transfer-coding prior to forwarding a message via a MIME-compliant protocol. A process for decoding the "chunked" transfer-coding (section 3.6) can be represented in pseudo-code as: length := 0 read chunk-size, chunk-extension (if any) and CRLF while (chunk-size > 0) { read chunk-data and CRLF append chunk-data to entity-body length := length + chunk-size read chunk-size and CRLF } read entity-header while (entity-header not empty) { append entity-header to existing ヘッダ フィールドs read entity-header } Content-Length := length Remove "chunked" from Transfer-Encoding 19.4.7 MHTML and Line Length Limitations HTTP implementations which share code with MHTML [45] implementations need to be aware of MIME line length limitations. Since HTTP does not have this limitation, HTTP does not fold long lines. MHTML messages being transported by HTTP follow all conventions of MHTML, including line length limitations and folding, canonicalization, etc., since HTTP transports all message-bodies as payload (see section 3.7.2) and does not interpret the content or any MIME header lines that might be contained therein. 19.5 機能追加(Additional Features) RFC 1945 と RFC 2068 ドキュメント プロトコル 要素ではいくつかの拡張 HTTP 実装が使われている, しかし、大部分のHTTP/1.1 アプリケーションは、一貫して正確ではない. 実装は advised to be aware of these features, but cannot rely upon their presence in, or interoperability with, other HTTP/1.1 アプリケーションs. Some of these Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 169] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 describe proposed experimental features, and some describe features that experimental deployment found lacking that are now addressed in the base HTTP/1.1 specification. A number of other headers, such as Content-Disposition and Title, from SMTP and MIME are also often implemented (see RFC 2076 [37]). 19.5.1 Content-Disposition The Content-Disposition レスポンス-ヘッダ フィールド has been proposed as a means for the 元のサーバ to suggest a default filename if the user リクエストs that the content is saved to a file. This usage is derived from the definition of Content-Disposition in RFC 1806 [35]. content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":" disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm ) disposition-type = "attachment" | disp-extension-token disposition-parm = filename-parm | disp-extension-parm filename-parm = "filename" "=" quoted-string disp-extension-token = token disp-extension-parm = token "=" ( token | quoted-string ) An example is Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="fname.ext" The receiving user agent SHOULD NOT respect any directory path information present in the filename-parm parameter, which is the only parameter believed to apply to HTTP implementations at this time. The filename SHOULD be treated as a terminal component only. If this header is used in a レスポンス with the アプリケーション/octet- stream content-type, the implied suggestion is that the user agent should not display the レスポンス, but directly enter a `save レスポンス as...' dialog. See section 15.5 for Content-Disposition security issues. 19.6 Compatibility with Previous Versions It is beyond the scope of a protocol specification to mandate compliance with previous versions. HTTP/1.1 was deliberately designed, however, to make supporting previous versions easy. It is worth noting that, at the time of composing this specification (1996), we would expect commercial HTTP/1.1 servers to: - recognize the format of the リクエスト-Line for HTTP/0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 リクエストs; Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 170] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 - understand any valid リクエスト in the format of HTTP/0.9, 1.0, or 1.1; - respond appropriately with a message in the same major version used by the client. And we would expect HTTP/1.1 clients to: - recognize the format of the Status-Line for HTTP/1.0 and 1.1 レスポンスs; - understand any valid レスポンス in the format of HTTP/0.9, 1.0, or 1.1. For most implementations of HTTP/1.0, each connection is established by the client prior to the リクエスト and closed by the server after sending the レスポンス. Some implementations implement the Keep-Alive version of persistent connections described in section 19.7.1 of RFC 2068 [33]. 19.6.1 Changes from HTTP/1.0 This section summarizes major differences between versions HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1. 19.6.1.1 Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and Conserve IP Addresses The requirements that clients and servers support the Host リクエスト- header, report an error if the Host リクエスト-header (section 14.23) is missing from an HTTP/1.1 リクエスト, and accept absolute URIs (section 5.1.2) are among the most important changes defined by this specification. Older HTTP/1.0 clients assumed a one-to-one relationship of IP addresses and servers; there was no other established mechanism for distinguishing the intended server of a リクエスト than the IPアドレス to which that リクエスト was directed. The changes outlined above will allow the Internet, once older HTTP clients are no longer common, to support multiple Web sites from a single IPアドレス, greatly simplifying large operational Web servers, where allocation of many IPアドレスes to a single host has created serious problems. The Internet will also be able to recover the IPアドレスes that have been allocated for the sole purpose of allowing special-purpose domain names to be used in root-level HTTP URLs. Given the rate of growth of the Web, and the number of servers already deployed, it is extremely Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 171] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 important that 全実装 of HTTP (including updates to existing HTTP/1.0 アプリケーションs) correctly implement these requirements: - Both clients and servers MUST support the Host リクエスト-header. - A client that sends an HTTP/1.1 リクエスト MUST send a Host header. - Servers MUST report a 400 (Bad リクエスト) error if an HTTP/1.1 リクエスト does not include a Host リクエスト-header. - Servers MUST accept absolute URIs. 19.6.2 互換性 with HTTP/1.0 Persistent Connections いくつかのクライアントとサーバは、might wish to be compatible with some previous implementations of persistent connections in HTTP/1.0 clients and servers. Persistent connections in HTTP/1.0 are explicitly negotiated as they are not the default behavior. HTTP/1.0 experimental implementations of persistent connections are faulty, and the new facilities in HTTP/1.1 are designed to rectify these problems. The problem was that some existing 1.0 clients may be sending Keep-Alive to a プロキシ(proxy) server that doesn't understand Connection, which would then erroneously forward it to the next inbound server, which would establish the Keep-Alive connection and result in a hung HTTP/1.0 プロキシ(proxy) waiting for the close on the レスポンス. The result is that HTTP/1.0 clients must be prevented from using Keep-Alive when talking to プロキシ. However, talking to プロキシ is the most important use of persistent connections, so that prohibition is clearly unacceptable. Therefore, we need some other mechanism for indicating a persistent connection is desired, which is safe to use even when talking to an old プロキシ(proxy) that ignores Connection. Persistent connections are the default for HTTP/1.1 messages; we introduce a new keyword (Connection: close) for declaring non-persistence. See section 14.10. The original HTTP/1.0 form of persistent connections (the Connection: Keep-Alive and Keep-Alive header) is documented in RFC 2068. [33] 19.6.3 RFC 2068 からの変更点 この仕様書 has been 注意深く検査され、to correct and disambiguate key word usage; RFC 2068 had many problems in respect to the conventions laid out in RFC 2119 [34]. Clarified which error code should be used for inbound server failures (e.g. DNS failures). (Section 10.5.5). Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 172] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 CREATE had a race that required an Etag be sent when a リソース is first created. (Section 10.2.2). Content-Base が、仕様から削除された: it was not implemented widely, and there is no simple, safe way to introduce it without a robust extension mechanism. In addition, it is used in a similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML [45]. Transfer-coding and message lengths all interact in ways that required fixing exactly when chunked encoding is used (to allow for transfer encoding that may not be self delimiting); it was important to straighten out exactly how message lengths are computed. (Sections 3.6, 4.4, 7.2.2, 13.5.2, 14.13, 14.16) A content-coding of "identity" was introduced, to solve problems discovered in caching. (section 3.5) Quality Values of zero should indicate that "I don't want something" to allow clients to refuse a representation. (Section 3.9) The use and 実装 of HTTP version numbers has been clarified by RFC 2145. Require プロキシ to upgrade リクエストs to highest protocol version they support to deal with problems discovered in HTTP/1.0 実装 (Section 3.1) 文字セット ワイルドカート is introduced to avoid explosion of character set names in accept headers. (Section 14.2) A case was missed in the Cache-Control モデル of HTTP/1.1; s-maxage was introduced to add this missing case. (Sections 13.4, 14.8, 14.9, 14.9.3) The Cache-Control: max-age directive was not properly defined for レスポンス. (Section 14.9.3) There are situations where a server (especially a プロキシ(proxy)) does not know the full length of a レスポンス but is capable of serving a byterange リクエスト. We therefore need a mechanism to allow byteranges with a content-range not indicating the full length of the message. (Section 14.16) Range リクエスト レスポンス would become very verbose if all meta-data were always returned; by allowing the server to only send needed headers in a 206 レスポンス, this problem can be avoided. (Section 10.2.7, 13.5.3, and 14.27) Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 173] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Fix problem with unsatisfiable range リクエストs; there are two cases: syntactic problems, and range doesn't exist in the document. The 416 ステータス コード was needed to resolve this ambiguity needed to indicate an error for a byte range リクエスト that falls outside of the actual contents of a document. (Section 10.4.17, 14.16) Rewrite of message transmission requirements to make it much harder for 実装者 to get it wrong, as the consequences of errors here can have significant impact on the Internet, and to deal with the following problems: 1. Changing "HTTP/1.1 or later" to "HTTP/1.1", in contexts where this was incorrectly placing a requirement on the behavior of an 将来のHTTP/1.x バージョンの実装 2. Made it clear that user-agents should retry リクエストs, not "clients" in general. 3. Converted requirements for clients to ignore unexpected 100 (Continue) レスポンスs, and for プロキシ to forward 100 レスポンスs, into a general requirement for 1xx レスポンスs. 4. Modified some TCP-specific language, to make it clearer that non-TCP transports are possible for HTTP. 5. Require that the 元のサーバ MUST NOT wait for the リクエスト body before it sends a required 100 (Continue) レスポンス. 6. Allow, rather than require, a server to omit 100 (Continue) if it has already seen some of the リクエスト body. 7. Allow servers to defend against denial-of-service attacks and broken clients. This change adds the Expect header and 417 ステータス コード. The message transmission requirements fixes are in sections 8.2, 10.4.18, 8.1.2.2, 13.11, and 14.20. プロキシ should be able to add Content-Length when appropriate. (Section 13.5.2) Clean up confusion between 403 and 404 レスポンスs. (Section 10.4.4, 10.4.5, and 10.4.11) Warnings could be cached incorrectly, or not updated appropriately. (Section 13.1.2, 13.2.4, 13.5.2, 13.5.3, 14.9.3, and 14.46) Warning also needed to be a general header, as PUT or other methods may have need for it in リクエストs. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 174] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 Transfer-coding had significant problems, particularly with interactions with chunked encoding. The solution is that transfer- codings become as full fledged as content-codings. This involves adding an IANA registry for transfer-codings (separate from content codings), a new ヘッダ フィールド (TE) and enabling trailer headers in the future. Transfer encoding is a major performance benefit, so it was worth fixing [39]. TE also solves another, obscure, downward interoperability problem that could have occurred due to interactions between 認証 trailers, chunked encoding and HTTP/1.0 clients.(Section 3.6, 3.6.1, and 14.39) The PATCH, LINK, UNLINK methods were defined but not commonly implemented in previous versions of this specification. See RFC 2068 [33]. The Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and Content-Base ヘッダ フィールドs were defined in previous versions of this specification, but not commonly implemented. See RFC 2068 [33]. 20 索引(Index) PostScriptバージョンのRFCの索引を参照してください。 Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 175] RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1 1999年6月 21. 完全な著作権表示 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. このドキュメントと翻訳物は、 may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Fielding, et al. Standards Track [Page 176]