Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Client-Initiated Content-Encoding

In HTTP, "Content Codings" allow for payload encodings such as for compression or integrity checks. In particular, the "gzip" content coding is widely used for payload data sent in response messages.¶

Content Codings can be used in request messages as well, however discoverability is not on par with response messages. This document extends the HTTP "Accept-Encoding" header field for use in responses.¶

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress”.¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2025.¶

Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

In HTTP, "Content Codings" allow for payload encodings such as for compression or integrity checks ([RFC7231], Section 3.1.2). In particular, the "gzip" content coding is widely used for payload data sent in response messages.¶

Content Codings can be used in request messages as well, however discoverability is not on par with response messages. This document extends the HTTP "Accept-Encoding" header field ([RFC7231], Section 5.3.4) for use in responses.¶

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].¶

This document reuses terminology used in the base HTTP specifications, namely Section 2 of [RFC7230] and Section 3.1.2 of [RFC7231].¶

Section 5.3.4 of [RFC7231] defines "Accept-Encoding" as a request header field only.¶

This specification extends that definition to allow "Accept-Encoding" as a response header field as well. When present, it indicates what content codings a resource was willing to accept at the time of the response. A field value that only contains "identity" implies that no content codings are supported.¶

Note that this information is specific to the specific request. The set of supported encodings might be different for other resources on the same server, could also change depending on other aspects of the request (such as the request method), or might change in the future.¶

Section 6.5.13 of [RFC7231] defines status code 415 (Unsupported Media Type) to apply to both media type and content coding related problems.¶

Servers that fail a request due to an unsupported content coding SHOULD respond with a 415 status and SHOULD include an "Accept-Encoding" header field in that response, allowing clients to distinguish between content coding related issues and media type related issues. In order to avoid confusion with media type related problems, servers that fail a request with a 415 status for reasons unrelated to content codings SHOULD NOT include the "Accept-Encoding" header field.¶

While sending "Accept-Encoding" in a 415 (Unsupported Media Type) response will be the most common use case, it is not restricted to this particular status code. For instance, a server might include it in a 2xx response when a request payload was big enough to justify use of a compression coding, but the client failed to do so.¶

...at which point the client can retry the request with the supported "gzip" content coding.¶

Servers that do not support content codings in requests already are required to fail a request that does use a content coding. Section 6.5.13 of [RFC7231] recommends to use the status code 415 (Unsupported Media Type), so the only change needed is to include the "Accept-Encoding" header field with value "identity" in that response.¶

Servers that do support some content codings are required to fail requests with unsupported content codings as well. To be compliant with this specification, servers will need to use the status code 415 (Unsupported Media Type) to signal the problem, and will have to include an "Accept-Encoding" header field that enumerates the content codings that are supported. As the set of supported content codings usually is static and small, adding the header field ought to be trivial.¶

This specification does not introduce any new security considerations beyond those discussed in Section 9 of [RFC7231].¶

HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers" registry located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers>, as defined by [BCP90].¶

Thanks go to the members of the and HTTPbis Working Group, namely Amos Jeffries, Mark Nottingham, and Ted Hardie.¶