RFC2310 - The Safe Response Header Field

Network Working Group K. Holtman

Request for Comments: 2310 TUE

Category: EXPerimental April 1998

The Safe Response Header Field

Status of this Memo

This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet

community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document defines a HTTP response header field called Safe, which

can be used to indicate that repeating a HTTP request is safe. SUCh

an indication will allow user agents to handle retries of some safe

requests, in particular safe POST requests, in a more user-friendly

way.

1 Introduction

This document defines a HTTP response header field called Safe, which

can be used to indicate that repeating a HTTP request is safe. Such

an indication will allow user agents to handle retries of some safe

requests, in particular safe POST requests, in a more user-friendly

way.

2 Terminology and Notation

This document uses the HTTP terminology and BNF notation defined in

[1]. It uses the key Words in RFC2119 for defining the significance

of each particular requirement.

3 Rationale

According to Section 9.1.1 (Safe Methods) of the HTTP/1.1

specification [1], POST requests are assumed to be `unsafe' by

default. `Unsafe' means `causes side effects for which the user will

be held accountable'.

It is sometimes necessary for a user agent to repeat a POST request.

Examples of such cases are

- when retrying a POST request which gave an indeterminate error

result in the previous attempt

- when the user presses the RELOAD button while a POST result is

displayed

- when the history function is used to redisplay a POST result

which is no longer in the history buffer.

If the POST request is unsafe, HTTP requires explicit user

confirmation is before the request is repeated. The confirmation

dialog often takes the form of a `repost form data?' dialog box.

This dialog is confusing to many users, and slows down navigation in

any case.

If the repeated POST request is safe, the user-unfriendly

confirmation dialog can be omitted. However plain HTTP/1.1 [1] has

no mechanism by which agents can tell if POST requests are safe, and

they must be assumed unsafe by default. This document adds a

mechanism to HTTP, the Safe header field, for telling if a POST

request is safe.

Using the Safe header field, web applications which require the use

of a safe POST request, rather than a GET request, for the submission

of web forms, can be made more user-friendly. The use of a POST

request may be required for a number of reasons, including

- the contents of the form are potentially very large

- the form is used to upload a file (see [2])

- the application needs some internationalization features

(see [3]) which are only available if the form contents are

transmitted in a request body the information in the form cannot

be encoded in a GET request URL because of security

considerations.

4 The Safe response header field

The Safe response header field is defined as an addition to the

HTTP/1.x protocol suite.

The Safe response header field is used by origin servers to indicate

whether repeating the received HTTP request is safe in the sense of

Section 9.1.1 (Safe Methods) of the HTTP/1.1 specification [1]. For

the purpose of this specification, a HTTP request is considered to be

a repetition of a previous request if both requests

- are issued by the same user agent, and

- apply to the same resource, and

- have the same request method, and

- both have no request body, or both have request bodies which are

byte-wise identical after decoding of any content and transfer

codings.

The Safe header field has the following syntax.

Safe = "Safe" ":" safe-nature

safe-nature = "yes" "no"

An example of the header field is:

Safe: yes

If a Safe header field is absent in the response, the corresponding

request MUST be considered unsafe, unless it is a GET or HEAD

request. As GET and HEAD requests are safe by definition, user

agents SHOULD ignore a `Safe: no' header field in GET and HEAD

responses.

If, according to a received Safe header field, the repeating of a

request is safe, the request MAY be repeated automatically without

aSKINg for user confirmation.

5 Security Considerations

For a discussion of the security considerations connected to HTTP

form submission, see [1]. The Safe header field introduces no new

security risks.

The use of GET requests for form submission has some security risks

which are absent for submission with other HTTP methods. By taking

away a counter-incentive to the use of GET requests for form

submission, the Safe header field may improve overall security.

6 References

[1] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., and

T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC

2068, January 1997.

[2] Nebel, E., and L. Masinter, "Form-based File Upload in Html",

RFC1867, November 1995.

[3] Yergeau, F., Nicol, G., Adams, G., and M. Duerst,

"Internationalization of the Hypertext Markup Language", RFC

2070, January 1997.

7 Author's Address

Koen Holtman

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

Postbus 513

Kamer HG 6.57

5600 MB Eindhoven (The Netherlands)

EMail: koen@win.tue.nl

8. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it 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.