A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network
draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-15

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        J. Reschke
Request for Comments: 6266                                    greenbytes
Updates: 2616                                                  June 2011
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721

           Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the
                   Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)

Abstract

   RFC 2616 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but
   points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard.  This
   specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-
   Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization
   aspects.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6266.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Reschke                      Standards Track                    [Page 1]
RFC 6266               Content-Disposition in HTTP             June 2011

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Notational Conventions ..........................................3
   3. Conformance and Error Handling ..................................3
   4. Header Field Definition .........................................3
      4.1. Grammar ....................................................4
      4.2. Disposition Type ...........................................5
      4.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' ..........................5
      4.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions ..........................6
      4.5. Extensibility ..............................................7
   5. Examples ........................................................7
   6. Internationalization Considerations .............................8
   7. Security Considerations .........................................8
   8. IANA Considerations .............................................8
      8.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameters .............8
      8.2. Header Field Registration ..................................8
   9. Acknowledgements ................................................9
   10. References .....................................................9
      10.1. Normative References ......................................9
      10.2. Informative References ....................................9
   Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition ..................11
   Appendix B. Differences Compared to RFC 2183 ......................11
   Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Internationalization ........11
     C.1. RFC 2047 Encoding ..........................................12
     C.2. Percent Encoding ...........................................12
     C.3. Encoding Sniffing ..........................................12
   Appendix D. Advice on Generating Content-Disposition Header
               Fields ................................................13

1.  Introduction

   RFC 2616 defines the Content-Disposition response header field
   (Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616]) but points out that it is not part of
   the HTTP/1.1 Standard (Section 15.5):

      Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP standard, but since it
      is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for
      implementers.

   This specification takes over the definition and registration of
   Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP.  Based on interoperability
   testing with existing user agents (UAs), it fully defines a profile
   of the features defined in the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
   (MIME) variant ([RFC2183]) of the header field, and also clarifies
   internationalization aspects.

Reschke                      Standards Track                    [Page 2]quot;, January
              2016.

   [BGP2]     Huston, G., "BGP Instability Report,
              http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net/instability/bgpupd.html",
              May 2017.

   [CBB]      Dul, A., "Global IP Network Mobility using Border Gateway
              Protocol (BGP), http://www.quark.net/docs/
              Global_IP_Network_Mobility_using_BGP.pdf", March 2006.

Templin, et al.          Expires 7 October 2022                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft               BGP for ATN/IPS                  April 2022

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
              Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
              Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6830bis-36, 18 November 2020,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6830bis-36.txt>.

   [I-D.templin-6man-aero]
              Templin, F. L., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization
              (AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-
              6man-aero-41, 29 March 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-aero-
              41.txt>.

   [I-D.templin-6man-omni]
              Templin, F. L., "Transmission of IP Packets over Overlay
              Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-omni-56, 29 March 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-omni-
              56.txt>.

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.

   [RFC4251]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, DOI 10.17487/RFC4251,
              January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4251>.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
              December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.

   [RFC5926]  Lebovitz, G. and E. Rescorla, "Cryptographic Algorithms
              for the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)", RFC 5926,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5926, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5926>.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.

Templin, et al.          Expires 7 October 2022                [Page 25]
Internet-Draft               BGP for ATN/IPS                  April 2022

   [RFC6793]  Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
              Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>.

   [RFC6996]  Mitchell, J., "Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for
              Private Use", BCP 6, RFC 6996, DOI 10.17487/RFC6996, July
              2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6996>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC9001]  Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
              QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>.

   [WG]       Donenfeld, J., "WireGuard: Fast, Modern, Secure VPN
              Tunnel, https://www.wireguard.com/", February 2022.

Appendix A.  BGP Convergence Considerations

   Experimental evidence has shown that BGP convergence time required
   after an MNP is asserted at a new location or withdrawn from an old
   location can be several hundred milliseconds even under optimal AS
   peering arrangements.  This means that packets in flight destined to
   an MNP route that has recently been changed can be (mis)delivered to
   an old s-ASBR after a Client has moved to a new s-ASBR.

   To address this issue, the old s-ASBR can maintain temporary state
   for a "departed" Client that includes an OAL address for the new
   s-ASBR.  The OAL address never changes since ASBRs are fixed
   infrastructure elements that never move.  Hence, packets arriving at
   the old s-ASBR can be forwarded to the new s-ASBR while the BGP
   routing system is still undergoing reconvergence.  Therefore, as long
   as the Client associates with the new s-ASBR before it departs from
   the old s-ASBR (while informing the old s-ASBR of its new location)
   packets in flight during the BGP reconvergence window are
   accommodated without loss.

Appendix B.  Change Log

   << RFC Editor - remove prior to publication >>

   Differences from earlier versions:

   *  Submit for RFC publication.

Templin, et al.          Expires 7 October 2022                [Page 26]
Internet-Draft               BGP for ATN/IPS                  April 2022

Authors' Addresses

   Fred L. Templin (editor)
   Boeing Research & Technology
   P.O. Box 3707
   Seattle, WA 98124
   United States of America
   Email: fltemplin@acm.org

   Greg Saccone
   Boeing Research & Technology
   P.O. Box 3707
   Seattle, WA 98124
   United States of America
   Email: gregory.t.saccone@boeing.com

   Gaurav Dawra
   LinkedIn
   United States of America
   Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com

   Acee Lindem
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   United States of America
   Email: acee@cisco.com

   Victor Moreno
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   United States of America
   Email: vimoreno@cisco.com

Templin, et al.          Expires 7 October 2022                [Page 27]