A JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values
draft-reschke-http-jfv-14

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Julian Reschke 
Last updated 2021-04-22
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                      J. F. Reschke
Internet-Draft                                                greenbytes
Intended status: Informational                             22 April 2021
Expires: 24 October 2021

                 A JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values
                       draft-reschke-http-jfv-14

Abstract

   This document establishes a convention for use of JSON-encoded field
   values in new HTTP fields.

Editorial Note

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Distribution of this document is unlimited.  Although this is not a
   work item of the HTTPbis Working Group, comments should be sent to
   the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) mailing list at ietf-http-
   wg@w3.org (mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which may be joined by
   sending a message with subject "subscribe" to ietf-http-wg-
   request@w3.org (mailto:ietf-http-wg-
   request@w3.org?subject=subscribe).

   Discussions of the HTTPbis Working Group are archived at
   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.

   XML versions and latest edits for this document are available from
   <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-reschke-http-jfv>.

   The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix D.17.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 October 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Relation to "Structured Field Values for HTTP"
           (RFC8941) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Data Model and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Sender Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Recipient Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Using this Format in Field Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Encoding and Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.3.  Object Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.3.  Specifications Using This Syntax (at some point of
            time)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  Comparison with Structured Fields  . . . . . . . . .  10
     A.1.  Base Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     A.2.  Structures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix B.  Use of JSON Field Value Encoding in the Wild . . . .  11
     B.1.  W3C Reporting API Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     B.2.  W3C Clear Site Data Specification . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     B.3.  W3C Feature Policy Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix C.  Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix D.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

     D.1.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     D.2.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     D.3.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     D.4.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     D.5.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     D.6.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     D.7.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     D.8.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     D.9.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     D.10. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     D.11. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     D.12. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     D.13. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     D.14. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     D.15. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     D.16. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     D.17. Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   Defining syntax for new HTTP fields ([HTTP], Section 5) is non-
   trivial.  Among the commonly encountered problems are:

   *  There is no common syntax for complex field values.  Several well-
      known fields do use a similarly looking syntax, but it is hard to
      write generic parsing code that will both correctly handle valid
      field values but also reject invalid ones.

   *  The HTTP message format allows field lines to repeat, so field
      syntax needs to be designed in a way that these cases are either
      meaningful, or can be unambiguously detected and rejected.

   *  HTTP does not define a character encoding scheme ([RFC6365],
      Section 2), so fields are either stuck with US-ASCII ([RFC0020]),
      or need out-of-band information to decide what encoding scheme is
      used.  Furthermore, APIs usually assume a default encoding scheme
      in order to map from octet sequences to strings (for instance,
      [XMLHttpRequest] uses the IDL type "ByteString", effectively
      resulting in the ISO-8859-1 character encoding scheme [ISO-8859-1]
      being used).

   (See Section 16.3 of [HTTP] for a summary of considerations for new
   fields.)

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

   This specification addresses the issues listed above by defining both
   a generic JSON-based ([RFC8259]) data model and a concrete wire
   format that can be used in definitions of new fields, where the goals
   were:

   *  to be compatible with field recombination when field lines occur
      multiple times in a single message (Section 5.3 of [HTTP]), and

   *  not to use any problematic characters in the field value (non-
      ASCII characters and certain whitespace characters).

1.1.  Relation to "Structured Field Values for HTTP" ([RFC8941])

   "Structured Field Values for HTTP", an IETF RFC on the Standards
   Track, is a different approach to this set of problems.  It uses a
   more compact notation, similar to what is used in existing header
   fields, and avoids several potential interoperability problems
   inherent to the use of JSON.

   In general, that format is preferred for newly defined fields.  The
   JSON-based format defined by this document might however be useful in
   case the data that needs to be transferred is already in JSON format,
   or features not covered by "Structured Field Values" are needed.

   See Appendix A for more details.

2.  Data Model and Format

   In HTTP, field lines with the same field name can occur multiple
   times within a single message (Section 5.3 of [HTTP]).  When this
   happens, recipients are allowed to combine the field line values
   using commas as delimiter, forming a combined "field value".  This
   rule matches nicely JSON's array format (Section 5 of [RFC8259]).
   Thus, the basic data model used here is the JSON array.

   Field definitions that need only a single value can restrict
   themselves to arrays of length 1, and are encouraged to define error
   handling in case more values are received (such as "first wins",
   "last wins", or "abort with fatal error message").

   JSON arrays are mapped to field values by creating a sequence of
   serialized member elements, separated by commas and optionally
   whitespace.  This is equivalent to using the full JSON array format,
   while leaving out the "begin-array" ('[') and "end-array" (']')
   delimiters.

   The ABNF character names and classes below are used (copied from
   [RFC5234], Appendix B.1):

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

     CR               = %x0D    ; carriage return
     HTAB             = %x09    ; horizontal tab
     LF               = %x0A    ; line feed
     SP               = %x20    ; space
     VCHAR            = %x21-7E ; visible (printing) characters

   Characters in JSON strings that are not allowed or discouraged in
   HTTP field values - that is, not in the "VCHAR" definition - need to
   be represented using JSON's "backslash" escaping mechanism
   ([RFC8259], Section 7).

   The control characters CR, LF, and HTAB do not appear inside JSON
   strings, but can be used outside (line breaks, indentation etc.).
   These characters need to be either stripped or replaced by space
   characters (ABNF "SP").

   Formally, using the HTTP specification's ABNF extensions defined in
   Section 5.6.1 of [HTTP]:

     json-field-value = #json-field-item
     json-field-item  = JSON-Text
                      ; see [RFC8259], Section 2,
                      ; post-processed so that only VCHAR characters
                      ; are used

3.  Sender Requirements

   To map a JSON array to an HTTP field value, process each array
   element separately by:

   1.  generating the JSON representation,

   2.  stripping all JSON control characters (CR, HTAB, LF), or
       replacing them by space ("SP") characters,

   3.  replacing all remaining non-VSPACE characters by the equivalent
       backslash-escape sequence ([RFC8259], Section 7).

   The resulting list of strings is transformed into an HTTP field value
   by combining them using comma (%x2C) plus optional SP as delimiter,
   and encoding the resulting string into an octet sequence using the
   US-ASCII character encoding scheme ([RFC0020]).

3.1.  Example

   With the JSON data below, containing the non-ASCII characters "ü"
   (LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DIAERESIS, U+00FC) and "€" (EURO SIGN,
   U+20AC):

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

   [
     {
       "destination": "Münster",
       "price": 123,
       "currency": "€"
     }
   ]

   The generated field value would be:

   { "destination": "M\u00FCnster", "price": 123, "currency": "\u20AC" }

4.  Recipient Requirements

   To map a set of HTTP field line values to a JSON array:

   1.  combine all field line values into a single field value as per
       Section 5.3 of [HTTP],

   2.  add a leading begin-array ("[") octet and a trailing end-array
       ("]") octet, then

   3.  run the resulting octet sequence through a JSON parser.

   The result of the parsing operation is either an error (in which case
   the field values needs to be considered invalid), or a JSON array.

4.1.  Example

   An HTTP message containing the field lines:

   Example: "\u221E"
   Example: {"date":"2012-08-25"}
   Example: [17,42]

   would be parsed into the JSON array below:

   [
     "∞",
     {
       "date": "2012-08-25"
     },
     [
       17,
       42
     ]
   ]

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

5.  Using this Format in Field Definitions

   Specifications defining new HTTP fields need to take the
   considerations listed in Section 16.3 of [HTTP] into account.  Many
   of these will already be accounted for by using the format defined in
   this specification.

   Readers of HTTP-related specifications frequently expect an ABNF
   definition of the field value syntax.  This is not really needed
   here, as the actual syntax is JSON text, as defined in Section 2 of
   [RFC8259].

   A very simple way to use this JSON encoding thus is just to cite this
   specification - specifically the "json-field-value" ABNF production
   defined in Section 2 - and otherwise not to talk about the details of
   the field syntax at all.

   An alternative approach is just to repeat the ABNF-related parts from
   Section 2.

   This frees the specification from defining the concrete on-the-wire
   syntax.  What's left is defining the field value in terms of a JSON
   array.  An important aspect is the question of extensibility, e.g.
   how recipients ought to treat unknown field names.  In general, a
   "must ignore" approach will allow protocols to evolve without
   versioning or even using entire new field names.

6.  Deployment Considerations

   This JSON-based syntax will only apply to newly introduced fields,
   thus backwards compatibility is not a problem.  That being said, it
   is conceivable that there is existing code that might trip over
   double quotes not being used for HTTP's quoted-string syntax
   (Section 5.6.4 of [HTTP]).

7.  Interoperability Considerations

   The "I-JSON Message Format" specification ([RFC7493]) addresses known
   JSON interoperability pain points.  This specification borrows from
   the requirements made over there:

7.1.  Encoding and Characters

   This specification requires that field values use only US-ASCII
   characters, and thus by definition uses a subset of UTF-8
   (Section 2.1 of [RFC7493]).

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

   Furthermore, escape sequences in JSON strings (Section 7 of
   [RFC8259]) - both in object member names and string values - are not
   allowed to represent non-Unicode code points such as unpaired
   surrogates or Noncharacters (see "General Structure" in [UNICODE]).

7.2.  Numbers

   Be aware of the issues around number precision, as discussed in
   Section 2.2 of [RFC7493].

7.3.  Object Constraints

   As described in Section 4 of [RFC8259], JSON parser implementations
   differ in the handling of duplicate object names.  Therefore, senders
   are not allowed to use duplicate object names, and recipients are
   advised to either treat field values with duplicate names as invalid
   (consistent with [RFC7493], Section 2.3) or use the lexically last
   value (consistent with [ECMA-262], Section 24.3.1.1).

   Furthermore, ordering of object members is not significant and can
   not be relied upon.

8.  Internationalization Considerations

   In current versions of HTTP, field values are represented by octet
   sequences, usually used to transmit ASCII characters, with
   restrictions on the use of certain control characters, and no
   associated default character encoding, nor a way to describe it
   ([HTTP], Section 5).

   This specification maps all characters which can cause problems to
   JSON escape sequences, thereby solving the HTTP field
   internationalization problem.

   Future specifications of HTTP might change to allow non-ASCII
   characters natively.  In that case, fields using the syntax defined
   by this specification would have a simple migration path (by just
   stopping to require escaping of non-ASCII characters).

9.  Security Considerations

   Using JSON-shaped field values is believed to not introduce any new
   threads beyond those described in Section 12 of [RFC8259], namely the
   risk of recipients using the wrong tools to parse them.

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

   Other than that, any syntax that makes extensions easy can be used to
   smuggle information through field values; however, this concern is
   shared with other widely used formats, such as those using parameters
   in the form of name/value pairs.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [HTTP]     Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-15, 30 March 2021,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-
              15>.

   [RFC0020]  Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
              RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC7493]  Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259,
              December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.

   [UNICODE]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard",
              <http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [ECMA-262] Ecma International, "ECMA-262 6th Edition, The ECMAScript
              2015 Language Specification", Standard ECMA-262, June
              2015, <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/>.

   [ISO-8859-1]
              International Organization for Standardization,
              "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic
              character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1", ISO/
              IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

   [RFC6365]  Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
              Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>.

   [RFC8941]  Nottingham, M. and P-H. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
              HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8941>.

   [XMLHttpRequest]
              WhatWG, "XMLHttpRequest", <https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/>.

10.3.  Specifications Using This Syntax (at some point of time)

   [CLEARSITE]
              West, M., "Clear Site Data", W3C Working Draft WD-clear-
              site-data-20171130, 30 November 2017,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-clear-site-data-20171130/>.
              Latest version available at <https://www.w3.org/TR/clear-
              site-data/>.

   [FEATUREPOL]
              Clelland, I., "Feature Policy", W3C Editor's Draft ,
              <https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-feature-policy/>.

   [REPORTING]
              Creager, D., Grigorik, I., Meyer, P., and M. West,
              "Reporting API", W3C Working Draft WD-reporting-
              1-20180925, 25 September 2018,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-reporting-1-20180925/>.
              Latest version available at <https://www.w3.org/TR/
              reporting-1/>.

Appendix A.  Comparison with Structured Fields

A.1.  Base Types

    +==========+==================================+==================+
    | Type     | in Structured Fields             | in JSON-based    |
    |          |                                  | Fields           |
    +==========+==================================+==================+
    | Integer  | [RFC8941], Section 3.3.1         | [RFC8259],       |
    |          |                                  | Section 6        |
    |          +----------------------------------+------------------+
    |          | (restricted to 15 digits)        |                  |
    +==========+----------------------------------+------------------+
    | Decimal  | [RFC8941], Section 3.3.2         | [RFC8259],       |
    |          |                                  | Section 6        |

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

    |          +----------------------------------+------------------+
    |          | (a fixed point decimal           |                  |
    |          | restricted to 12 + 3 digits)     |                  |
    +==========+----------------------------------+------------------+
    | String   | [RFC8941], Section 3.3.3         | [RFC8259],       |
    |          |                                  | Section 7        |
    |          +----------------------------------+------------------+
    |          | (only ASCII supported, non-ASCII |                  |
    |          | requires using Byte Sequences)   |                  |
    +==========+----------------------------------+------------------+
    | Token    | [RFC8941], Section 3.3.4         | not available    |
    +==========+----------------------------------+------------------+
    | Byte     | [RFC8941], Section 3.3.5         | not available    |
    | Sequence +----------------------------------+------------------+
    |          |                                  | (usually mapped  |
    |          |                                  | to strings using |
    |          |                                  | base64 encoding) |
    +==========+----------------------------------+------------------+
    | Boolean  | [RFC8941], Section 3.3.6         | [RFC8259],       |
    |          |                                  | Section 3        |
    +==========+----------------------------------+------------------+

                                 Table 1

   Structured Fields provide more data types (such as "token" or "byte
   sequence").  Numbers are restricted, avoiding the JSON interop
   problems described in Section 7.2.  Strings are limited to ASCII,
   requiring the use of byte sequences should non-ASCII characters be
   needed.

A.2.  Structures

   Structured Fields define Lists ([RFC8941], Section 3.1), similar to
   JSON arrays ([RFC8259], Section 5), and Dictionaries ([RFC8941],
   Section 3.2), similar to JSON objects ([RFC8259], Section 4).

   In addition, most items in Structured Fields can be parametrized
   ([RFC8941], Section 3.1.2), attaching a dictionary-like structure to
   the value.  To emulate this in JSON based field, an additional
   nesting of objects would be needed.

   Finally, nesting of data structures is intentionally limited to two
   levels (see Appendix A.1 of [RFC8941] for the motivation).

Appendix B.  Use of JSON Field Value Encoding in the Wild

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

   Since work started on this document, various specifications have
   adopted this format.  At least one of these moved away after the HTTP
   Working Group decided to focus on [RFC8941] (see thread starting at
   <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-
   wg/2016OctDec/0505.html>).

   The sections below summarize the current usage of this format.

B.1.  W3C Reporting API Specification

   Defined in W3C Working Draft "Reporting API" (Section 3.1 of
   [REPORTING]).  Still in use in latest working draft dated September
   2018.

B.2.  W3C Clear Site Data Specification

   Used in earlier versions of "Clear Site Data".  The current version
   replaces the use of JSON with a custom syntax that happens to be
   somewhat compatible with an array of JSON strings (see Section 3.1 of
   [CLEARSITE] and <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-
   wg/2017AprJun/0214.html> for feedback).

B.3.  W3C Feature Policy Specification

   Originally defined in W3C document "Feature Policy" ([FEATUREPOL]),
   but switched to use of Structured Header Fields ([RFC8941]).

Appendix C.  Implementations

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   See <https://github.com/reschke/json-fields> for a proof-of-concept
   (in development).

Appendix D.  Change Log

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

D.1.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-00

   Editorial fixes + working on the TODOs.

D.2.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-01

   Mention slightly increased risk of smuggling information in header
   field values.

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

D.3.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-02

   Mention Kazuho Oku's proposal for abbreviated forms.

   Added a bit of text about the motivation for a concrete JSON subset
   (ack Cory Benfield).

   Expand I18N section.

D.4.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-03

   Mention relation to KEY header field.

D.5.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-04

   Between June and December 2016, this was a work item of the HTTP
   working group (see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
   httpbis-jfv/>).  Work (if any) continues now on
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reschke-http-jfv/>.

   Changes made while this was a work item of the HTTP Working Group:

D.6.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-00

   Added example for "Accept-Encoding" (inspired by Kazuho's feedback),
   showing a potential way to optimize the format when default values
   apply.

D.7.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-01

   Add interop discussion, building on I-JSON and ECMA-262 (see
   <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/225>).

D.8.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-02

   Move non-essential parts into appendix.

   Updated XHR reference.

D.9.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-05

   Add meat to "Using this Format in Header Field Definitions".

   Add a few lines on the relation to "Key".

   Summarize current use of the format.

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

D.10.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-06

   RFC 5987 is obsoleted by RFC 8187.

   Update CLEARSITE comment.

D.11.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-07

   Update JSON and HSTRUCT references.

   FEATUREPOL doesn't use JSON syntax anymore.

D.12.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-08

   Update HSTRUCT reference.

   Update notes about CLEARSITE and FEATUREPOL.

D.13.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-09

   Update HSTRUCT and FEATUREPOL references.

   Update note about REPORTING.

   Changed category to "informational".

D.14.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-10

   Update HSTRUCT reference.

D.15.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-11

   Update HSTRUCT reference.

   Update note about FEATUREPOL (now using Structured Fields).

   Reference [HTTP] instead if RFC723* and adjust (header) field
   terminology accordingly.

   Remove discussion about the relation to KEY (as that spec is dormant:
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-key/>).

   Remove appendices "Examples" and "Discussion".

   Mark "Use of JSON Field Value Encoding in the Wild" for removal in
   RFC.

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft     JSON Encoding for HTTP Field Values        April 2021

D.16.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-12

   Update HTTP reference and update terminology some more.

   Update HSTRUCT reference (now RFC 8941).

D.17.  Since draft-reschke-http-jfv-13

   Update HTTP reference.

   Mention test implementation.

   Clarify that Unicode unpaired surrogates or Noncharacters must not be
   sent.

   Rewrite text about [RFC8941], add appendix comparing both formats.

   And send/receive examples.

Acknowledgements

   Thanks go to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Working Group
   participants.

Author's Address

   Julian F. Reschke
   greenbytes GmbH
   Hafenweg 16
   48155 Münster
   Germany

   Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
   URI:   http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/

Reschke                  Expires 24 October 2021               [Page 15]