The Sunset HTTP Header Field
RFC 8594
| Document | Type |
RFC - Informational
(May 2019; No errata)
Was draft-wilde-sunset-header (individual in art area)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Erik Wilde | ||
| Last updated | 2019-05-15 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | Mark Nottingham | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2018-11-29) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8594 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Alexey Melnikov | ||
| IESG note |
Checking with HTTPBIS whether there are any objections to publish. It is not clear whether this document needs to be Proposed Standard, Informational would suffice for a header field registration. |
||
| Send notices to | Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Wilde
Request for Comments: 8594 May 2019
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
The Sunset HTTP Header Field
Abstract
This specification defines the Sunset HTTP response header field,
which indicates that a URI is likely to become unresponsive at a
specified point in the future. It also defines a sunset link
relation type that allows linking to resources providing information
about an upcoming resource or service sunset.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8594.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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.
Wilde Informational [Page 1]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Temporary Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4. Deprecation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The Sunset HTTP Response Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Sunset and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Sunset Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. The Sunset Link Relation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. The Sunset Response Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. The Sunset Link Relation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
As a general rule, URIs should be stable and persistent so that
applications can use them as stable and persistent identifiers for
resources. However, there are many scenarios where, for a variety of
reasons, URIs have a limited lifetime. In some of these scenarios,
this limited lifetime is known in advance. In this case, it can be
useful for clients if resources make this information about their
limited lifetime known. This specification defines the Sunset HTTP
response header field, which indicates that a URI is likely to become
unresponsive at a specified point in the future.
This specification also defines a sunset link relation type that
allows information to be provided about 1) the sunset policy of a
resource or a service, and/or 2) upcoming sunsets, and/or 3) possible
mitigation scenarios for resource/service users. This specification
does not place any constraints on the nature of the linked resource,
which can be targeted to humans, machines, or both.
Possible scenarios for known lifetimes of resources include, but are
not limited to, the following scenarios.
Wilde Informational [Page 2]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
1.1. Temporary Resources
Some resources may have a limited lifetime by definition. For
example, a pending shopping order represented by a resource may
already list all order details, but it may only exist for a limited
time unless it is confirmed and only then becomes an acknowledged
shopping order. In such a case, the service managing the pending
shopping order can make this limited lifetime explicit, allowing
clients to understand that the pending order, unless confirmed, will
disappear at some point in time.
1.2. Migration
If resources are changing identity because a service migrates them,
then this may be known in advance. While it may not yet be
appropriate to use HTTP redirect status codes (3xx), it may be
interesting for clients to learn about the service's plan to take
down the original resource.
1.3. Retention
There are many cases where regulation or legislation require that
resources are kept available for a certain amount of time. However,
in many cases there is also a requirement for those resources to be
permanently deleted after some period of time. Since the deletion of
the resource in this scenario is governed by well-defined rules, it
could be made explicit for clients interacting with the resource.
1.4. Deprecation
For Web APIs one standard scenario is that an API or specific subsets
of an API may get deprecated. Deprecation often happens in two
stages: the first stage being that the API is not the preferred or
recommended version anymore and the second stage being that the API
or a specific version of the API gets decommissioned.
For the first stage (the API is not the preferred or recommended
version anymore), the Sunset header field is not appropriate: at this
stage, the API remains operational and can still be used. Other
mechanisms can be used for signaling that first stage that might help
with more visible deprecation management, but the Sunset header field
does not aim to represent that information.
For the second stage (the API or a specific version of the API gets
decommissioned), the Sunset header field is appropriate: that is when
the API or a version does become unresponsive. From the Sunset
header field's point of view, it does not matter that the API may not
Wilde Informational [Page 3]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
have been the preferred or recommended version anymore. The only
thing that matters is that it will become unresponsive and that this
time can be advertised using the Sunset header field.
In this scenario, the announced sunset date typically affects all of
the deprecated API or parts of it (i.e., just deprecated sets of
resources), and not just a single resource. In this case, it makes
sense for the API to define rules about how an announced sunset on a
specific resource (such as the API's home/start resource) implies the
sunsetting of the whole API or parts of it (i.e., sets of resources),
and not just the resource returning the sunset header field.
Section 5 discusses how the scope of the Sunset header field may
change because of how a resource is using it.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. The Sunset HTTP Response Header Field
The Sunset HTTP response header field allows a server to communicate
the fact that a resource is expected to become unresponsive at a
specific point in time. It provides information for clients that
they can use to control their usage of the resource.
The Sunset header field contains a single timestamp that advertises
the point in time when the resource is expected to become
unresponsive. The Sunset value is an HTTP-date timestamp, as defined
in Section 7.1.1.1 of [RFC7231], and SHOULD be a timestamp in the
future.
It is safest to consider timestamps in the past mean the present
time, meaning that the resource is expected to become unavailable at
any time.
Sunset = HTTP-date
For example:
Sunset: Sat, 31 Dec 2018 23:59:59 GMT
Wilde Informational [Page 4]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
Clients SHOULD treat Sunset timestamps as hints: it is not guaranteed
that the resource will, in fact, be available until that time and
will not be available after that time. However, since this
information is provided by the resource itself, it does have some
credibility.
After the Sunset time has arrived, it is likely that interactions
with the resource will result in client-side errors (HTTP 4xx status
codes), redirect responses (HTTP 3xx status codes), or the client
might not be able to interact with the resource at all. The Sunset
header field does not expose any information about which of those
behaviors can be expected.
Clients not interpreting an existing Sunset header field can operate
as usual and simply may experience the resource becoming unavailable
without recognizing any notification about it beforehand.
4. Sunset and Caching
It should be noted that the Sunset HTTP response header field serves
a different purpose than HTTP caching [RFC7234]. HTTP caching is
concerned with making resource representations (i.e., represented
resource state) reusable so that they can be used more efficiently.
This is achieved by using header fields that allow clients and
intermediaries to better understand when a resource representation
can be reused or when resource state (and, thus, the representation)
may have changed.
The Sunset header field is not concerned with resource state at all.
It only signals that a resource is expected to become unavailable at
a specific point in time. There are no assumptions about if, when,
or how often a resource may change state in the meantime.
For these reasons, the Sunset header field and HTTP caching should be
seen as complementary and not as overlapping in scope and
functionality.
This also means that applications acting as intermediaries, such as
search engines or archives that make resources discoverable, should
treat Sunset information differently from caching information. These
applications may use Sunset information for signaling to users that a
resource may become unavailable. But they still have to account for
the fact that resource state can change in the meantime and that
Sunset information is a hint and, thus, future resource availability
may differ from the advertised timestamp.
Wilde Informational [Page 5]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
5. Sunset Scope
The Sunset header field applies to the resource that returns it,
meaning that it announces the upcoming sunset of that specific
resource. However, as discussed in Section 1.4, there may be
scenarios where the scope of the announced Sunset information is
larger than just the single resource where it appears.
Resources are free to define such an increased scope, and usually
this scope will be documented by the resource so that consumers of
the resource know about the increased scope and can behave
accordingly. However, it is important to take into account that such
increased scoping is invisible for consumers who are unaware of the
increased scoping rules. This means that these consumers will not be
aware of the increased scope, and they will not interpret Sunset
information different from its standard meaning (i.e., it applies to
the resource only).
Using such an increased scope still may make sense, as Sunset
information is only a hint anyway; thus, it is optional information
that cannot be depended on, and clients should always be implemented
in ways that allow them to function without Sunset information.
Increased scope information may help clients to glean additional
hints from resources (e.g., concluding that an API is being
deprecated because its home/start resource announces a Sunset) and,
thus, might allow them to implement behavior that allows them to make
educated guesses about resources becoming unavailable.
6. The Sunset Link Relation Type
The Sunset HTTP header field indicates the upcoming retirement of a
resource or a service. In addition, a resource may want to make
information available that provides additional information about how
retirement will be handled for resources or services. This
information can be broadly described by the following three topics:
Sunset policy: The policy for which resources and in which way
sunsets may occur may be published as part of service's
description. Sunsets may only/mostly affect a subset of a
service's resources, and they may be exposed according to a
certain policy (e.g., one week in advance).
Upcoming sunset: There may be additional information about an
upcoming sunset, which can be published as a resource that can
be consumed by those looking for this additional information.
Wilde Informational [Page 6]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
Sunset mitigation: There may be information about possible
mitigation/migration strategies, such as possible ways how
resource users can switch to alternative resources/services.
Any information regarding the above issues (and possibly additional
ones) can be made available through a URI that then can be linked to
using the sunset link relation type. This specification places no
constraints on the scope or the type of the linked resource. The
scope can be for a resource or for a service. The type is determined
by the media type of the linked resource and can be targeted to
humans, machines, or both.
If the linked resource does provide machine-readable information,
consumers should be careful before acting on this information. Such
information may, for example, instruct consumers to use a migration
rule so that sunset resources can be accessed at new URIs. However,
this kind of information amounts to a possibly large-scale identity
migration of resources, so it is crucial that the migration
information is authentic and accurate.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. The Sunset Response Header Field
The Sunset response header field has been added to the "Permanent
Message Header Field Names" registry (see [RFC3864]), taking into
account the guidelines given by HTTP/1.1 [RFC7231].
Header Field Name: Sunset
Protocol: http
Status: informational
Author/Change controller: IETF
Reference: RFC 8594
Wilde Informational [Page 7]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
7.2. The Sunset Link Relation Type
The sunset link relation type has been added to the permanent "Link
Relation Types" registry according to Section 4.2 of [RFC8288]:
Relation Name: sunset
Description: Identifies a resource that provides information about
the context's retirement policy.
Reference: RFC 8594
8. Security Considerations
Generally speaking, information about upcoming sunsets can leak
information that otherwise might not be available. For example, a
resource representing a registration can leak information about the
expiration date when it exposes sunset information. For this reason,
any use of sunset information where the sunset represents an
expiration or allows the calculation of another date (such as
calculating a creation date because it is known that resources expire
after one year) should be treated in the same way as if this
information would be made available directly in the resource's
representation.
The Sunset header field SHOULD be treated as a resource hint, meaning
that the resource is indicating (and not guaranteeing with certainty)
its potential retirement. The definitive test whether or not the
resource in fact is available will be to attempt to interact with it.
Applications should never treat an advertised Sunset date as a
definitive prediction of what is going to happen at the specified
point in time: the Sunset indication may have been inserted by an
intermediary or the advertised date may get changed or withdrawn by
the resource owner.
The main purpose of the Sunset header field is to signal intent so
that applications using resources may get a warning ahead of time and
can react accordingly. What an appropriate reaction is (such as
switching to a different resource or service), what it will be based
on (such as machine-readable formats that allow the switching to be
done automatically), and when it will happen (such as ahead of the
advertised date or only when the resource in fact becomes
unavailable) is outside the scope of this specification.
In cases where a sunset policy is linked by using the sunset link
relation type, clients SHOULD be careful about taking any actions
based on this information. It SHOULD be verified that the
information is authentic and accurate. Furthermore, it SHOULD be
Wilde Informational [Page 8]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
tested that this information is only applied to resources that are
within the scope of the policy, making sure that sunset policies
cannot "hijack" resources by for example providing migration
information for them.
9. Example
If a resource has been created in an archive that, for management or
compliance reasons, stores resources for ten years and permanently
deletes them afterwards, the Sunset header field can be used to
expose this information. If such a resource has been created on
November 11, 2016, then the following header field can be included in
responses:
Sunset: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 11:11:11 GMT
This allows clients that are aware of the Sunset header field to
understand that the resource likely will become unavailable at the
specified point in time. Clients can decide to ignore this
information, adjust their own behavior accordingly, or alert
applications or users about this timestamp.
Even though the Sunset header field is made available by the resource
itself, there is no guarantee that the resource indeed will become
unavailable, and if so, how the response will look like for requests
made after that timestamp. In case of the archive used as an example
here, the resource indeed may be permanently deleted, and requests
for the URI after the Sunset timestamp may receive a "410 Gone" HTTP
response. (This is assuming that the archive keeps track of the URIs
that it had previously assigned; if not, the response may be a more
generic "404 Not Found".)
Before the Sunset header field even appears for the first time (it
may not appear from the very beginning), it is possible that the
resource (or possibly just the "home" resource of the service
context) communicates its sunset policy by using the sunset link
relation type. If communicated as an HTTP header field, it might
look as follows:
Link: <http://example.net/sunset>;rel="sunset";type="text/html"
In this case, the linked resource provides sunset policy information
about the service context. It may be documentation aimed at
developers, for example, informing them that the lifetime of a
certain class of resources is ten years after creation and that
Sunset header fields will be served as soon as the sunset date is
Wilde Informational [Page 9]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
less than some given period of time. It may also inform developers
whether the service will respond with 410 or 404 after the sunset
time, as discussed above.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.
Acknowledgements
Thanks for comments and suggestions provided by Ben Campbell, Alissa
Cooper, Benjamin Kaduk, Mirja Kuhlewind, Adam Roach, Phil Sturgeon,
and Asbjorn Ulsberg.
Wilde Informational [Page 10]
RFC 8594 Sunset Header May 2019
Author's Address
Erik Wilde
Email: erik.wilde@dret.net
URI: http://dret.net/netdret/
Wilde Informational [Page 11]