W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

draft-ietf-http-pep-02

From: Rohit Khare <khare@pest.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 16:37:13 -0400
Message-Id: <9608192037.AA04237@pest.w3.org>
To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
Cc: jepi-core@commerce.net, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
HTTP Working Group                                           Rohit Khare
INTERNET-DRAFT                                 World Wide Web Consortium
<draft-ietf-http-pep-02>           Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Expires: February 19, 1997                               August 19, 1996

                       HTTP/1.2 EXTENSION PROTOCOL (PEP)

Status of this memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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".

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
   munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
   ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

   Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to
   the HTTP working group at <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>. Discussions of
   the working group are archived at
   http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/.

   This Internet Draft is also available as W3 Consortium Working Draft
   WD-http-pep-960819. A current version is available at
   http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-http-pep.


Abstract

   PEP is a system for HTTP clients, servers, and proxies to reliably
   reason about custom extensions to HTTP. Traditionally, HTTP agents
   offer extended behavior by private agreement using additional message
   headers. PEP has features for expressing the scope, strength, and
   ordering of such extensions, as well as which extensions are
   available.

   PEP as described here is substantially simpler than previous drafts.
   The title has also been changed, since PEP addresses a chartered HTTP
   WG work item.


1. Introduction

   HTTP [3] messages, like most applications of RFC 822 [4], can be
   extended with additional header fields and content formats.
   Traditionally, the standards update process itself extends the
   protocol for major, global new features. However, this approach is
   problematic for deploying casual experiments which could scale up from
   pairwise to universal deployment, especially as HTTP agents become
   more modular, dynamic, and diverse. Casual extension of HTTP is
   hindered by several challlenges:

    1. Naming. To guarantee interoperability, header names, encoding
       tokens, types, response codes, etc. must be centrally arbitrated
       by appealing to IETF standards-track documents or the Internet
       Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This requires more effort from
       implementors than an extension may warrant.

    2. Importance. There is no way to indicate the consequences of
       ignoring an extension: can an agent silently ignore it, may it
       warn the user, or must it return an error message?

    3. Scoping. There is no reliable way to indicate who is to process an
       extension: the next HTTP agent (proxy), or only the origin agent
       (client or server)? 1.1's Connection: is only a partial solution,
       since it cannot convey the criticality of stripped headers.

    4. Ordering. There is no way to indicate in what order to process
       extensions. If several are applied, it can be critical to 'unpack'
       the message in the correct order.

    5. Initiation. Short of unilaterally utilizing an extension, there is
       no way to request the other party to initiate it.

    6. Advertising. Though it is possible to enumerate content variants
       and the headers they differ upon, it is not possible to describe
       available extensions in detail.

    7. Inquiring. There is no way to inquire if an extension is supported
       before attempting to use it. This is critical for selecting among
       related extensions and upgrading to new versions.

   PEP introduces the concept of protocol extensions to systematically
   address these issues at a level of abstraction above header names and
   content-types (hence, `Protocol Extension Protocol'). With PEP, HTTP
   agents can interoperate correctly with known and unknown protocol
   extensions, select protocol extensions available to both sides, and
   query partners for specific capabilities. PEP adds to HTTP the
   extensibility lessons learned from ESMTP (extension naming) [10], IPv6
   (unknown-option disposition) [5], and Telnet (option negotiation)
   [12].

   In addition to reliably describing statically extended HTTP servers
   and clients, PEP will work with dynamically extended agents. Indeed,
   the authors expect that PEP will drive the deployment of a new
   generation of exensible agents (such as W3C's Jigsaw server and libWWW
   reference library).

   NOTE: PEP has been developed over the last year by many interested
   parties, including the W3C/CommerceNet Joint Electronic Payments
   Initiative (JEPI). Two strongly related drafts are also available from
   the IETF and W3C: Don Eastlake's Universal Payment Preamble [6] and
   ``Selecting Payment Mechanisms Over HTTP (or, seven examples of UPP
   over PEP)'' [9].


  1.1 EXAMPLE: PICS

   Consider the example presented by the first deployed PEP application,
   the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) [11]. PICS
   describes a format for labeling almost any content. Since it's
   intended to be a fairly ubiquitous addition to various Internet
   protocols, PICS appropriates the PICS-Label: header for 822
   applications, including mail, news, and web content. The spec could
   not use, say, Label:, since there's no way to effectively arbitrate
   between conflicting uses of header names (PICS was not developed under
   the IETF standards track).

   Even with an eventual dispensation from IANA to use this new header,
   new issues arise: If a server attaches this new header to label an
   HTTP response, will a caching server pass it along? Will it act upon
   the label at all? What kind of feedback will the end-user get when
   this ``unknown'' header appears? How can the user specify which rating
   systems to report?

   The direct fix to the first few problems is to add a
   machine-understandable statement about the extension and its new
   headers. Protocol: headers describe the name of the extension, the
   scope, importance, and any associated data headers. Moving further,
   though, additional information about the protocol can be added to that
   directive: which PICS services were employed, etc.

   Using PEP in this way also solves the next logical problem: how can a
   client request a server to initiate vending PICS labels? The same
   structure for a Protocol: can be reused in a Protocol-Request: asking
   the counterparty to start using the specified extension.

   In addition, PEP affords additional capabilities, like using
   Protocol-Query: to test if PICS is available and Protocol-Info: to
   advertise it. In all cases, the PICS protocol extension can specify
   additional parameters, such as which rating systems, services, which
   kinds of labels, and which other URLs are labelled.


2. The PEP Model

   Protocol extensions can modify HTTP messages, most commonly by adding
   headers, but also by modifying the contents, much like a proxy server
   might do today. There are four points at which PEP processing occurs
   in a basic HTTP transaction (see Section 3 for usage descriptions at
   each step):

    1. Sending an HTTP Request

    2. Receiving an HTTP Request

    3. Sending an HTTP Reply

    4. Receiving an HTTP Reply

   During a conversation, either side may invoke a Protocol:, issue a
   Protocol-Request:, advertise some Protocol-Info:, or test a
   Protocol-Query:. PEP-compliant recipients decode extended messages and
   reply to each Protocol-Request: and Protocol-Query:.

   Unlike some previous extension proposals [9], and unlike some existing
   HTTP/1.1 features (Upgrade: and Connection: tokens), extensions are
   attributes of a resource rather than a server. This means all PEP
   statements are applied to the single resource mentioned in any HTTP
   message (though there is a facility to hint at which other resources
   the same statement applies to).

   An HTTP agent can begin using a protocol extension (or query for one)
   because:

     * It is configured to do so by a user or webmaster

     * It has been requested to do so by the other party

     * The other party has hinted that an extension is available

     * Someone else has hinted that an extension is available

   Another aspect of the PEP model is that protocol extensions can have>
   negotiable parameters. Unlike previous proposals which model
   extensions as binary have/don't have features, PEP expects protocol
   extensions will be able to handle different versions of a particular
   protocol, invocation of ``compatible protocols'', and the selection of
   compatible modes from several that might be advertised.

   To summarize, PEP as proposed here will allow HTTP/1.2 implementors to
   make the following kinds of statements:

     * ``This agent has and is using (or does not have and isn't using)
       the http://w3.org/DES protocol extension with mode parameter CFB
       and header DES-Info:''

     * ``This agent requires/requests/forbids the recipient to begin
       using the http://w3.org/DES protocol extension with mode parameter
       ECB''

     * ``This agent has/requires/refuses the http://pics.org/PICS-1.1
       protocol extension available for any URIs beginning with
       http://www.my.site/homepages/''

     * ``Does the recipient have the http://pics.org/PICS protocol
       extension available for service parameter http://rsac.org/rsaci
       ?''

     * ``This agent has applied two protocol extensions to this message
       in this order.''

     * ``This agent is using the `generic' http://w3.org/UPP payment
       negotiation extension via the payment protocol
       http://cybercash.com/CCCP.''


3. PEP Usage

   Before presenting specifics about each of the four PEP directives and
   the four points where they are processed, here are a few common
   points:

     * Attribute-value bags are used to represent all the data carried in
       PEP headers.

     * Each directive specifies which agent must process it and the
       consequences of not processing it.

     * Each directive is associated with a set of resources: either the
       resource represented by the HTTP request or reply, or a list of
       resource and resource prefixes it applies to.

   A bag is an attribute-value list, where bags are allowed recursively
   as values as well. In PEP, each directive begins with values
   describing the protocol (making the extension name the top attribute).
   Some of those values are common to all directives: the strength (str),
   scope (scope), for list (for) , extension-specific parameters
   (params), and other headers associated with this extension (headers).
   The formal BNF is included in Section 3.5.1.

   Strength and scope are important common concepts. Any directive can be
   ignored, but strength specifies whether an error should be generated
   as a result. Similarly, scope defines which agents should handle the
   directive at all; either the immediate (conn) or final (origin)
   recipient. The combination of the two concepts makes PEP powerful
   enough to deploy features that in the past required a minor-version
   number bump. With PEP, for example, Content-Transfer-Encoding: could
   be described as {str req} {scope conn} for rapid experimentation with
   compressed headers, sticky headers, etc.

   A word about the for list: Since each PEP directive applies only to
   the resource at hand (rather than, say, the entire server or all
   resources of a given type), a hint as to which other resources the
   directive applies to will prevent negotiation round-trips each time.
   Thus, many PEP applications could include {for /*} to apply to an
   entire server. Remember, there already are examples in HTTP/1.1 of
   features which only apply to particular resources, such as Range:.

   When fetching a URL, a client will typically search through its
   database of hints to find all applicable directives before sending an
   HTTP request. Of course, an agent which does not want to use hints can
   ignore them: if the for list includes the URI of the current message,
   just throw away the list; if it does not, just throw away the entire
   directive.

   Finally, note that the Protocol-Query: / Protocol-Info: pair describes
   hypothetical capabilities of agents and resources but that the
   Protocol-Request: / Protocol: pair has immediate consequences for the
   current HTTP transaction. Each pair hangs together and must be
   implemented together, though only the latter pair is mandatory.


  3.1 PROTOCOL-QUERY

   The first statement in a conversation might be to ask if the
   counterparty supports an extension at all. The Protocol-Query: header
   lets one agent ask the other if a particular extension is supported;
   the response comes back in a subsequent Protocol-Info:.

   A query directive specifies its scope, but not a strength, which
   defaults to opt; that's because a query always asks optionally for
   more information, but can neither demand an answer (since query
   support is optional), nor refuse one.

   An agent can query if an extension is supported for an entire list of
   URIs. This means that an answer is expected when the replying agent
   sends a message about any resource on the list; and that an answer
   should reveal as much as can be said about extension support for that
   URI set. This way, a server can ask for a client to be prepared to use
   an extension in a part of his site (e.g. UPP in /Catalog/*); or a
   client can ask a server if an extension applies to all its documents
   of the same type (e.g. indexed range retreival for *.pdf).


    3.1.1 Sending an HTTP Request

   If a client believes an extension may be supported, it can attach a
   Protocol-Query: to an outgoing request to test if an extension is
   supported for that URI (empty for list), an entire server ({for /*})
   or something in between.

   A client can wait to piggyback its queries on other HTTP transactions
   or it can explictly issue an OPTIONS request with its queries.

   Note that a protocol extension might be defined to have side-effects
   when it is queried. For example, the UPP payment selection protocol
   defines that the answer to any queries for UPP should include
   additional information about particular payment mechanisms. Thus, in a
   dynamically extended agent an agent should call back the extension to
   handle a query.


    3.1.2 Receiving an HTTP Request

   When an agent receives a query, it should respond whether the stated
   configuration is acceptable or refused for any of the URI(s)
   specified. Upon receipt of a query, an agent should test if the
   extension is available and, if so, its response to the proposition.
   The server should be prepared to send the resulting information in its
   reply.


    3.1.3 Sending an HTTP Reply

   In preparing an HTTP reply, a server must respond to queries in the
   HTTP request, as well as issue its own queries on the reply. For the
   responses, see Section 3.2 below.


    3.1.4 Receiving an HTTP Reply

   The answers returned to the client are in the form of Protocol-Info:;
   see Section 3.2. The server may have attached queries of its own; the
   client should prepare an answer and attach it to the next HTTP request
   it makes for a URI which matches the realm of the query. Here, too, a
   dynamically extended client should immediately call back an extension,
   since an extension's response to Protocol-Query: may result in
   immediate side effects (e.g. a payment selection interface appearing
   with highlighted possible selections).


  3.2 PROTOCOL-INFO

   The second statement in a conversation might be to declare that one
   party requires/allows/forbids a given protocol extension, either
   unilaterally or in response to an earlier query. The Protocol-Info:
   header lets one agent tell the other if a particular extension is
   supported; there is no required response. Remember, though, that
   Protocol-Info: itself is the required response to Protocol-Query: (see
   Section 3.1).

   An informational response states if the protocol is required, allowed,
   or forbidden for all matching URIs.


    3.2.1 Sending an HTTP Request

   A client will add Protocol-Info: directives if required by a previous
   server query (Section 3.1.4) or if it has any unilateral declarations
   to advertise.


    3.2.2 Receiving an HTTP Request

   A server should take note of any available information; knowledge of a
   client's capabilities is important for step #3 (Section 3.3.3 and
   3.4.3).


    3.2.3 Sending an HTTP Reply

   A server will add Protocol-Info: directives if required by a previous
   client query (Section 3.1.1) or if it has any unilateral declarations
   to make.


    3.2.4 Receiving an HTTP Reply

   A server should take note of any available information; knowledge of a
   client's capabilities is important for step #1 (Section 3.3.1 and
   3.4.1). The response can be to either ignore this information, request
   initiation, or directly initiate the extension on the next request.


  3.3 PROTOCOL-REQUEST

   The third statement in a conversation might be to directly demand or
   forbid that the counterparty begin using an extension.
   Protocol-Request: lets one agent tell the other to initiate a
   particular extension; the response requires a subsequent Protocol:
   directive for each request.


    3.3.1 Sending an HTTP Request

   When a client wants to tell the server to begin using some extension,
   it should check if it knows that the extension will work because of
   stored Protocol-Info:. The Protocol-Request: describes the desired
   protocol; it may include a range of parameters for the respondent to
   pick and choose from.


    3.3.2 Receiving an HTTP Request

   A server must test if a request will succeed. If so, the server must
   begin using the specified extension. If it cannot, the preferred
   mechanism is to echo back the same Protocol-Request: but with {str
   ref}. In addition, if the original request was {str req}, then
   indicate that the request failed with a 42x client or 52x server error
   status code (Section 3.5.2).


    3.3.3 Sending an HTTP Reply

   A server must reply to the client's request to require, accept or
   forbid an extension by either initiating or preventing use of the
   specified protocol or a compatible equivalent (Section 3.4.3). At this
   point, a server may also attach its own requests for a client to
   initiate extensions when accessing this URI or others.

   Note that if a server Protocol-Request: later fails to elicit a
   Protocol: response from the client, nothing can be assumed about the
   client's ability to do PEP, since it may have ``forgotten'' the
   request in the meantime.


    3.3.4 Receiving an HTTP Reply

   The client must evaluate each server Protocol-Request: and, if valid,
   be prepared to use the specified protocol extension when accessing any
   URI matching the request's for list (Section 3.4.1). If it is not
   willing or able to use the specified protocol, it must echo back an
   error on the next access as in Section 3.3.2.

   Note that if a client Protocol-Request: fails to elicit a Protocol: or
   PEP error response (assuming the response URI is in the request's
   realm) at, the client must conclude the origin server is not
   PEP-compliant.


  3.4 PROTOCOL

   The final statement in a conversation might be to use an extension
   directly. Protocol: lets one agent declare that the particular
   extension is in use for the current message; the response may be to
   continue using the extension. An agent can apply an extension at any
   time; the preceeding three conversational steps of testing and
   requesting are only an example.

   This directive packages together any added header lines and any
   reprocessing of the message body. Since HTTP/1.1 eliminates many
   earlier ambiguities about the ordering of headers, we can state
   categorically that protocol directives must be dispatched in the order
   they are listed in the Protocol: header. [The Content-Encoding:
   pipelining mechanism of earlier proposals has been scrapped].

   It is worth noting that the application of a protocol extension can
   affect the cacheablity of the response. This document does not define
   a cache control directive, but expects it to be feasible within the
   1.1 model.

   Connection-scope extensions can remain backward-compatible by listing
   every associated header and the name of the extension in the
   Connection: header.


    3.4.1 Sending an HTTP Request

   The client must decide which extensions to apply to the current
   request: it must respond to each applicable Protocol-Request:, it can
   continue using extensions the server has already used for the
   request-URI, and it may initiate others. As each extension is applied,
   added headers are referenced from the Protocol: line in order. If some
   Protocol-Request: is satisfied by some other protocol extension
   compatible with the one requested, the client will issue two protocol
   directives, one for the extension used, and another indicating the
   extension requested is being used via the other.


    3.4.2 Receiving an HTTP Request

   The server evaluates each protocol extension which is in scope
   according to the order it is listed in the Protocol: header.

   As the server evaluates each protocol, it can interrupt and return
   HTTP error status codes: if a client encoding error is detected (42x),
   the server can't or won't decode properly (52x), or if a protocol is
   used inappropriately (it's refused, not allowed in conjunction with
   certain other protocols, missing, etc.).

   Proxy servers operate similarly: they can simply remove unknown
   optional connection-scope directives but must report errors for
   required directives.


    3.4.3 Sending an HTTP Reply

   The server must also choose protocols it will use from the sets of
   those requested by the client, used by the client, and those it will
   initiate independently. If it cannot construct a valid reply due to
   contradictions among those requirements, it must return HTTP error
   status 520 and enumerate the server's constraints in Protocol-Request:
   headers of the error message.


    3.4.4 Receiving an HTTP Reply

   The client evaluates each protocol extension which is in scope
   according to the order it is listed in the Protocol: header.

   As the client evaluates each protocol, it could fail for many reasons.
   One recovery technique is to reissue its request with the offending
   protocol refused in a Protocol-Request: header. Errors from executing
   required extensions should be reported to a user or log.


  3.5 SYNTAX

   PEP-related syntax is specified here relative to the definitions and
   rules of the HTTP/1.0, HTTP/1.1, and the relative URL specification.


    3.5.1 PEP Headers

   PEP defines two new required general header fields, Protocol: and
   Protocol-Request:, as well as two new optional general header fields,
   Protocol-Query: and Protocol-Info:.

       /* Added to General Header rule, Sec 4.3 of HTTP/1.1 */
       Protocol         = "Protocol" ":" 1#bag
       Protocol-Request = "Protocol-Request" ":" 1#bag
       Protocol-Query   = "Protocol-Query" ":" 1#bag
       Protocol-Info    = "Protocol-Info" ":" 1#bag

       /* Following rules are copied from Section 2.2 of HTTP/1.1 */
       bag              = "{" bagname 1*LWS *bagitem "}"
       bagname          = token | URI
       bagitem          = bag | token | quoted-string
       word             = token | quoted-string
       token            = 1*<any CHAR except CTLs or tspecials>
       tspecials        = "(" | ")" | "<" | ">" | "@"
                        | "," | ";" | ":" | "\" | <">
                        | "/" | "[" | "]" | "?" | "="
                        | "{" | "}" | SP  | HT
       quoted-string    = ( <"> *(qdtext) <"> )
       qdtext           = <any CHAR except <"> and CTLs but including LWS>

   Each bag has several top-level reserved attributes defined:

{<protocol-identifier>        {scope (origin | conn)}
                              {str (opt | req | ref)}
                              {headers *<token>}
                              {params ...}
                              {for *<uri>}
                              {via <protocol-identifier>}}

   protocol-identifier
          The well-known protocol extension URI or an IANA-registered
          token.

   scope
          scope is either of "conn" or "origin" ; the default is
          "origin". It defines which agent must recognize this directive:
          the immediate recipient or the origin client/server.

   str
          strength is one of "req", "ref" or "opt" ; the default is
          "opt". In particular, a protocol directive only allows req or
          opt; request and informational directives allow all three; and
          queries only allow opt.

   headers
          A list of associated message headers; the default is the empty
          set. If a header token ends in "*", it must be used to refer to
          all message headers matching that prefix. Each directive
          enumerates its own associated headers to disambiguate
          `ownership'. This information is critical when 1) reporting an
          error, 2) stripping an extension off of a message (if
          possible), and 3) allowing multiple applications of an
          extension.

   params
          A list of parameters configuring the extension, according to
          the protocol specification; the default is empty.

   for
          a list of relative or absolute URIs [1,2,7] which a protocol
          request is binding upon; the default when the for list is
          empty, is the request-URI or Location: response header. If a
          reference ends in "*", it should be understood as a wild-card
          character (particular implementations may choose to only
          recognize restricted applications of "*", e.g. `only in the
          last component of http: URLs').

   via
          When responding to a request addressed to one protocol
          extension (a query or request directive), an agent may answer
          via another (more specific, upgraded, compatible) extension
          (token or URI). The latter extension is expected to be used
          elsewhere in the same message. This is a hint and only allowed
          in the Protocol: and Protocol-Info: directives. The default is
          empty.

   Note: Multiple occurrences of PEP-defined attribute names in a list
   ("{str req}...{str ref}") will yield undefined behavior.


    3.5.2 PEP Status Codes

   PEP defines several new status codes for HTTP replies. Note that the
   HTTP/1.1 specification states in Section 6.1.1:

     The first digit of the Status-Code defines the class of response.
     The last two digits do not have any categorization role.

   Informally, PEP distinguishes x2z response codes:

   200 Class
          220 Uses Protocol Extensions

   400 Class
          420 Bad Protocol Extension Request
          421 Protocol Extension Unknown
          422 Protocol Extension Refused
          423 Bad Protocol Extension Parameters

   500 Class
          520 Protocol Extension Error
          521 Protocol Extension Not Implemented
          522 Protocol Extension Parameters Not Acceptable

   Each of 400 and 500 class responses may include entity bodies with an
   explanation of the error, and an indication of whether the problem is
   temporary or permanent. A 220 response should be used only when some
   PEP feature is required for correct handling -- it affects the
   cacheability of the response.


4. Conclusions

   This is a discussion draft, not a complete specification. In the
   meantime, this will be the basis for all further JEPI work.

   For additional details and explorations of various issues (e.g.
   security concerns), readers are encouraged to study the earlier
   drafts, available at http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-http-pep.


5. References

   [1]    Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A
          Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of
          Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web", RFC
          1630, CERN, June 1994.

   [2]    Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, Editors,
          "Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, CERN, Xerox
          Corporation, University of Minnesota, December 1994.


   [3]    Jim Gettys, et al, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1".
          Internet Draft W3 Consortium/MIT, August 1996 (Work in
          Progress).

   [4]    D. H. Crocker. "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
          Messages." STD 11, RFC 822, UDEL, August 1982.

   [5]    S. Deering, R. Hinden, Editors, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
          (IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, December 1995.

   [6]    D. Eastlake, "Universal Payment Preamble", Internet Draft
          CyberCash, March 1996 (Work in Progress).

   [7]    R. Fielding. "Relative Uniform Resource Locators." RFC 1808 ,
          UC Irvine, June 1995.

   [8]    JEPI, "Selecting Payment Mechanisms Over HTTP", Internet Draft,
          August 1996 (Work in Progress). [Also available as
          http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Payments/JEPI/draft-jepi-uppflow-00
          .html]

   [9]    D. Kristol, "A Proposed Extension Mechanism for HTTP", Internet
          Draft, January 1995 (Work in Progress, Expired).

   [10]   J. Klensin, N. Freed, M. Rose, E. Stefferud, and D. Crocker.
          "SMTP Service Extensions." RFC 1869. MCI, Innosoft, Dover Beach
          Consulting, Network Management Associates, Brandenburg
          Consulting, November 1995.

   [11]   J. Miller. "Label Syntax and Communication Protocols (Version
          1.1)." W3C Proposed Recommendation PR-PICS-services , W3
          Consortium/MIT, August 1996.

   [12]   J. Postel, J. Reynolds, "Telnet Protocol specification." STD 8,
          RFC 854, USC/ISI, May 1983


6. Author's Address

   [Note: a great many people have participated heavily in the research,
   design, development, and description of the ideas presented here.
   Future revisions will sort out the contributions of various folks,
   likely adding co-authors &c. In the meantime, I will be the single
   contact point for this draft. Many, many thanks to these folks -- you
   know who you are!]

   Rohit Khare
   Technical Staff, W3 Consortium
   MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
   545 Technology Square
   Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
   Tel: +1 (617) 253 5884
   Fax: +1 (617) 258 5999
   Email: khare@w3.org
   Web: http://www.w3.org/People/Khare
Received on Monday, 19 August 1996 13:37:45 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:08 EDT