Skip to content
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion Makefile
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -5,6 +5,6 @@ verify:
@# Use "-x" if you want to skip exernal links
@tools/verify-links.sh -v .
@echo Running the spec phrase checker:
@tools/verify-specs.sh -v spec.md extensions.md serialization.md
@tools/verify-specs.sh -v spec.md extensions.md json-format.md http-transport-binding.md
@echo Running the doc phrase checker:
@tools/verify-docs.sh -v .
366 changes: 366 additions & 0 deletions http-transport-binding.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,366 @@
# HTTP Transport Binding for CloudEvents

## Abstract

The HTTP Transport Binding for CloudEvents defines how events are mapped to
HTTP 1.1 request and response messages.

## Status of this document

This document is a working draft.

## Table of Contents

1. [Introduction](#1-introduction)
- 1.1. [Conformance](#11-conformance)
- 1.2. [Relation to HTTP](#12-relation-to-http)
- 1.3. [Content Modes](#13-content-modes)
- 1.4. [Event Formats](#14-event-formats)
- 1.5. [Security](#15-security)
2. [Use of CloudEvents Attributes](#2-use-of-cloudevents-attributes)
- 2.1. [contentType Attribute](#21-contenttype-attribute)
- 2.2. [data Attribute](#22-data-attribute)
3. [HTTP Message Mapping](#3-http-message-mapping)
- 3.2. [Binary Content Mode](#31-binary-content-mode)
- 3.1. [Structured Content Mode](#32-structured-content-mode)
4. [References](#4-references)

## 1. Introduction

[CloudEvents][CE] is a standardized and transport-neutral definition of the
structure and metadata description of events. This specification defines how
the elements defined in the CloudEvents specification are to be used in
[HTTP 1.1][RFC7230] requests and response messages.

### 1.1. Conformance

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in [RFC2119][RFC2119].

### 1.2. Relation to HTTP

This specification does not prescribe rules constraining the use or handling of
specific [HTTP methods][RFC7231-Section-4], and it also does not constrain the
[HTTP target resource][RFC7230-Section-5-1] that is used for transferring or
soliciting events.

Events can be transferred with all standard or application-defined HTTP request
methods that support payload body transfers. Events can be also be transferred
in HTTP responses and with all HTTP status codes that permit payload body
transfers.

All examples herein that show HTTP methods, HTTP target URIs, and HTTP status
codes are non-normative illustrations.

This specification also applies equivalently to HTTP/2 ([RFC7540][RFC7540]),
which is compatible with HTTP 1.1 semantics.

### 1.3. Content Modes

This specification defines two content modes for transferring events:
*structured* and *binary*. Every compliant implementation SHOULD support both
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Based on section 3, it sounds like every compliant receiver of events SHOULD support both. Unless I'm misinterpreting and anything that sends CloudEvents should be configurable to send either format?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wrote "implementation" specifically so that producers and consumers have a choice when they use said implementation. Senders will typically pick one of the two and Consumers should be prepared to understand both. Do you think that needs rephrasing?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@inlined should we open an issue to revisit this? If you have some text in mind perhaps you could PR it? If you have some questions about the wording then others might as well

modes.

In the *structured* content mode, event metadata attributes and event data are
placed into the HTTP request or response body using an [event
format](#14-event-formats).

In the *binary* content mode, the value of the event `data` attribute is placed
into the HTTP request or response body as-is, with the `contentType` attribute
value declaring its media type; all other event attributes are mapped to HTTP
headers.

### 1.4. Event Formats

Event formats, used with the *stuctured* content mode, define how an event is
expressed in a particular data format. All implementations of this
specification MUST support the [JSON event format][JSON-format], but MAY
support any additional, including proprietary, formats.

### 1.5. Security

This specification does not introduce any new security features for HTTP, or
mandate specific existing features to be used. This specification applies
identically to [HTTP over TLS]([RFC2818][RFC2818]).

## 2. Use of CloudEvents Attributes

This specification does not further define any of the [CloudEvents][CE] event
attributes.

Two of the event attributes, `contentType` and `data` are handled specially
and mapped onto HTTP constructs, all other attributes are transferred as
metadata without further interpretation.

This mapping is intentionally robust against changes, including the addition
and removal of event attributes, and also accommodates vendor extensions to the
event metadata. Any mention of event attributes other than `contentType` and
`data` is exemplary.

### 2.1. contentType Attribute

The `contentType` attribute is assumed to contain a [RFC2046][RFC2046]
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While technically correct, this section feels a bit odd. Its so short and doesn't add anything beyond what the CE spec itself says. In fact, I don't think we should be repeating what the spec says since it could lead to things being out of sync at some point. For now I think we can remove this section

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm using the section as a reference point in this spec, and it's also putting a hard reference on the contentType attribute in the main spec. If there were a debate breaking out about contentType in the main spec potentially also accommodating some oder kind of reference, I'm saying here that this won't work for HTTP. So that reinforcement of the string REALLY being RFC2046 is deliberate, because I prescribe how to evaluate it.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd like to keep the "contentType" section because it discusses one of the two properties that we do special handling for and with, even through I admit that it doesn't say anything substantially new for the property itself aside from aforementioned reinforcement of RFC2046.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd prefer not to duplicate RFC references from the spec. Propose simply linking to https://github.com/cloudevents/spec/blob/master/spec.md#contenttype

compliant media-type expression.

### 2.2. data Attribute

The `data` attribute is assumed to contain opaque application data that is
encoded as declared by the `contentType` attribute.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is confusing. How is the event meta-data encoded then? this seems to invite multiple kinds of encoding. contentType is pretty ambiguous in the specification -- there was prior discussion that it applied to meta-data attributes as well. The spec says "Describe the data encoding format" which it seems @clemensv interprets as the encoding of the data attribute (and others previously discussed as including all of the event data). Whatever is decided, please clarify in the spec.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree we should clarify that in the core spec. The contentType field only makes sense to describe the data field, but for that it is required.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@clemensv can you open an issue (or PR if you have text in mind) for this so we don't lose track of it?


An application is free to hold the information in any in-memory representation
of its choosing, but as the value is transposed into HTTP as defined in this
specification, the assumption is that the `data` attribute value is made
available as a sequence of bytes.

For instance, if the declared `contentType` is
`application/json;charset=utf-8`, the expectation is that the `data` attribute
value is made available as [UTF-8][RFC3629] encoded JSON text to HTTP.

## 3. HTTP Message Mapping

The event binding is identical for both HTTP request and response messages.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this implying that the system that receives an event is expected to return a response in CloudEvents format? Interesting, yet feels a bit outside of the scope of what we've been talking about.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe the intention is to say that this serialization is good for request and responses, not that both MUST be in our serialization formats at the same time.


The content mode is chosen by the sender of the event, which is either the
requesting or the responding party. Gestures that might allow solicitation of
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's a "gesture?"

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I paused on that one too :-) I think he meant "there may be data elsewhere" - but that's just a guess.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can reword that. With "gesture" I generally refer to an protocol interaction pattern. "Using a GET request to obtain an event held in a buffer". That's broader than "method".

events using a particular mode might be defined by an application, but are not
defined here.

The receiver of the event can distinguish between the two modes by inspecting
the `Content-Type` header value. If the value is prefixed with the CloudEvents
media type `application/cloudevents`, indicating the use of a known [event
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not happy with us inventing a new "application/cloudevents" content type. I strongly believe this should be an encoding format alone. E.g. application/json, text/xml, application/protobuf.

Failing to do so will make processing CloudEvents harder with off-the-shelf HTTP frameworks. For example, expressJS's built-in parsers will convert bodies to buffer instead of JS objects when the content-type is "application/cloudevents+json"

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't buy that argument. By that logic, we could not have anything but text and octet-stream, ever. We are factually defining a media type here and that media type has different renderings. if ExpressJS doesn't know +json, someone should teach it that.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AI: Thomas - will open an issue to track this

format](#14-event-formats), the receiver uses *structured* mode, otherwise it
defaults to *binary* mode.

If a receiver detects the CloudEvents media type, but with an event format that
it cannot handle, for instance `application/cloudevents+avro`, it MAY still
treat the event as binary and forward it to another party as-is.

### 3.1. Binary Content Mode

The *binary* content mode accommodates any shape of event data, and allows for
efficient transfer and without transcoding effort.

#### 3.1.1. HTTP Content-Type

For the *binary* mode, the HTTP `Content-Type` value maps directly to the
CloudEvents `contentType` attribute.

#### 3.1.2. Event Data Encoding

The [`data` attribute](#22-data-attribute) byte-sequence is used as the HTTP
message body.

#### 3.1.3. Metadata Headers

All [CloudEvents][CE] attributes with exception of `contentType` and `data`
are individually mapped to and from distinct HTTP message headers.

##### 3.1.3.1 HTTP Header Names

The naming convention for the HTTP header mapping of attributes is:
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@duglin duglin Apr 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where do the set of "extension" attributes go? I assuming as HTTP headers, but we probably need to prefix them with something like CE-X-...

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it'll make sense to promote each extension to being its own field. CE-X- seems ok. I'l add that.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good thanks

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1 to CE-X-


* Each attribute name MUST be prefixed with "CE-"
* Each attribute name's first character MUST be capitalized
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't make sense to dictate the capitalization of headers when HTTP defines header names as case insensitive.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can drop that. I just think it helps with consistency.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For tracking: #168


Examples:

* `eventTime` maps to `CE-EventTime`
* `eventID` maps to `CE-EventID`
* `cloudEventsVersion` maps to `CE-CloudEventsVersion`

For the `extensions` attribute, each entry of the `extensions` map
is mapped to a separate HTTP header. The `extensions` attribute itself is
not mapped to a header.

The naming convention for the `extensions` header mapping of attributes is:

* Each map entry name MUST be prefixed with "CE-X-"
* Each map entry name's first character MUST be capitalized

Examples:

* `example` maps to `CE-X-Example`
* `testExtension` maps to `CE-X-TestExtension`
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Many extensions will not be scalars. It may be worthwhile to define how extensions should be encoded into headers.

FWIW, with the labels proposal I was going to consider

CE-Label: key: value
CE-Label: secondkey: secondvalue

Though this will only work for a single map -> scalar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The spec actually says that precisely https://github.com/cloudevents/spec/pull/148/files#diff-a60455371e295444f7369e2d9329c95bR188

The header value is actually a JSON value. You may not have caught that.


##### 3.1.3.2 HTTP Header Values

The value for each HTTP header is constructed from the respective attribute's
[JSON value][JSON-value] representation, compliant with the [JSON event
format][JSON-format] specification.

Some CloudEvents metadata attributes can contain arbitrary UTF-8 string
content, and per [RFC7230 Section 3][RFC7230-Section-3], HTTP headers MUST only
use printable characters from the US-ASCII character set, and are terminated by
a CRLF sequence.

Therefore, and analog to the encoding rules for Universal character set host
names in URIs [RFC3986 3.2.2][RFC3986], the JSON value MUST be encoded as
follows:

Non-printable ASCII characters and non-ASCII characters MUST first be encoded
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: to make this reversible we must also require percents to be re-encoded. Then we require percent decoding for all headers

As an example, Stackdriver logging unfortunately uses semantically different "/" (log repository structure) and "%2F" (client's resource structure).

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I likely need to point clearer to the percent encoding rules in RFC3986 here; I actually don't want to define that here at all but fully lean on prior art. This here is intended to be a summary.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

4/19 call - Clemens will tweak

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@inlined @clemensv added a sentence about % encoding. See if that helps. If not, let's open an issue to give it another try :-)

according to UTF-8, and then each octet of the corresponding UTF-8 sequence
MUST be percent-encoded to be represented as HTTP header characters, in
compliance with [RFC7230, sections 3, 3.2, 3.2.6][RFC7230-Section-3]. The
rules for encoding of the percent character ('%') apply as defined in
[RFC 3986 Section 2.4.][RFC3986-Section-2-4].

JSON objects and arrays are NOT surrounded with single or double quotes.

#### 3.1.4 Examples

This example shows the *binary* mode mapping of an event with an HTTP POST
request:

``` text
POST /someresource HTTP/1.1
Host: webhook.example.com
CE-CloudEventsVersion: "0.1"
CE-EventType: "com.example.someevent"
CE-EventTime: "2018-04-05T03:56:24Z"
CE-EventID: "1234-1234-1234"
CE-Source: "/mycontext/subcontext"
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I know I've been confused in the past, but are we now allowing Source to be a URI-reference or still a full URI

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe URI references ought to be permissible.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

4/19 - Clemens will make it a full URI

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AI: Thomas - Consider a new PR to change spec to change this property from URI to URI-Reference

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thomas will open a PR later today to change URI to URI-Reference before we create v0.1 release

.... further attributes ...
Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
Content-Length: nnnn

{
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if we should remove the {}'s otherwise people might thing that {} isn't part of the app data, and I believe in this example it is.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's why I broke those across multiple lines. I find the notation here somewhat better than adding fake data that people will then argue about.

... application data ...
}
```

This example shows a response containing an event:

``` text
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
CE-CloudEventsVersion: "0.1"
CE-EventType: "com.example.someevent"
CE-EventTime: "2018-04-05T03:56:24Z"
CE-EventID: "1234-1234-1234"
CE-Source: "/mycontext/subcontext"
.... further attributes ...
Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
Content-Length: nnnn

{
... application data ...
}
```

### 3.2. Structured Content Mode

The *structured* content mode keeps event metadata and data together in the
payload, allowing simple forwarding of the same event across multiple routing
hops, and across multiple transports.

#### 3.2.1. HTTP Content-Type

The [HTTP `Content-Type`][Content-Type] header MUST be set to the media type of
an [event format](#14-event-formats).

Example for the [JSON format][JSON-format]:

``` text
Content-Type: application/cloudevents+json; charset=UTF-8
```

#### 3.2.2. Event Data Encoding

The chosen [event format](#14-event-formats) defines how all attributes,
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I vehemently agree with this statement and wish it could be hoisted up even higher (e.g. this is not just a nuance of HTTP, but that CloudEvents will not support mixed-encoding).

This is the meat behind my argument that "content-type" is a requirement of every transport which we define in this spec, but is not itself a feature of a CloudEvent.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Content-Type is required in the event, because it designates the event payload and not the event.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It really is about encoding. Maybe it should be a separate part of the CloudEvent spec, since it is about how the event is formatted, rather than the semantic of the event itself. (This was why I originally thought it didn't belong in the spec, but can see that people really want to put some encoding semantics in the spec itself. I'm ok with leaving this interpretation for now, and then seeing how it plays out in implementations.)

including the `data` attribute, are represented.

The event metadata and data is then rendered in accordance with the event
format specification and the resulting data becomes the HTTP message body.

#### 3.2.3. Metadata Headers

Implementations MAY include the same HTTP headers as defined for the [binary
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While I think its ok for people to do this, we should make it clear that doing so doesn't remove their requirement to include the same properties in the JSON/body.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm clarifying that.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good

mode](#313-metadata-headers).

All CloudEvents metadata attributes MUST be mapped into the payload, even if
they are also mapped into HTTP headers.

#### 3.2.4 Examples

This example shows a JSON event format encoded event, sent with a PUT request:

``` text

PUT /myresource HTTP/1.1
Host: webhook.example.com
Content-Type: application/cloudevents+json; charset=utf-8
Content-Length: nnnn

{
"cloudEventsVersion" : "0.1",
"eventType" : "com.example.someevent",

... further attributes omitted ...

"data" : {
... application data ...
}
}

```

This example shows a JSON encoded event retuned in a response:

``` text

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/cloudevents+json; charset=utf-8
Content-Length: nnnn

{
"cloudEventsVersion" : "0.1",
"eventType" : "com.example.someevent",

... further attributes omitted ...

"data" : {
... application data ...
}
}

```

## 4. References

- [RFC2046][RFC2046] Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two:
Media Types
- [RFC2119][RFC2119] Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
- [RFC2818][RFC2818] HTTP over TLS
- [RFC3629][RFC3629] UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646
- [RFC3986][RFC3986] Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax
- [RFC4627][RFC4627] The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object
Notation (JSON)
- [RFC4648][RFC4648] The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings
- [RFC6839][RFC6839] Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes
- [RFC7159][RFC7159] The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format
- [RFC7230][RFC7230] Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax
and Routing
- [RFC7231][RFC7231] Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and
Content
- [RFC7540][RFC7540] Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)

[CE]: ./spec.md
[JSON-format]: ./json-format.md
[Content-Type]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-3.1.1.5
[JSON-Value]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159#section-3
[RFC2046]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2046
[RFC2119]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
[RFC2818]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818
[RFC3629]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629
[RFC3986]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986
[RFC3986-Section-2-4]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-2.4
[RFC4627]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627
[RFC4648]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4648
[RFC6839]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6839#section-3.1
[RFC7159]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159
[RFC7230]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230
[RFC7231]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231
[RFC7230-Section-3]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3
[RFC7231-Section-4]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4
[RFC7230-Section-5-1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-5.1
[RFC7540]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540
Loading