Network Working Group J. Mogul
Request for Comments: 3229 Compaq WRL
Category: Standards Track B. Krishnamurthy
F. Douglis
AT&T
A. Feldmann
Univ. of Saarbruecken
Y. Goland
A. van Hoff
Marimba
D. Hellerstein
ERS/USDA
January 2002
Delta encoding in HTTP
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes how delta encoding can be supported as a
compatible extension to HTTP/1.1.
Many HTTP (Hypertext Transport Protocol) requests cause the retrieval
of slightly modified instances of resources for which the client
already has a cache entry. Research has shown that such modifying
updates are frequent, and that the modifications are typically much
smaller than the actual entity. In such cases, HTTP would make more
efficient use of network bandwidth if it could transfer a minimal
description of the changes, rather than the entire new instance of
the resource. This is called "delta encoding."
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.................................................... 31.1 Related research and proposals........................... 4
2 Goals........................................................... 5
3 Terminology..................................................... 6
4 The HTTP message-generation sequence............................ 84.1 Relationship between deltas and ranges................... 11
5 Basic mechanisms................................................ 135.1 Background: an overview of HTTP cache validation......... 135.2 Requesting the transmission of deltas.................... 145.3 Choice of delta algorithm and format..................... 165.4 Identification of delta-encoded responses................ 165.5 Guaranteeing cache safety................................ 175.6 Transmission of delta-encoded responses.................. 185.7 Examples of requests combining Range and delta encoding.. 19
6 Encoding algorithms and formats................................. 22
7 Management of base instances.................................... 237.1 Multiple entity tags in the If-None-Match header......... 247.2 Hints for managing the client cache...................... 25
8 Deltas and intermediate caches.................................. 27
9 Digests for data integrity...................................... 28
10 Specification.................................................. 2810.1 Protocol parameter specifications....................... 2810.2 IANA Considerations..................................... 3010.3 Basic requirements for delta-encoded responses.......... 3010.4 Status code specifications.............................. 3010.4.1 226 IM Used...................................... 3110.5 Header specifications................................... 3110.5.1 Delta-Base....................................... 3110.5.2 IM............................................... 3210.5.3 A-IM............................................. 3310.6 Caching rules for 226 responses......................... 3510.7 Rules for deltas in the presence of content-codings..... 36
10.7.1 Rules for generating deltas in the presence of
content-codings.................................. 3710.7.2 Rules for applying deltas in the presence of
content-codings.................................. 3710.7.3 Examples for using A-IM, IM, and content-codings. 38
10.8 New Cache-Control directives............................ 4010.8.1 Retain directive................................. 4010.8.2 IM directive..................................... 4010.9 Use of compression with delta encoding.................. 4110.10 Delta encoding and multipart/byteranges................ 42
11 Quantifying the protocol overhead.............................. 42
12 Security Considerations........................................ 44
13 Acknowledgements............................................... 44
14 Intellectual Property Rights................................... 44
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
15 References..................................................... 44
16 Authors' addresses............................................. 47
17 Full Copyright Statement....................................... 49
1 Introduction
The World Wide Web is a distributed system, and so often benefits
from caching to reduce retrieval delays. Retrieval of a Web resource
(such as a document, image, icon, or applet) over the Internet or
other wide-area networks usually takes enough time that the delay is
over the human threshold of perception. Often, that delay is
measured in seconds. Caching can often eliminate or significantly
reduce retrieval delays.
Many Web resources change over time, so a practical caching approach
must include a coherency mechanism, to avoid presenting stale
information to the user. Originally, the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP) provided little support for caching, but under operational
pressures, it quickly evolved to support a simple mechanism for
maintaining cache coherency.
In HTTP/1.0 [2], the server may supply a "last-modified" timestamp
with a response. If a client stores this response in a cache entry,
and then later wishes to re-use the response, it may transmit a
request message with an "If-modified-since" field containing that
timestamp; this is known as a conditional retrieval. Upon receiving
a conditional request, the server may either reply with a full
response, or, if the resource has not changed, it may send an
abbreviated reply, indicating that the client's cache entry is still
valid. HTTP/1.0 also includes a means for the server to indicate,
via an "Expires" timestamp, that a response will be valid until that
time; if so, a client may use a cached copy of the response until
that time, without first validating it using a conditional retrieval.
HTTP/1.1 [10] adds many new features to improve cache coherency and
performance. However, it preserves the all-or-none model for
responses to conditional retrievals: either the server indicates that
the resource value has not changed at all, or it must transmit the
entire current value.
Common sense suggests (and traces confirm), however, that even when a
Web resource does change, the new instance is often substantially
similar to the old one. If the difference, or "delta", between the
two instances could be sent to the client instead of the entire new
instance, a client holding a cached copy of the old instance could
apply the delta to construct the new version. In a world of finite
bandwidth, the reduction in response size and delay could be
significant.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
One can think of deltas as a way to squeeze as much benefit as
possible from client and proxy caches. Rather than treating an
entire response as the "cache line", with deltas we can treat
arbitrary pieces of a cached response as the replaceable unit, and
avoid transferring pieces that have not changed.
This document proposes a set of compatible extensions to HTTP/1.1
that allow clients and servers to use delta encoding with minimal
overhead.
We assume that the reader is familiar with the HTTP/1.1
specification.
The idea of delta encoding to reduce communication or storage costs
is not new. For example, the MPEG-1 video compression standard
transmits occasional still-image frames, but most of the frames sent
are encoded (to oversimplify) as changes from an adjacent frame. The
SCCS and RCS [27] systems for software version control represent
intermediate versions as deltas; SCCS starts with an original version
and encodes subsequent ones with forward deltas, whereas RCS encodes
previous versions as reverse deltas from their successors.
Jacobson's technique for compressing IP and TCP headers over slow
links [17] uses a clever, highly specialized form of delta encoding.
In spite of this history, it appears to have taken several years
before anyone thought of applying delta encoding to HTTP, perhaps
because the development of HTTP caching has been somewhat haphazard.
The first published suggestion for delta encoding appears to have
been by Williams et al. in a paper about HTTP cache removal policies
[30], but these authors did not elaborate on their design until later
[29].
The WebExpress project [15] appears to be the first published
description of an implementation of delta encoding for HTTP (which
they call "differencing"). WebExpress is aimed specifically at
wireless environments, and includes a number of orthogonal
optimizations. Also, the WebExpress design does not propose changing
the HTTP protocol itself, but rather uses a pair of interposed
proxies to convert the HTTP message stream into an optimized form.
The results reported for WebExpress differencing are impressive, but
are limited to a few selected benchmarks.
Banga et al. [1] describe the use of optimistic deltas, in which a
layer of interposed proxies on either end of a slow link collaborate
to reduce latency. If the client-side proxy has a cached copy of a
resource, the server-side proxy can simply send a delta (or a 304
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
[Not Modified] response). If only the server-side proxy has a cached
copy, it may optimistically send its (possibly stale) copy to the
client-side proxy, followed (if necessary) by a delta once the
server-side proxy has validated its own cache entry with the origin
server. The use of optimistic deltas, unlike delta encoding,
actually increases the number of bytes sent over the network, in an
attempt to improve latency by anticipating a "Not Modified" response
from the origin server. The optimistic delta paper, like the
WebExpress paper, did not propose a change to the HTTP protocol
itself, and reported results only for a small set of selected URLs.
Mogul et al. [23] collected lengthy traces, at two different sites,
of the full contents of HTTP messages, to quantify the potential
benefits of delta-encoded responses. They showed that delta encoding
can provide remarkable improvements in response-size and response-
delay for an important subset of HTTP content types. They proposed a
set of HTTP extensions, but without the level of detail required for
a specification. Douglis et al. [8] used the same sets of full-
content traces to quantify the rate at which resources change in the
Web.
The HTTP Distribution and Replication Protocol (DRP), proposed to W3C
by Marimba, Netscape, Sun, Novell, and At Home, aims to provide a
collection of new features for HTTP, to support "the efficient
replication of data over HTTP" [13]. One aspect of the DRP proposal
is the use of "differential downloading," which is essentially a form
of delta encoding. The original DRP proposal uses a different
approach than is described here, but a forthcoming revision of DRP
will be revised to conform to the proposal in this document.
Tridgell and Mackerras [28] describe the "rsync" algorithm, which
accomplishes something similar to delta encoding. In rsync, the
client breaks a cache entry into a series of fixed-sized blocks,
computes a digest value for each block, and sends the series of
digest values to the server as part of its request. The origin
server does the same block-based computation, and returns only those
blocks whose digest values differ. We believe that it might be
possible to support rsync using the "instance manipulation" framework
described later in this document, but this has not been worked out in
any detail.
2 Goals
The goals of this proposal are:
1. Reduce the mean size of HTTP responses, thereby improving
latency and network utilization.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
2. Avoid any extra network round trips.
3. Minimize the amount of per-request and per-response overheads.
4. Support a variety of encoding algorithms and formats.
5. Interoperate with HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1.
6. Be fully optional for clients, proxies, and servers.
7. Allow moderately simple implementations.
The goals do not include:
- Reducing the number of HTTP requests sent to an origin server.
- Reducing the size of every HTTP message.
- Increasing the cache-hit ratio of HTTP caches.
- Allowing excessively simplistic implementations of delta
encoding.
- Delta encoding of request messages, or of responses to methods
other than GET.
Nothing in this specification specifically precludes the use of
a delta encoding for the body of a PUT request. However, no
mechanism currently exists for the client to discover if the
server can interpret such messages, and so we do not attempt to
specify how they might be used.
3 Terminology
HTTP/1.1 [10] defines the following terms:
resource A network data object or service that can be
identified by a URI, as defined in section 3.2.
Resources may be available in multiple
representations (e.g. multiple languages, data
formats, size, resolutions) or vary in other ways.
entity The information transferred as the payload of a
request or response. An entity consists of
metainformation in the form of entity-header fields
and content in the form of an entity-body, as
described in section 7.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
variant A resource may have one, or more than one,
representation(s) associated with it at any given
instant. Each of these representations is termed a
`variant.' Use of the term `variant' does not
necessarily imply that the resource is subject to
content negotiation.
The dictionary definition for "entity" is "something that has
separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality"
[21]. Unfortunately, the definition for "entity" in HTTP/1.1 is
similar to that used in MIME [12], based on a false analogy between
MIME and HTTP.
In MIME, electronic mail messages do have distinct and separate
existences. MIME defines "entity" as something that "refers
specifically to the MIME-defined header fields and contents of either
a message or one of the parts in the body of a multipart entity."
In HTTP, however, a response message to a GET does not have a
distinct and separate existence. Rather, it reflects the current
state of a resource (or a variant, subject to a set of constraints).
The HTTP/1.1 specification has no term to describe "the value that
would be returned in response to a GET request at the current time
for the selected variant of the specified resource." This leads to
awkward wordings in the HTTP/1.1 specification in places where this
concept is necessary.
To express this concept, we define a new term, for use in this
document:
instance The entity that would be returned in a status-200
response to a GET request, at the current time, for
the selected variant of the specified resource, with
the application of zero or more content-codings, but
without the application of any instance manipulations
(see below) or transfer-codings.
It is convenient to think of an entity tag, in HTTP/1.1, as being
associated with an instance, rather than an entity. That is, for a
given resource, two different response messages might include the
same entity tag, but two different instances of the resource should
never be associated with the same (strong) entity tag.
We will informally use the term "delta," in this document, to mean an
HTTP response encoded as the difference between two instances.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
More formally, delta encodings are members of a potentially larger
class of transformations on instances, leading to this new term:
instance manipulation
An operation on one or more instances which may
result in an instance being conveyed from server to
client in parts, or in more than one response
message. For example, a range selection or a delta
encoding. Instance manipulations are end-to-end, and
often involve the use of a cache at the client.
For reasons that will become clear later on, it is convenient to
think about subrange selection as a form of instance manipulation.
In some contexts, compression might also be treated as an instance
manipulation, rather than as a content-coding or transfer-coding.
4 The HTTP message-generation sequence
HTTP/1.1 supports a number of different transformations on the body
of a value:
Content-coding According to the specification, "Content coding
values indicate an encoding transformation that has
been or can be applied to an entity. Content codings
are primarily used to allow a document to be
compressed or otherwise usefully transformed without
losing the identity of its underlying media type and
without loss of information. Frequently, the entity
is stored in coded form, transmitted directly, and
only decoded by the recipient." Content-codings are
normally end-to-end transformations; i.e., once
applied at the sender, they are not removed except at
the ultimate recipient. An intermediate server may
apply a content-coding, in appropriate circumstances.
Transfer-coding According to the specification, "Transfer coding
values are used to indicate an encoding
transformation that has been, can be, or may need to
be applied to an entity-body in order to ensure "safe
transport" through the network. This differs from a
content coding in that the transfer coding is a
property of the message, not of the original entity."
Transfer-codings are explicitly hop-by-hop
transformations (although, as an optimization, an
intermediate proxy may store the transfer-coded
version of a message if this behavior is not
inconsistent with its externally visible function.)
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
Ranges An HTTP client, using the Range header, may request
that the server return one or more subranges of the
instance, rather than the entire instance value.
HTTP/1.1 only supports byte-ranges, although there is
some possibility that future extensions will allow
for other kinds of range-specifiers (such as chapters
of a document).
A client signals its willingness to receive a content-coding by
sending an "Accept-Encoding" header, listing the set of content-
codings that it understands. It may optionally include information
about which content-codings it prefers. If a server uses any non-
identity content-coding(s), it includes a "Content-Encoding" header
field in the response, listing these content-codings in their order
of application.
RFC 2068 [9] did not include an analogous mechanism for negotiating
the use of transfer-codings, although it does include an analogous
"Transfer-Encoding" header for marking the response. A new "TE"
header has since been added to HTTP/1.1 [10], analogous to the
"Accept-Encoding" header.
In this document, we add new, optional message headers to support the
use of instance manipulations. A client signals its willingness to
receive an instance-manipulation by sending an "A-IM" header (short
for "Accept-Instance-Manipulation", which is far too long to spell
out), analogous to the "Accept-Encoding" header. Similarly, a server
lists the set of instance-manipulations it has applied using an "IM"
header.
One must understand the relationship between these transformations in
order to see how delta encoding applies to HTTP responses.
Conceptually, the various transformations are applied in the
following sequence:
1. Upon receiving a GET request, the server uses the URI in the
request to identify the requested resource.
2. Optionally, it uses information from the request (and perhaps
additional information) to select a variant of that resource.
3. At this point, the server may apply a non-identity content-
coding to the instance, or one might have been inherent in its
generation. This also results in a Content-Encoding header.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
4. The result of the first three steps, at the time when the
request is processed, is an instance. The instance includes a
body (possibly empty) and possibly some instance headers. The
entity tag, if any, is assigned at this point. That is, an
entity tag is associated with an instance, NOT an entity.
5. The server may then apply an instance-manipulation. For
example, if the request included a Range header, the server may
optionally produce a range response, consisting of the original
set of headers, a Content-Range header, and the appropriate
range(s) from the (possibly encoded) body. Delta encodings are
instance-manipulations, and are computed at this stage.
6. The result of the fifth step becomes the entity, consisting of
entity headers and an entity body.
7. The server may then apply a non-identity transfer-coding; on-
the-fly compression could be done in this step. If so, a
Transfer-Encoding header is added to the message.
8. The results of the seventh step is the message, consisting of a
message body (the transfer-coded version of the entity body),
the entity headers, and additional response and general
headers.
Note: Section 14.13 of the HTTP/1.1 specification [10] says "The
Content-Length entity-header field indicates the size of the
entity-body." In other words, Content-Length measures the length
of an entity, not of an instance or of a variant. For example, if
the message is a delta encoding, Content-Length gives the length
of the delta encoding, not the length of the current instance.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
Diagrammatically, the sequence is:
datatype operation leading to next datatype
======== ==================================
resource
| choose acceptable variant, if needed
v
variant
| apply content-coding, if any
v
| compute/assign entity tag
v
instance
| apply instance manipulation, if any
v (delta encoding, range selection, etc.)
entity-body
| apply transfer-coding, if any
v
message-body
This formalization of the HTTP message generation sequence has not
previously been described. However, it is clear that Range selection
needs to be done after the entity tag has been assigned and after any
content-coding has been applied, and before any transfer-coding is
applied. Therefore, this formalization is fully consistent with
previous practice and specification.
If both Ranges and delta encodings are forms of instance
manipulation, which should be applied first? This depends on how the
Range is being used.
Ranges are used for two main purposes, at the discretion of the
requesting client:
1. to complete a partial response after a premature termination of
a message transmission.
2. to obtain just selected sections of an instance.
In the first use of Range, it would have to be applied after any
delta encoding, since the intended use is to recover an intact copy
of the delta-encoded instance. In the second use of Range, it would
have to be applied before any delta encoding, because otherwise the
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
offsets specified in the Range request would be meaningless (the
client generally cannot know how a server's delta encoding maps
instance byte offsets to entity byte offsets).
Therefore, we need a mechanism to allow the client to specify the
order in which two or more instance-manipulations should be applied.
This is easily provided as part of the specification of the "A-IM"
header (see section 10.5.3), where we require that the server apply
instance-manipulations in the order that they are listed in the "A-
IM" header. We also include a "range" literal in the set of
registered instance-manipulations, to allow the client to specify (by
its ordering with respect to other instance-manipulations) whether
range selection is done before or after delta encoding.
We also need a mechanism for the server to indicate in which order
two or more instance-manipulations have been applied; this is part of
the specification of the "IM" header (see section 10.5.2), where we
follow the same practice used for the "Content-Encoding" header: the
"IM" header lists the instance-manipulations in the order that were
applied (including, perhaps, the special "range" literal).
A similar issue arises when Ranges are combined with compression. If
the client is using a Range to complete a partial response after a
premature termination of a compressed message, then the Range would
have to be applied after the compression. This is feasible in
unmodified HTTP/1.1, because the compression can be done as a
content-coding. However, if the client is using a Range to obtain
selected sections of an instance, it would normally be able to
specify offsets only in terms of the uncompressed variant. If the
selected portion was large enough to warrant compression, the client
could request a compressed transfer-coding, but this is a hop-by-hop
transformation and is not the most efficient approach (especially if
an HTTP/1.0 proxy is in the path).
We can resolve this issue by supporting the use of compression as an
instance-manipulation (as well as as a content-coding or transfer-
coding), and by using the new mechanism that allows the client to
specify that the compression instance-manipulation is done after the
Range instance-manipulation.
This also allows the client to control whether compression is done
before or after delta encoding, since some simple differencing
algorithms (such as the UNIX "diff" command) require post-compression
of their output to yield the best results.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
5 Basic mechanisms
In this section, we explain the concepts behind delta encoding. This
is not meant as a formal specification of the proposed extensions;
see section 10 for that.
When a client has a response in its cache, and wishes to ensure that
this cache entry is current, HTTP/1.1 allows the client to do a
"conditional GET", using one of two forms of "cache validators." In
the traditional form, available in both HTTP/1.0 and in HTTP/1.1, the
client may use the "If-Modified-Since" request-header to present to
the server the "Last-Modified" timestamp (if any) that the server
provided with the response. If the server's timestamp for the
resource has not changed, it may send a response with a status code
of 304 (Not Modified), which does not transmit the body of the
resource. If the timestamp has changed, the server would normally
send a response with a status code of 200 (OK), which carries a
complete copy of the resource, and a new Last-Modified timestamp.
This timestamp-based approach is prone to error because of the lack
of timestamp resolution: if a resource changes twice during one
second, the change might not be detectable. Therefore, HTTP/1.1 also
allows the server to provide an entity tag with a response. An
entity tag is an opaque string, constructed by the server according
to its own needs; the protocol specification imposes a bare minimum
of requirements on entity tags. (In particular, a "strong" entity
tag must change if the value of the resource changes.) In this case,
the client may validate its cache entry by sending its conditional
request using the "If-None-Match" request-header, presenting the
entity tag associated with the cached response. (The protocol
defines several other ways to transmit entity tags, such as the "If-
Range" header, used for short-circuiting an otherwise necessary round
trip.) If the presented entity tag matches the server's current tag
for the resource, the server should send a 304 (Not Modified)
response. Otherwise, the server should send a 200 (OK) response,
along with a complete copy of the resource.
In the existing HTTP protocol (HTTP/1.0 or HTTP/1.1), a client
sending a conditional request can expect either of two responses:
- status = 200 (OK), with a full copy of the resource, because
the server's copy of the resource is presumably different from
the client's cached copy.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
- status = 304 (Not Modified), with no body, because the server's
copy of the resource is presumably the same as the client's
cached copy.
Informally, one could think of these as "deltas" of 100% and 0% of
the resource, respectively. Note that these deltas are relative to a
specific cached response. That is, a client cannot request a delta
without specifying, somehow, which two instances of a resource are
being differenced. The "new" instance is implicitly the current
instance that the server would return for an unconditional request,
and the "old" instance is the one that is currently in the client's
cache. The cache validator (last-modified time or entity tag) is
what is used to communicate to the server the identity of the old
instance.
In order to support the transmission of actual deltas, an extension
to HTTP/1.1 needs to provide these features:
1. A way to mark a request as conditional.
2. A way to specify the old instance, to which the delta will be
applied by the client.
3. A way to indicate that the client is able to apply one or more
specific forms of delta encoding.
4. A way to mark a response as being delta-encoded in a particular
format.
The first two features are already provided by HTTP/1.1: the presence
of a conditional request-header (such as "If-Modified-Since" or "If-
None-Match") marks a request as conditional, and the value of that
header uniquely specifies the old instance (ignoring the problem of
last-modified timestamp granularity).
We defer discussion of the fourth feature, until section 5.6.
The third feature, a way for the client to indicate that it is able
to apply deltas (aside from the trivial 0% and 100% deltas), can be
accomplished by transmitting a list of acceptable delta-encoding
formats in a request-header field; specifically, the "A-IM" header.
The presence of this list in a conditional request indicates that the
client is able to apply delta-encoded cache updates.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
For example, a client might send this request:
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
Host: bar.example.net
If-None-Match: "123xyz"
A-IM: vcdiff, diffe, gzip
The meaning of this request is that:
- The client wants to obtain the current value of /foo.html.
- It already has a cached response (instance) for that resource,
whose entity tag is "123xyz".
- It is willing to accept delta-encoded updates using either of
two formats, "diffe" (i.e., output from the UNIX "diff -e"
command), and "vcdiff". (Encoding algorithms and formats, such
as "vcdiff", are described in section 6.)
- It is willing to accept responses that have been compressed
using "gzip," whether or not these are delta-encoded. (It
might be useful to compress the output of "diff -e".) However,
based on the mandatory ordering constraint specified in section
10.5.3, if both delta encoding and compression are applied,
then this "A-IM" request header specifies that compression
should be done last.
If, in this example, the server's current entity tag for the resource
is still "123xyz", then it should simply return a 304 (Not Modified)
response, as would a traditional server.
If the entity tag has changed, presumably but not necessarily because
of a modification of the resource, the server could instead compute
the delta between the instance whose entity tag was "123xyz" and the
current instance.
We defer discussion of what the server needs to store, in order to
compute deltas, until section 7.
We note that if a client indicates it is willing to accept deltas,
but the server does not support this form of instance-manipulation,
the server will simply ignore this aspect of the request. (HTTP
always allows an implementation to ignore a header that is not
required by a specification that the implementation complies with,
and the specification of "A-IM" allows the server to ignore an
instance-manipulation it does not understand.) So if a server either
does not implement the A-IM header at all, or does not implement any
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
of the instance manipulations listed in the A-IM header, it acts as
if the client had not requested a delta-encoded response: the server
generates a status-200 response.
The server is not required to transmit a delta-encoded response. For
example, the result might be larger than the current size of the
resource. The server might not be able to compute a delta for this
type of resource (e.g., a compressed binary format); the server might
not have sufficient CPU cycles for the delta computation; the server
might not support any of the delta formats supported by the client;
or, the network bandwidth might be high enough that the delay
involved in computing the delta is not worth the delay avoided by
sending a smaller response.
However, if the server does want to compute a delta, and the set of
encodings it supports has more than one encoding in common with the
set offered by the client, which encoding should it use? This is
mostly at the option of the server, although the client can express
preferences using "Quality Values" (or "qvalues") in the "A-IM"
header. The HTTP/1.1 specification [10] describes qvalues in more
detail. (Clients may prefer one delta encoding format over another
that generates a smaller encoding, if the decoding costs for the
first format are lower and the client is resource-constrained.)
Server implementations have a number of possible approaches. For
example, if CPU cycles are plentiful and network bandwidth is scarce,
the server might compute each of the possible encodings and then send
the smallest result. Or the server might use heuristics to choose an
encoding format, based on things such as the content-type of the
resource, the current size of the resource, and the expected amount
of change between instances of the resource.
Note that it might pay to cache the deltas internally to the server,
if a resource is typically requested by several different delta-
capable clients between modifications. In this case, the cost of
computing a delta may be amortized over many responses, and so the
server might use a more expensive computation.
A response using delta encoding must be identified as such. This is
done using the "IM" response-header, specified in section 10.5.2.
However, a simplistic application of this approach would cause
serious problems if a delta-encoded response flows through an
intermediate (proxy) cache that is not cognizant of the delta
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
mechanism. Because the Internet still includes a significant number
of HTTP/1.0 caches, which might never be entirely replaced, and
because the HTTP specifications insist that message recipients ignore
any header field that they do not understand, a non-delta-capable
proxy cache that receives a delta-encoded response might store that
response, and might later return it to a non-delta-capable client
that has made a request for the same resource. This naive client
would believe that it has received a valid copy of the entire
resource, with predictably unpleasant results.
To solve this problem, we propose that delta-encoded responses
(actually, all instance-manipulated responses) be identified as such
using a new HTTP status code. For specificity in the discussion that
follows, we will use the (currently unassigned) code of 226, with a
reason phrase of "IM Used". (We see no benefit in spelling out the
words "Instance Manipulation Used," since this requires the
transmission of unnecessary bytes, and this Reason-phrase should not
normally be seen by human users.) There is some precedent for this
approach: the HTTP/1.1 specification introduces the 206 (Partial
Content) status code, for the transmission of sub-ranges of a
resource. Existing proxies apparently forward responses with unknown
status codes, and do not attempt to cache them.
An alternative to using a new status code would be to use the
"Expires" header to prevent HTTP/1.0 caches from storing the
response, then use "Cache-Control: max-age" (defined in HTTP/1.1) to
allow more modern caches to store delta-encoded responses. This adds
many bytes to the response headers, and so would reduce the
effectiveness of delta encoding. It is also not entirely clear that
this approach suppresses all caching by all HTTP/1.0 proxies.
We were reluctant to define an additional status code as part of
the support for delta encoding. However, we see no other
efficient way to remain compatible with the deployed base of
HTTP/1.0 cache implementations.
Although we are not aware of any HTTP/1.1 proxy implementations that
would attempt to cache a response with an unknown 2xx status code,
the HTTP/1.1 specification does allow this behavior if the response
carries an Expires or Cache-Control header field that explicitly
allows caching. This would present a problem when a 226 (IM Used)
response carries such headers.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
The solution in that case is to exploit the Cache Control Extensions
mechanism from the HTTP/1.1 specification. We define a new cache-
directive, "im", which indicates that the "no-store" cache-directive
may be ignored by implementations that conform to the specification
for the IM and A-IM headers.
For example, this response:
HTTP/1.1 226 IM Used
ETag: "489uhw"
IM: vcdiff
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:30:05 GMT
Cache-Control: no-store, im, max-age=30
...
"MUST NOT" be stored by a cache that complies with the HTTP/1.1
specification (which states that the max-age cache-directive "implies
that the response is cacheable [...] unless some other, more
restrictive cache directive is also present."). However, a cache
that does comply with the specification for the im cache-directive
(i.e., a cache that complies with the specification for the A-IM and
IM header fields, and the 226 status code) ignores the no-store
directive, and therefore sees the max-age directive as allowing
caching.
We are not entirely sure that all HTTP/1.1 caches obey the rule
that the max-age directive is overridden by the no-store
directive. If operational testing reveals this to be a problem,
more elaborate solutions are possible.
Warning to origin server implementors: it does not suffice to send
Vary: If-None-Match, A-IM
in status-226 responses. We have discovered at least one scenario
where this does not prevent a proxy cache that does not implement IM
and A-IM from incorrectly "validating" a cached 226 response.
A delta-encoded response differs from a standard response in four
ways:
1. It carries a status code of 226 (IM Used).
2. It carries an "IM" response-header field, indicating which
delta encoding is used in this response.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
3. Its message-body is a delta encoding of the current instance,
rather than a full copy of the instance.
4. It might carry several other new headers, as described later in
this document.
For example, a response to the request given in section 5.2 might
look like:
HTTP/1.1 226 IM Used
ETag: "489uhw"
IM: vcdiff
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:30:05 GMT
...
(We do not show the actual contents of the response body, since this
is a binary format.)
Note: the Etag header in a 226 response with a delta encoding
provides the entity tag of the current instance of the resource
variant. It is not meaningful to associate an entity tag with the
delta value, which is not an instance.
In the example used in section 5.2, the client sends:
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
Host: bar.example.net
If-None-Match: "123xyz"
A-IM: vcdiff, diffe, gzip
and the server either responds with a 304 (Not Modified) response, or
with the appropriate delta encoding.
Here are a few more examples, to clarify how the client request
should be interpreted.
If the client sends
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
Host: bar.example.net
If-None-Match: "123xyz"
A-IM: vcdiff, diffe, gzip, range
Range: bytes=0-99
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
then the meaning is the same as in the example above, except that
after the delta encoding (and compression, if any) is computed, the
server then returns only the first 100 bytes of the output of the
delta encoding. (If it is shorter than 100 bytes, the entire delta
encoding is returned.) Because the "range" token appears last in the
"A-IM" header, this tells the origin server to apply any range
selection after the other instance-manipulations.
The interaction between the If-Range mechanism and delta encoding is
somewhat complex. (If-Range means, informally, "if the entity is
unchanged, send me the part(s) that I am missing; otherwise, send me
the entire new entity.") Here is an example that should clarify the
use of this combination.
Suppose that the client wants to have the complete current instance
of http://bar.example.net/foo.html. It already has a (complete)
cache entry for this URI, with entity tag "A", so it issues this
request:
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
host: bar.example.net
If-None-Match: "A"
A-IM: vcdiff
Suppose that the server's current instance has entity tag "B", and
that the server also has retained a copy of the instance with entity
tag "A". Then, the server could compute the difference between "B"
and "A", and respond with:
HTTP/1.1 226 IM Used
Etag: "B"
IM: vcdiff
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:30:05 GMT
Content-Length: 1000
...
but the network connection is terminated after the client has
received exactly 900 bytes of the message body for the delta-encoded
content.
The client wants to retrieve the remaining 100 bytes of the delta
encoding that was being sent in the interrupted response. It
therefore should send:
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
host: bar.example.net
If-None-Match: "A"
If-Range: "B"
A-IM: vcdiff,range
Range: bytes=900-
This rather elaborate request has a well-defined meaning, which
depends on the current entity tag Tcur of the instance when the
server receives the request:
Tcur = "A" (i.e., for some reason, the instance has reverted to
the value already in the client's cache). The server
should return a 304 (Not Modified) response, as
required by the HTTP/1.1 specification for "If-None-
Match".
Tcur = "B" (i.e., the instance has not changed again). The
HTTP/1.1 specification for "If-None-Match", in this
case, is that the header field is ignored (by a
server that does not understand delta encoding).
Therefore, this is equivalent to the client's
previous request, except that the Range selection is
applied after the vcdiff instance manipulation (if
both are to be applied). So the (delta-aware) server
again computes the delta between the "A" instance and
the "B" instance (or uses a cached computation of the
delta), then applies the Range selection, and returns
a 226 (IM Used) response, with an message-body
containing bytes 900 to 999 of the result of the
vcdiff encoding, with an "IM:vcdiff,range" response
header.
Tcur = "C" (i.e., the instance has changed again). In this
case, the HTTP/1.1 specification for "If-None-Match"
again means that this is equivalent to an
unconditional request for the current instance. The
specification for "If-Range" requires the server to
return the entire current instance. However, a
delta-aware server can construct the delta between
the "A" instance described by the "If-None-Match"
field and the current ("C") instance, and return a
226 (IM Used) response, with an "IM:vcdiff" response
header.
If the client's request had not included the "If-None-Match: "A""
header field, the server could not have computed a delta, since it
would not have known which entire instance was already available to
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
the client. If the request had not included the "If-Range: "B""
header field, the server could not have distinguished between the
latter two cases (Tcur = "B" or Tcur = "C") and would not have been
able to apply the Range selection to the result of delta encoding.
On the other hand, suppose that the client has a cache entry for the
"A" instance of http://bar.example.net/foo.html, and it has already
received the first 900 bytes of a new instance "B" (perhaps as the
result of an aborted transfer). Now the client wants to receive the
entire current instance, so it could send this request:
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
host: bar.example.net
If-None-Match: "A"
If-Range: "B"
A-IM: range,vcdiff
Range: bytes=900-
In this example, as in the previous example, if Tcur = "A" then the
server should send 304 (Not Modified), and if Tcur = "C", then the
server should send the entire new instance, either as a 200 response
or as a delta encoding against instance "A".
However, if Tcur = "B", in this case the server should first select
the specified range (bytes 900 through the end) from both instances
"A" and "B", then compute the delta encoding between these ranges
(using vcdiff), and then transmit the result using a 226 (IM Used)
response with an "IM:range,vcdiff" response header.
6 Encoding algorithms and formats
A number of delta encoding algorithms and formats have been described
in the literature:
diff -e The UNIX "diff" program is ubiquitously available,
and is relatively fast for both encoding and decoding
(decoding is actually done using the "ed" program).
However, the size of the resulting deltas is
relatively large. This algorithm can only be used on
text-format files.
diff -e | gzip Running the output of "diff" through a compression
algorithm such as "gzip" [5] (or, perhaps better,
"deflate" [7, 6]) yields a more compact encoding, but
the costs of encoding and decoding are much higher
than for "diff" by itself. This algorithm can only
be used on text-format files.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
vcdiff (vdelta) The algorithm that generates the "vcdiff" format [19,
20] inherently compresses its output, and generally
produces smaller results than the combination of
"diff" and "gzip". The algorithm also runs much
faster, and can be applied to binary-format input.
The "vcdiff" format is based on previous work on an
algorithm named "vdelta." (Note that the "vcdiff"
format can be used either for delta encoding or as a
compressed format, so two different instance-
manipulation values would have to be registered in
order to distinguish these two uses, should its use
as a compressed format be adopted.) The most recent
published study suggests that "vdelta" is the best
overall delta algorithm [16].
gdiff The gdiff format [14] was specified as a generic,
algorithm-independent format for expressing deltas.
Because it is more generic it is easy to implement,
but it may not be the most compact encoding format.
Our proposal does not recommend any specific algorithm or format, but
rather encourages client and server implementors to choose the most
appropriate one(s). However, to avoid the possibility of excessively
long "A-IM" headers, we suggest that, after some period of
experimentation, it might be reasonable to specify a "recommended"
set of delta formats for general-purpose HTTP implementations.
We suspect that it should be possible to devise a delta encoding
algorithm appropriate for use on typical image encodings, such as GIF
and JPEG. Although experiments with vdelta have not shown much
potential [23], this may simply be because these experiments used
vdelta directly on the already-compressed forms of these encodings.
However, it might be necessary to devise a delta encoding algorithm
that is aware of the two-dimensional nature of images. We have some
expectation that this is possible, since MPEG compression relies on
computing deltas between successive frames of a video stream.
7 Management of base instances
If the time between modifications of a resource is less than the
typical eviction time for responses in client caches, this means that
the "old instance" indicated in a client's conditional request might
not refer to the most recent prior instance. This raises the
question of how many old instances of a resource should be maintained
by the server, if any. We call these old instances "base instances."
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
There are many possible options for server implementors. For
example:
- The server might not store any old instances, and so would
never respond with a delta.
- The server might only store the most recent prior instance;
requests attempting to validate this instance could be answered
with a delta, but requests attempting to validate older
instances would be answered with a full copy of the resource.
- The server might store all prior instances, allowing it to
provide a delta response for any client request.
- The server might store only a subset of the prior instances.
The use of a Least Recently Used (LRU) algorithm to determine
this kind of subset has proved effective in some similar
circumstances, such as cache replacement.
The server might not have to store prior instances explicitly. It
might, instead, store just the deltas between specific base instances
and subsequent instances (or the inverse deltas between base
instances and prior instances). This approach might be integrated
with a cache of computed deltas.
None of these approaches necessarily requires additional protocol
support. However, if a server administrator wants to store only a
subset of the prior instances, but would like the server to be able
to respond using deltas as often as possible, then the client needs
some additional information. Otherwise, the client's "If-None-Match"
header might specify a base instance not stored at the server, even
though an appropriate base instance is held in the client's cache.
We identify two additional protocol changes to help solve this
problem.
Although the examples we have given so far show only one entity tag
in an "If-None-Match" header, the HTTP/1.1 specification allows the
header to carry more than one entity-tag. This feature was included
in HTTP/1.1 to support efficient caching of multiple variants of a
resource, but it is not restricted to that use.
Suppose that a client has kept more than one instance of a resource
in its cache. That is, not only does it keep the most recent
instance, but it also holds onto copies of one or more prior, invalid
instances. (Alternatively, it might retain sufficient delta or
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
inverse-delta information to reconstruct older instances.) In this
case, it could use its conditional request to tell the server about
all of the instances it could apply a delta to. For example, the
client might send:
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
host: bar.example.net
If-None-Match: "123xyz", "337pey", "489uhw"
A-IM: vcdiff
to indicate that it has three instances of this resource in its
cache. If the server is able to generate a delta from any of these
prior instances, it can select the appropriate base instance, compute
the delta, and return the result to the client.
In this case, however, the server must also tell the client which
base instance to use, and so we need to define a response header,
named "Delta-Base", for this purpose. For example, the server might
reply:
HTTP/1.1 226 IM Used
ETag: "1acl059"
IM: vcdiff
Delta-Base: "337pey"
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:30:05 GMT
This response tells the client to apply the delta to the cached
response with entity tag "337pey", and to associate the entity tag
"1acl059" with the result.
Of course, if the server has retained more than one of the prior
instances identified by the client, this could complicate the problem
of choosing the optimal delta to return, since now the server has a
choice not only of the delta format, but also of the base instance to
use.
Support for multiple entity tags in choosing the base instance
implies that a client might benefit from storing multiple old
instances of a resource in its cache. A client with finite space
would not want to keep all old instances, so it must manage its cache
for maximal effectiveness by saving those instances most likely to be
useful for future deltas. Although this could be accomplished using
information purely local to the client (e.g., an LRU algorithm),
certain "hint" information from the server could improve the client's
ability to manage its cache. The use of hints for improving Web
cache performance has been described previously [4, 22].
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
If the server intends to retain certain instances and not others, it
can label the responses that transmit the retained instances. This
would help the client manage its cache, since it would not have to
retain all prior instances on the possibility that only some of them
might be useful later. The label is a hint to the client, not a
promise that the server will indefinitely retain an instance.
We propose adding a new directive to the existing "Cache-Control"
header for this purpose, named "retain". For example, in response to
an unconditional request, the server might send:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
ETag: "337pey"
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:30:05 GMT
Cache-Control: retain
to suggest that a delta-capable client should retain this instance.
The "retain" directive could also appear in a delta response,
referring to the current instance:
HTTP/1.1 226 IM Used
ETag: "1acl059"
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:30:05 GMT
Cache-Control: retain
IM: vcdiff
Delta-Base: "337pey"
The "retain" directive includes an optional timeout parameter, which
the server can use if it expects to delete an old base instance at a
particular time. For example,
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
ETag: "337pey"
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:30:05 GMT
Cache-Control: retain=3600
means that the server intends to retain this base instance for one
hour.
Another situation where a server can provide a hint to a client is
where the server supports the delta mechanism in general, but does
not intend to provide delta-encoded responses for a particular
resource. By sending a "retain=0" directive, it indicates that the
client should not waste request-header bytes attempting to obtain a
delta-encoded response using this base instance (and, by implication,
for this resource). It also indicates that the client ought not
waste cache space on this instance after it has become stale. To
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
avoid wasting response-header bytes, a server ought not send
"retain=0", except in reply to a request that attempts to obtain a
delta-encoded response.
Note that the "retain" directive is orthogonal to the "max-age"
directive. The "max-age" directive indicates how long a cache
entry remains fresh (i.e.,can be used without contacting the
origin server for revalidation); the "retain" directive is of
interest to a client AFTER the cache entry has become stale.
In practice, the "Cache-Control" response-header field might already
be present, so the cost (in bytes) of sending this directive might be
smaller than these examples implies.
8 Deltas and intermediate caches
Although we have designed the delta-encoded responses so that they
will not be stored by naive proxy caches, if a proxy does understand
the delta mechanism, it might be beneficial for it to participate in
sending and receiving deltas.
A proxy could participate in several independent ways:
- In addition to forwarding a delta-encoded response, the proxy
might store it, and then use it to reply to a subsequent
request with a compatible "If-None-Match" field (i.e., one that
is either a superset of the corresponding field of the request
that first elicited the response, or one that includes the
"Delta-Base" value in the cached response), and with a
compatible "IM" response-header field (one that includes the
actual delta-encoding format used in the response.) Of course,
such uses are subject to all of the other HTTP rules concerning
the validity of cache entries.
- In addition to forwarding a delta-encoded response, the proxy
might apply the delta to the appropriate entry in its own
cache, which could then be used for later responses (even from
non-delta-capable clients).
- When the proxy receives a conditional request from a delta-
capable client, and the proxy has a complete copy of an up-to-
date ("fresh," in HTTP/1.1 terminology) response in its cache,
it could generate a delta locally and return it to the
requesting client.
- When the proxy receives a request from a non-delta-capable
client, it might convert this into a delta request before
forwarding it to the server, and then (after applying a
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
resulting delta response to one of its own cache entries) it
would return a full-body response to the client (or a response
with status code 206 or 304, as appropriate).
All of these optional techniques increase proxy software complexity,
and might increase proxy storage or CPU requirements. However, if
applied carefully, they should help to reduce the latencies seen by
end users, and load on the network. Generally, CPU speed and disk
costs are improving faster than network latencies, so we expect to
see increasing value available from complex proxy implementations.
9 Digests for data integrity
When a recipient reassembles a complete HTTP response from several
individual messages, it might be necessary to check the integrity of
the complete response. For example, the client's cache might be
corrupt, or the implementation of delta encoding (either at client or
server) might have a bug.
HTTP/1.1 includes mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of individual
messages. A message may include a "Content-MD5" response header,
which provides an MD5 message digest of the body of the message (but
not the headers). The Digest Authentication mechanism [11] provides
a similar message-digest function, except that it includes certain
header fields. Neither of these mechanisms makes any provision for
covering a set of data transmitted over several messages, as would be
the case for the result of applying a delta-encoded response (or, for
that matter, a Range response).
Data integrity for reassembled messages requires the introduction of
a new message header. Such a mechanism is proposed in a separate
document [24]. One might still want to use the Digest Authentication
mechanism, or something stronger, to protect delta messages against
tampering.
10 Specification
In this specification, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [3].
This specification defines a new HTTP parameter type, an instance-
manipulation:
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
instance-manipulation = token [imparams]
imparams = ";" imparam-name [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ]
imparam-name = token
Note that the imparam-name MUST NOT be "q", to avoid ambiguity with
the use of qvalues (see [10]).
The set of instance-manipulation values is initially:
- vcdiff
A delta using the "vcdiff" encoding format [19, 20].
- diffe
The output of the UNIX "diff -e" command [26].
- gdiff
The GDIFF encoding format [14].
- gzip
Same definition as the HTTP "gzip" content-coding.
- deflate
Same definition as the HTTP "deflate" content-coding.
- range
A token indicating that the result is partial content, as the
result of a range selection.
- identity
A token used only in the A-IM header (not in the IM header), to
indicate whether or not the identity instance-manipulation is
acceptable.
For convenience in the rest of this specification, we define a subset
of instance-manipulation values as delta-coding values:
delta-coding = "vcdiff" | "diffe" | "gdiff" | token
Future instance-manipulation values might also be included in this
list.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) administers the name
space for instance-manipulation values. Values and their meaning
must be documented in an RFC or other peer-reviewed, permanent, and
readily available reference, in sufficient detail so that
interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
Subject to these constraints, name assignments are First Come, First
Served (see RFC 2434 [25]).
This specification also inserts a new value in the IANA HTTP Status
Code Registry (see RFC 2817 [18]). See section 10.4.1 for the
specification of this code.
A server MAY send a delta-encoded response if all of these conditions
are true:
1. The server would be able to send a 200 (OK) response for the
request.
2. The client's request includes an A-IM header field listing at
least one delta-coding.
3. The client's request includes an If-None-Match header field
listing at least one valid entity tag for an instance of the
Request-URI (a "base instance").
A delta-encoded response:
- MUST carry a status code of 226 (IM Used).
- MUST include an IM header field listing, at least, the delta-
coding employed.
- MAY include a Delta-Base header field listing the entity tag of
the base-instance.
The server has fulfilled a GET request for the resource, and the
response is a representation of the result of one or more instance-
manipulations applied to the current instance. The actual current
instance might not be available except by combining this response
with other previous or future responses, as appropriate for the
specific instance-manipulation(s). If so, the headers of the
resulting instance are the result of combining the headers from the
status-226 response and the other instances, following the rules in
section 13.5.3 of the HTTP/1.1 specification [10].
The request MUST have included an A-IM header field listing at least
one instance-manipulation. The response MUST include an Etag header
field giving the entity tag of the current instance.
A response received with a status code of 226 MAY be stored by a
cache and used in reply to a subsequent request, subject to the HTTP
expiration mechanism and any Cache-Control headers, and to the
requirements in section 10.6.
A response received with a status code of 226 MAY be used by a cache,
in conjunction with a cache entry for the base instance, to create a
cache entry for the current instance.
The following headers are defined, for use as entity-headers. (Due
to the terminological confusion discussed in section 3, some entity-
headers are more properly associated with instances than with
entities.)
The Delta-Base entity-header field is used in a delta-encoded
response to specify the entity tag of the base instance.
Delta-Base = "Delta-Base" ":" entity-tag
A Delta-Base header field MUST be included in a response with an IM
header that includes a delta-coding, if the request included more
than one entity tag in its If-None-Match header field.
Any response with an IM header that includes a delta-coding MAY
include a Delta-Base header.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
We are not aware of other cases where a delta-encoded response
MUST or SHOULD include a Delta-Base header, but we have not done
an exhaustive or formal analysis. Implementors might be wise to
include a Delta-Base header in every delta-encoded response.
A cache or proxy that receives a delta-encoded response that lacks a
Delta-base header MAY add a Delta-Base header whose value is the
entity tag given in the If-None-Match field of the request (but only
if that field lists exactly one entity tag).
The IM response-header field is used to indicate the instance-
manipulations, if any, that have been applied to the instance
represented by the response. Typical instance manipulations include
delta encoding and compression.
IM = "IM" ":" #(instance-manipulation)
Instance-manipulations are defined in section 10.1.
As a special case, if the instance-manipulations include both range
selection and at least one other non-identity instance-manipulation,
the IM header field MUST be used to indicate the order in which all
of these instance-manipulations, including range selection, were
applied. If the IM header lists the "range" instance-manipulation,
the response MUST include either a Content-Range header or a
multipart/byteranges Content-Type in which each part contains a
Content-Range header. (See section 10.10 for specific discussion of
combining delta encoding and multipart/byteranges.)
Responses that include an IM header MUST carry a response status code
of 226 (IM Used), as specified in section 10.4.1.
The server SHOULD omit the IM header if it would list only the
"range" instance-manipulation. Such responses would normally be sent
with response status code 206 (Partial Content), as specified by
HTTP/1.1 [10].
Examples of the use of the IM header include:
IM: vcdiff
This example indicates that the entity-body is a delta encoding of
the instance, using the vcdiff encoding.
IM: diffe, deflate, range
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
This example indicates that the instance has first been delta-encoded
using the diffe encoding, then the result of that has been compressed
using deflate, and finally one or more ranges of that compressed
encoding have been selected.
IM: range, vcdiff
This example indicates that one or more ranges of the instance have
been selected, and the result has then been delta encoded against
identical ranges of a previous base instance.
A cache using a response received in reply to one request to reply to
a subsequent request MUST follow the rules in section 10.6 if the
cached response includes an IM header field.
The A-IM request-header field is similar to Accept, but restricts the
instance-manipulations (section 10.1) that are acceptable in the
response. As specified in section 10.5.2, a response may be the
result of applying multiple instance-manipulations.
A-IM = "A-IM" ":" #( instance-manipulation
[ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
When an A-IM request-header field includes one or more delta-coding
values, the request MUST contain an If-None-Match header field,
listing one or more entity tags from prior responses for the
request-URI.
A server tests whether an instance-manipulation (among the ones it is
capable of employing) is acceptable, according to a given A-IM header
field, using these rules:
1. If the instance-manipulation is listed in the A-IM field, then
it is acceptable, unless it is accompanied by a qvalue of 0.
(As defined in section 3.9 of the HTTP/1.1 specification [10],
a qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable.") A server MUST NOT use a
non-identity instance-manipulation for a response unless the
instance-manipulation is listed in an A-IM header in the
request.
2. If multiple but incompatible instance-manipulations are
acceptable, then the acceptable instance-manipulation with the
highest non-zero qvalue is preferred.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
3. The "identity" instance-manipulation is always acceptable,
unless specifically refused because the A-IM field includes
"identity;q=0".
If an A-IM field is present in a request, and if the server cannot
send a response which is acceptable according to the A-IM header,
then the server SHOULD send an error response with the 406 (Not
Acceptable) status code.
If a response uses more than one instance-manipulation, the
instance-manipulations MUST be applied in the order in which they
appear in the A-IM request-header field.
The server's choice about whether to apply an instance-manipulation
SHOULD be independent of its choice to apply any subsequent two-input
instance-manipulations to the response. (Two-input instance-
manipulations include delta-codings, because they take two different
values as input. Compression and "range" instance-manipulations take
only one input. Other instance-manipulations may be defined in the
future.)
Note: the intent of this requirement is to prevent the server from
generating a delta-encoded response that the client can only
decode by first applying an instance-manipulation encoding to its
cached base instance. A server implementor might wish to consider
what the client would logically have in its cache, when deciding
which instance-manipulations to apply prior to a delta-coding.
Examples:
A-IM: vcdiff, gdiff
This example means that the client will accept a delta encoding in
either vcdiff or gdiff format.
A-IM: vcdiff, gdiff;q=0.3
This example means that the client will accept a delta encoding in
either vcdiff or gdiff format, but prefers the vcdiff format.
A-IM: vcdiff, diffe, gzip
This example means that the client will accept a delta encoding in
either vcdiff or diffe format, and will accept the output of the
delta encoding compressed with gzip. It also means that the client
will accept a gzip compression of the instance, without any delta
encoding, because A-IM provides no way to insist that gzip be used
only if diffe is used.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
It is left to the server implementor to choose useful combinations of
acceptable instance-manipulations (for example, following diffe by
gzip is useful, but following vcdiff by gzip probably is not useful).
When a client or proxy receives a 226 (IM Used) response, it MAY use
this response to create a cache entry in three ways:
1. It MAY decode all of the instance-manipulations to recover the
original instance, and store that instance in the cache. In
this case, the recovered instance is stored as a status-200
response, and MUST be used in accordance with the normal HTTP
caching rules.
2. It MAY decode all of the instance-manipulations except for
range selection(s), and store the result in the cache. In this
case, the result is stored as a status-206 response, and MUST
be used in accordance with the normal HTTP caching rules for
Partial Content.
3. It MAY store the status-226 (IM Used) response as a cache
entry.
A status-226 cache entry MUST NOT be used in response to a subsequent
request under any of these conditions (a cache that never stores
status-226 responses may ignore these tests):
1. If any of the instance-manipulation values from the IM header
field in the cached response do not appear in the subsequent
request's A-IM header field. The comparison between the
headers is done using an exact match on each instance-
manipulation value including any associated imparams values
(see section 10.1).
2. If the order of instance-manipulation values appearing in the
cached IM header field differs from the order of that set of
instance-manipulations in the A-IM header field of the
subsequent request.
3. If the cache implementation is not aware of, or is not at least
conditionally compliant with, the specification of any of the
instance-manipulation values in the cached IM header field.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
Note: This rule allows for extending the set of instance-
manipulations without causing deployed cache implementations to
commit errors. The specification of new instance-manipulations
may include additional caching rules to improve cache-hit rates
in cognizant implementations.
4. If any of the instance-manipulation values in the cached IM
header field is a delta-coding, and the cache entry includes a
Delta-Base header field, and that Delta-Base entity tag is not
one of the entity tags listed in an If-None-Match header field
of the subsequent request.
5. If any of the instance-manipulation values in the cached IM
header field is a delta-coding, the cache entry does not
include a Delta-Base header field, and the If-None-Match header
field of the request that led to that cache entry does not
match the If-None-Match header field of the subsequent request.
If the IM header field of the cached response includes the "range"
instance-manipulation, then a status-226 cache entry MUST NOT be used
in response to a subsequent request if the cached response is
inconsistent with the Range header field value(s) in the request, as
would be the case for a cached 206 (Partial Content) response.
Note: we know of no existing, published formal specification for
deciding if a cached status-206 response is consistent with a
subsequent request. We believe that either of these conditions is
sufficient:
1. The ranges specified in the headers of the request that led
to the cached response are the same as specified in the
headers of the subsequent request.
2. The ranges specified in the cached response are the same as
specified in the headers of the subsequent request.
Further analysis might be necessary.
The use of delta encoding with content-encoded instances adds some
slight complexity. When a client (perhaps a proxy) has received a
delta encoded response, either or both of that new response and a
cached previous response may have non-identity content-codings. We
specify rules for the server and client, to prevent situations where
the client is unable to make sense of the server's response.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
When a server generates a delta-encoded response, the list of
content-codings the server uses (i.e., the value of the response's
Content-Encoding header field) SHOULD be a prefix of the list of
content-codings the server would have used had it not generated a
delta encoding.
This requirement allows a client receiving a delta-encoded response
to apply the delta to a cached base instance without having to apply
any content-codings during the process (although the client might, of
course, be required to decode some content-codings).
When a client receives a delta response with one or more non-identity
content codings:
1. If both the new (delta) response and the cached response
(instance) have exactly the same set of content-codings, the
client applies the delta response to the cached response
without removing the content-codings from either response.
2. If the new (delta) response and the cached response have a
different set of content-codings, before applying the delta the
client decodes one or more content-codings from the cached
response, until the result has the same set of content-codings
as the delta response.
3. If a proxy or cache is forwarding the result of applying the
delta response to a cached base instance response, or later
forwards this result from a cache entry, the forwarded response
MUST carry the same Content-Encoding header field as the new
(delta) response (and so it must be content-encoded as
indicated by that header field).
The intent of these rules (and in particular, rule #3) is that the
results are always consistent with the rule that the entity tag is
associated with the result of the content-coding, and that any
recipient after the application of the delta-coding receives exactly
the same response it would have received as a status-200 response
from the origin server (without any delta-coding).
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
Suppose a client, with an empty cache, sends this request:
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Accept-encoding: gzip
and the origin server responds with:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:00:00 GMT
Etag: "abc"
Content-encoding: gzip
We will use the notation URI;entity-tag to denote specific instances,
so this response would cause the client to store in its cache the
entity GZIP(foo.html;"abc").
Then suppose that the client, a minute later, issues this conditional
request:
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
If-none-match: "abc"
Accept-encoding: gzip
A-IM: vcdiff
If the server is able to generate a delta-encoded response, it might
choose one of two alternatives. The first is to compute the delta
from the compressed instances (although this might not yield the most
efficient coding):
HTTP/1.1 226 IM Used
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:01:00 GMT
Etag: "def"
Delta-base: "abc"
Content-encoding: gzip
IM: vcdiff
The body of this response would be the result of
VCDIFF_DELTA(GZIP(foo.html;"abc"), GZIP(foo.html;"def")). The client
would store as a new cache entry the entity GZIP(foo.html;"def"),
after recovering that entity by applying the delta to its previous
cache entry.
The server's other alternative would be to compute the delta from the
uncompressed values, returning:
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
HTTP/1.1 226 IM Used
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:01:00 GMT
Delta-base: "abc"
Etag: "ghi"
IM: vcdiff
The body of this response would be the result of
VCDIFF_DELTA(GUNZIP(GZIP(foo.html;"abc")), foo.html;"ghi"), or more
simply VCDIFF_DELTA(foo.html;"abc", foo.html;"ghi"). The client
would store as a new cache entry the entity foo.html;"ghi" (i.e.,
without any content-coding), after recovering that entity by applying
the delta to its previous cache entry.
Note that the new value of foo.html (at 14:01:00 GMT) without the
gzip content-coding must have a different entity tag from the
compressed instance of the same underlying file.
The client's second request might have been:
GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
If-none-match: "abc"
Accept-encoding: gzip
A-IM: diffe, gzip
The client lists gzip in both the Accept-Encoding and A-IM headers,
because if the server does not support delta encoding, the client
would at least like to achieve the benefits of compression (as a
content-coding). However, if the server does support the diffe
delta-coding, the client would like the result to be compressed, and
this must be done as an instance-manipulation.
A server that does support diffe might reply:
HTTP/1.1 226 IM Used
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:01:00 GMT
Delta-base: "abc"
Etag: "ghi"
IM: diffe, gzip
The body of this response would be the result of
GZIP(DIFFE_DELTA(GUNZIP(GZIP(foo.html;"abc")), foo.html;"ghi")), or
more simply GZIP(DIFFE_DELTA(foo.html;"abc", foo.html;"ghi")).
Because the gzip compression is, in this case, an instance-
manipulation and not a content-coding, it is not retained when the
reassembled response is stored or forwarded, so the client would
store as a new cache entry the entity foo.html;"ghi" (without any
content-coding or compression).
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
The set of cache-response-directive values is augmented to include
the retain directive.
cache-response-directive = ...
| "retain" [ "=" delta-seconds ]
A retain directive is always a "hint" from a server to a client; it
never specifies a mandatory action for the recipient.
The presence of a retain directive indicates that a delta-capable
client ought to retain the instance in the response in its cache,
space permitting, and ought to use the corresponding entity tag in a
future request for a delta-encoded response. I.e., the server is
likely to provide delta-encoded responses using the corresponding
instance as a base instance. By implication, if a client has
retrieved and cached several instances of a resource, some of which
are marked with "retain" and some not, then there is no point in
caching the instances not marked with "retain".
If the retain directive includes a delta-seconds value, then the
server is likely to stop using the corresponding instance as a base
instance after the specified number of seconds. A client ought not
use the corresponding entity tag in a future request for a delta-
encoded response after that interval ends. The interval is measured
from the time that the response is generated, so a client ought to
include the response's Age in its calculations.
If the retain directive includes a delta-seconds value of zero, a
client SHOULD NOT use the corresponding entity tag in a future
request for a delta-encoded response.
Note: We recommend that server implementors consider the bandwidth
implications of sending the "retain=0" directive to clients or
proxies that might not have the ability to make use of it.
The set of cache-response-directive values is augmented to include
the im directive.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
cache-response-directive = ...
| "im"
A cache that complies with the specification for the IM header, the
A-IM header, and the 226 response-status code SHOULD ignore a no-
store cache-directive if an im directive is present in the same
response. All other implementations MUST ignore the im directive
(i.e., MUST observe a no-store directive, if present).
The application of data compression to the diffe and gdiff delta
codings has been shown to greatly reduce the size of the resulting
message bodies, in many cases. (The vcdiff coding, on the other
hand, is inherently compressed and does not benefit from further
compression.) Therefore, it is strongly recommended that
implementations that support the diffe and/or gdiff delta codings
also support the gzip and/or deflate compression codings. (The
deflate coding provides a more compact result.) However, this is not
a requirement for the use of delta encoding, primarily because the
CPU-time costs associated with compression and decompression may be
excessive in some environments.
A client that supports both delta encoding and compression as
instance-manipulations signals this by, for example
A-IM: diffe, deflate
The ordering rule stated in section 10.5.3 requires, if the server
uses both instance-manipulations in the response, that compression be
applied to the result of the delta encoding, rather than vice versa.
I.e., the response in this case would include
IM: diffe, deflate
Note that a client might accept compression either as a content-
coding or as an instance-manipulation. For example:
Accept-Encoding: gzip
A-IM: gzip, gdiff
In this example, the server may apply the gzip compression, either as
a content-coding or as an instance-manipulation, before delta
encoding. Remember that the entity tag is assigned after content-
coding but before instance-manipulation, so this choice does affect
the semantics of delta encoding.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
A client may request multiple, non-contiguous byte ranges in a single
request. The server's response uses the "multipart/byteranges" media
type (section 19.2 of [10]) to convey multiple ranges in a response.
If a multipart/byteranges response is delta encoded (i.e, uses a
delta-coding as an instance-manipulation), the delta-related headers
are associated with the entire response, not with the individual
parts. (This is because there is only one base instance and one
current instance involved.) A delta-encoded response with multiple
ranges MUST use the same delta-coding for all of the ranges.
If a server chooses to use a delta encoding for a
multipart/byteranges response, it MUST generate a response in
accordance with the following rules.
When a multipart/byteranges response uses a delta-coding prior to a
range selection, the A-IM and IM header fields list the delta-coding
before the "range" literal. (Recall that this is the approach taken
to obtain a partial response after a premature termination of a
message transmission.) The server firsts generates a sequence of
bytes representing the difference (delta) between the base instance
and the current instance, then selects the specified ranges of bytes,
and transmits each such range in a part of the multipart/byteranges
media type.
When a multipart/byteranges response uses a delta-coding after a
range selection, the A-IM and IM header fields list the delta-coding
after the "range" literal. (Recall that this is the approach taken
to obtain an updated version just of selected sections of an
instance.) The server first selects the specified ranges from the
current instance, and also selects the same specified ranges from the
base instance. (Some of these selected ranges might be the empty
sequence, if the instance is not long enough.) The server then
generates the individual differences (deltas) between the pairs of
ranges, and transmits each such difference in a part of the
multipart/byteranges media type.
11 Quantifying the protocol overhead
The proposed protocol changes increase the size of the HTTP message
headers slightly. In the simplest case, a conditional request (i.e.,
one for a URI for which the client already has a cache entry) would
include one more header, e.g.:
A-IM:vcdiff
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
This is about 13 extra bytes. A recent study [23] reports mean
request sizes from two different traces of 281 and 306 bytes, so the
net increase in request size would be between 4% and 5%.
Because a client must have an existing cache entry to use as a base
for a delta-encoded response, it would never send "A-IM: vcdiff" (or
listing other delta encoding formats) for its unconditional requests.
The same study showed that at least 46% of the requests in lengthy
traces were for URLs not seen previously in the trace; this means
that no more than about half of typical client requests could be
conditional (and the actual fraction is likely to be smaller, given
the finite size of real caches).
The study also showed that 64% of the responses in a lengthy trace
were for image content-types (GIF and JPEG). As noted in section 6,
we do not currently know of a delta-encoding format suitable for such
image types. Unless a client did support such a delta-encoding
format, it would presumably not ask for a delta when making a
conditional request for image content-types.
Taken together, these factors suggest that the mean increase in
request header size would be much less than 5%, and probably below
1%.
Delta-encoded responses carry slightly longer headers. In the
simplest case, a response carries one more header, e.g.:
IM:vcdiff
This is about 11 bytes. Other headers (such as "Delta-Base") might
also be included. However, none of these extra headers would be
included except in cases where a delta encoding is actually employed,
and the sender of the response can avoid sending a delta encoding if
this results in a net increase in response size. Thus, a delta-
encoded response should never be larger than a regular response for
the same request.
Simulations suggest that, when delta encoding pays off at all, it
saves several thousand bytes [23]. Thus, adding a few dozen bytes to
the response headers should almost never obviate the savings in the
message-body size.
Finally, the use of the "retain" Cache-Control directive might cause
some additional overhead. Some server heuristics might be successful
in limiting the use of these headers to situations where they would
probably optimize future responses. Neither of these headers is
necessary for the simpler uses of delta encoding.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
12 Security Considerations
We are not aware of any aspects of the basic delta encoding mechanism
that affect the existing security considerations for the HTTP/1.1
protocol.
13 Acknowledgements
Phong Vo has provided a great deal of guidance in the choice of delta
encoding algorithms and formats. Issac Goldstand and Mike Dahlin
provided a number of useful comments on the specification. Dave
Kristol suggested many textual corrections.
14 Intellectual Property Rights
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
rights, at <http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html>.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP 11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
15 References
1. Gaurav Banga, Fred Douglis, and Michael Rabinovich. Optimistic
Deltas for WWW Latency Reduction. Proc. 1997 USENIX Technical
Conference, Anaheim, CA, January, 1997, pp. 289-303.
2. Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and H. Frystyk, "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996.
3. Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
4. Edith Cohen, Balachander Krishnamurthy, and Jennifer Rexford.
Improving End-to-End Performance of the Web Using Server Volumes
and Proxy Filters. Proc. SIGCOMM '98, September, 1998, pp. 241-
253.
5. Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3", RFC
1952, May 1996.
6. Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification
version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996.
7. Deutsch, P. and J-L. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format
Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996.
8. Fred Douglis, Anja Feldmann, Balachander Krishnamurthy, and
Jeffrey Mogul. Rate of Change and Other Metrics: a Live Study
of the World Wide Web. Proc. Symposium on Internet Technologies
and Systems, USENIX, Monterey, CA, December, 1997, pp. 147-158.
9. Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H. and T. Berners-
Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2068, January
1997.
10. Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L.,
Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
11. Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Leach, P., Luotonen,
A., Luotonen, L. and L. Stewart, "HTTP Authentication: Basic and
Digest Access Authnetication", RFC 2617, June 1999.
12. Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996.
13. Arthur van Hoff, John Giannandrea, Mark Hapner, Steve Carter, and
Milo Medin. The HTTP Distribution and Replication Protocol.
Technical Report NOTE-DRP, World Wide Web Consortium, August,
1997.
14. Arthur van Hoff and Jonathan Payne. Generic Diff Format
Specification. Technical Report NOTE-GDIFF, World Wide Web
Consortium, August, 1997.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
15. Barron C. Housel and David B. Lindquist. WebExpress: A System
for Optimizing Web Browsing in a Wireless Environment. Proc. 2nd
Annual Intl. Conf. on Mobile Computing and Networking, ACM, Rye,
New York, November, 1996, pp. 108-116.
16. James J. Hunt, Kiem-Phong Vo, and Walter F. Tichy. An Empirical
Study of Delta Algorithms. IEEE Soft. Config. and Maint.
Workshop, 1996.
17. Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial
Links", RFC 1144, February 1990.
18. Khare, R. and S. Lawrence, "Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1",
RFC 2817, May 2000.
19. David G. Korn and Kiem-Phong Vo. A Generic Differencing and
Compression Data Format. Technical Report HA1630000-021899-02TM,
AT&T Labs - Research, February, 1999.
20. Korn, D. and K. Vo, "The VCDIFF Generic Differencing and
Compression Data Format", Work in Progress.
21. Merriam-Webster. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.
G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, MA, 1963.
22. Jeffrey C. Mogul. Hinted caching in the Web. Proc. Seventh ACM
SIGOPS European Workshop, Connemara, Ireland, September, 1996,
pp. 103-108.
23. Jeffrey C. Mogul, Fred Douglis, Anja Feldmann, and Balachander
Krishnamurthy. Potential benefits of delta encoding and data
compression for HTTP. Research Report 97/4, DECWRL, July, 1997.
24. Mogul, J. and A. Van Hoff, "Instance Digests in HTTP", RFC 3230,
January 2002.
25. Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
26. The Open Group. The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 - 6 Vol
Set for UNIX 98. Document number T912, The Open Group, February,
1997.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
27. W. Tichy. "RCS - A System For Version Control". Software -
Practice and Experience 15, 7 (July 1985), 637-654.
28. Andrew Tridgell and Paul Mackerras. The rsync algorithm.
Technical Report TR-CS-96-05, Department of Computer Science,
Australian National University, June, 1996.
29. Stephen Williams. Personal communication.
http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~williams/DIFF/prelim.html.
30. Stephen Williams, Marc Abrams, Charles R. Standridge, Ghaleb
Abdulla, and Edward A. Fox. Removal Policies in Network Caches
for World-Wide Web Documents. Proc. SIGCOMM '96, Stanford, CA,
August, 1996, pp. 293-305.
16 Authors' addresses
Jeffrey C. Mogul
Western Research Laboratory
Compaq Computer Corporation
250 University Avenue
Palo Alto, California, 94305, U.S.A.
Phone: 1 650 617 3304 (email preferred)
EMail: JeffMogul@acm.org
Balachander Krishnamurthy
AT&T Labs - Research
180 Park Ave, Room D-229
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971, U.S.A.
EMail: bala@research.att.com
Fred Douglis
AT&T Labs - Research
180 Park Ave, Room B-137
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971, U.S.A.
Phone: 1 973 360-8775
EMail: douglis@research.att.com
Anja Feldmann
University of Saarbruecken, Germany,
Computer Science Department
Im Stadtwald, Geb. 36.1, Zimmer 310
D-66123 Saarbruecken, Germany
EMail: anja@cs.uni-sb.de
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
Yaron Y. Goland
Email: yaron@goland.org
Arthur van Hoff
Marimba, Inc.
440 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043, U.S.A.
Phone: 1 650 930 5283
EMail: avh@marimba.com
Daniel M. Hellerstein
Economic Research Service, USDA
1909 Franwall Ave, Wheaton MD 20902
Phone: 1 202 694-5613 or 1 301 649-4728
EMail: danielh@crosslink.net or webmaster@srehttp.org
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 3229 Delta encoding in HTTP January 2002
17 Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Mogul, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]