<?xml version='1.0'?>

<reference anchor='RFC2774'>

<front>
<title>An HTTP Extension Framework</title>
<author initials='H.' surname='Nielsen' fullname='Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'>
<organization abbrev='Microsoft'>Microsoft Corporation</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1 Microsoft Way</street>
<city>Redmond</city>
<region>WA</region>
<code>98052</code>
<country>USA</country></postal>
<email>frystyk@microsoft.com</email></address></author>
<author initials='P.' surname='Leach' fullname='Paul J. Leach'>
<organization abbrev='Microsoft'>Microsoft Corporation</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1 Microsoft Way</street>
<city>Redmond</city>
<region>WA</region>
<code>98052</code>
<country>USA</country></postal>
<email>paulle@microsoft.com</email></address></author>
<author initials='S.' surname='Lawrence' fullname='Scott Lawrence'>
<organization abbrev='Agranat Systems'>Agranat Systems, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>5 Clocktower Place, Suite 400</street>
<city>Maynard</city>
<region>MA</region>
<code>01754</code>
<country>USA</country></postal>
<email>lawrence@agranat.com</email></address></author>
<date month='February' year='2000' />
<abstract>
<t>
   A wide range of applications have proposed various extensions of the
   HTTP protocol. Current efforts span an enormous range, including
   distributed authoring, collaboration, printing, and remote procedure
   call mechanisms. These HTTP extensions are not coordinated, since
   there has been no standard framework for defining extensions and
   thus, separation of concerns. This document describes a generic
   extension mechanism for HTTP, which is designed to address the
   tension between private agreement and public specification and to
   accommodate extension of applications using HTTP clients, servers,
   and proxies.  The proposal associates each extension with a globally
   unique identifier, and uses HTTP header fields to carry the extension
   identifier and related information between the parties involved in
   the extended communication.
  </t></abstract>
<note title='IESG Note'>
<t>
   This document was originally requested for Proposed Standard status.
   However, due to mixed reviews during Last Call and within the HTTP
   working group, it is being published as an Experimental document.
   This is not necessarily an indication of technical flaws in the
   document; rather, there is a more general concern about whether this
   document actually represents community consensus regarding the
   evolution of HTTP.  Additional study and discussion are needed before
   this can be determined.
</t>
<t>
   Note also that when HTTP is used as a substrate for other protocols,
   it may be necessary or appropriate to use other extension mechanisms
   in addition to, or instead of, those defined here.  This document
   should therefore not be taken as a blueprint for adding extensions to
   HTTP, but it defines mechanisms that might be useful in such
   circumstances.
  </t></note></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2774' />
<format type='HTML' octets='46531' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2774.html' />
<format type='XML' octets='54284' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2774.xml' />
</reference>
