The language used to ask for data to get sent—in either direction—is called the protocol. The protocol describes exactly how to ask the server for data, or to tell the server that there is data coming.
Protocols are typically defined by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), which hosts RFC documents that describe exactly how each protocol works: how clients and servers are supposed to act and what to send and so on.
curl supports protocols that allow "data transfers" in either or both directions. We usually also restrict ourselves to protocols which have a "URI format" described in an RFC or at least is somewhat widely used, as curl works primarily with URLs (URIs really) as the input key that specifies the transfer.
The latest curl (as of this writing) supports these protocols:
DICT, FILE, FTP, FTPS, GOPHER, HTTP, HTTPS, IMAP, IMAPS, LDAP, LDAPS, POP3, POP3S, RTMP, RTSP, SCP, SFTP, SMB, SMBS, SMTP, SMTPS, TELNET, TFTP
To complicate matters further, the protocols often exist in different versions or flavors as well.
The world is full of protocols, both old and new. Old protocols get abandoned and dropped and new ones get introduced. There's never a state of stability but the situation changes from day to day and year to year. You can rest assured that there will be new protocols added in the list above in the future and that there will be new versions of the protocols already listed.
There are, of course, already other protocols in existence that curl does not yet support. We are open to supporting more protocols that suit the general curl paradigms, we just need developers to write the necessary code adjustments for them.
Both new versions of existing protocols and entirely new protocols are usually developed by persons or teams that feel that the existing ones are not good enough. Something about them makes them not suitable for a particular use case or perhaps some new idea has popped up that could be applied to improve things.
Of course, nothing prevents anyone from developing a protocol entirely on their own at their own pleasure in their own backyard, but the major protocols are usually brought to the IETF at a fairly early stage where they are then discussed, refined, debated and polished and then eventually, ideally, turned into a published RFC document.
Software developers then read the RFC specifications and deploy their code in the world based on their interpretations of the words in those documents. It sometimes turn out that some of the specifications are subject to vastly different interpretations or sometimes the engineers are just lazy and ignore sound advice in the specs and deploy something that does not adhere. Writing software that interoperates with other implementations of the specifications can therefore end up being hard work.
Like software, protocol specifications are frequently updated and new protocol versions are created.
Most protocols allow some level of extensibility which makes new extensions show up over time, extensions that make sense to support.
The interpretation of a protocol sometimes changes even if the spec remains the same.
The protocols mentioned in this chapter are all "Application Protocols", which means they are transferred over more lower level protocols, like TCP, UDP and TLS. They are also themselves protocols that change over time, get new features and get attacked so that new ways of handling security, etc., forces curl to adapt and change.
Generally, there are protocol specs that tell us how to send and receive data for specific protocols. The protocol specs we follow are RFCs put together and published by IETF.
Some protocols are not properly documented in a final RFC, like, for example, SFTP for which our implementation is based on an Internet-draft that is not even the last available one.
Protocols are, however, spoken by two parties and like in any given conversation, there are then two sides of understanding something or interpreting the given instructions in a spec. Also, lots of network software is written without the authors paying close attention to the spec so they end up taking some shortcuts, or perhaps they just interpreted the text differently. Sometimes even mistakes and bugs make software behave in ways that are not mandated by the spec and sometimes even downright forbidden in the specs.
In the curl project we use the published specs as rules on how to act until we learn anything else. If popular alternative implementations act differently than what we think the spec says and that alternative behavior is what works widely on the big Internet, then chances are we will change foot and instead decide to act like those others. If a server refuses to talk with us when we think we follow the spec but works fine when we bend the rules every so slightly, then we probably end up bending them exactly that way—if we can still work successfully with other implementations.
Ultimately, it is a personal decision and up for discussion in every case where we think a spec and the real world do not align.
In the worst cases we introduce options to let application developers and curl users have the final say on what curl should do. I say worst because it is often really tough to ask users to make these decisions as it usually involves tricky details and weirdness going on and it is a lot to ask of users. We should always do our best to avoid pushing such protocol decisions to users.