{
    "api_version": "1",
    "kind": "dse_post",
    "self": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/api/v1/posts/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/",
    "item": {
        "id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/",
        "slug": "parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values",
        "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/",
        "alternate_urls": {
            "markdown": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values.md",
            "json": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/api/v1/posts/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/"
        },
        "title": "Parse and serialize HTTP Structured Fields as ordered typed values",
        "summary": "Use RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP to review this narrow operational decision without extending the source beyond its stated scope.",
        "format": {
            "slug": "playbook",
            "name": "Playbook"
        },
        "priority": {
            "slug": "advisory",
            "name": "Advisory"
        },
        "featured": false,
        "image": {
            "theme": "network-infrastructure",
            "label": "Networks & infrastructure",
            "alt": "Resilient network core with engineered blue and gold data paths.",
            "card_url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-card.webp?v=1.8.20",
            "hero_url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-hero.webp?v=1.8.20",
            "social_url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-social-v2.jpg?v=1.8.20",
            "width": 2400,
            "height": 1350
        },
        "topics": [
            {
                "slug": "cybersecurity",
                "name": "Cybersecurity",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/cybersecurity/"
            },
            {
                "slug": "networks-infrastructure",
                "name": "Networks & Infrastructure",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/networks-infrastructure/"
            }
        ],
        "author": {
            "name": "DSE Security Editorial Team",
            "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#editorial-team",
            "type": "Organization"
        },
        "publisher": {
            "name": "Detection Systems & Engineering",
            "url": "https://dsesecurity.com/"
        },
        "published_at": "2026-08-27T12:15:51+00:00",
        "modified_at": "2026-08-27T12:53:58+00:00",
        "reviewed_on": "2026-08-26",
        "reading_minutes": 3,
        "word_count": 623,
        "potentially_affected": "Teams, systems, services, or facilities within the stated scope of RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP",
        "dse_recommendation": "Compare the observed state with the cited official source, document applicability and exceptions, and test any approved change with rollback safeguards.",
        "primary_source": {
            "name": "RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP",
            "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9651.html",
            "published_on": null,
            "authority": "www.rfc-editor.org"
        },
        "publishing_principles": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/dse-updates-editorial-methodology/",
        "usage_info": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/usage/",
        "copyright_notice": "Copyright © 2026 Detection Systems & Engineering. All rights reserved.",
        "content_html": "<p>Keep this document to one review outcome: Parse and serialize HTTP Structured Fields as ordered typed values. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.</p>\n<h2>Source fact:</h2>\n<p>The official <a href=\"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9651.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP</a> from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>A Structured Field serializer accepts a defined List, Dictionary, or Item and returns ASCII; it omits an empty List or Dictionary and fails when the supplied structure cannot be serialized. The research record locates this support at <strong>Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields)</strong>.</li>\n<li>Dictionaries and Parameters are order-preserving maps, and their serialization algorithms process members in that stored order so applications can retain ordering when a field assigns it meaning. The research record locates this support at <strong>Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A</strong>.</li>\n<li>A recipient parses a Structured Field according to its declared Dictionary, List, or Item type, and a parsing failure causes the entire field to be ignored. The research record locates this support at <strong>Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields)</strong>.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Only the traced statements above are asserted as source facts. Apply the review to clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points after confirming that the source and deployed context match.</p>\n<h2>What the source does not establish</h2>\n<p>This RFC evidence supports only the named web or transport decision; it does not prove browser, intermediary, library, or service compatibility. It does not establish a deployment&#8217;s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.</p>\n<h2>Applicability questions</h2>\n<ul>\n<li>For source statement 1 at <strong>Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields)</strong>, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?</li>\n<li>For source statement 2 at <strong>Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A</strong>, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?</li>\n<li>For source statement 3 at <strong>Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields)</strong>, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?</li>\n<li>What inventory proves which parts of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points are in and out of scope?</li>\n<li>Which condition in DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership must be healthy before evidence is trustworthy?</li>\n<li>What result would disprove the working assumption and return the issue to the owner?</li>\n</ul>\n<h2>DSE recommendation:</h2>\n<p>DSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Begin by recording scope and current state before deciding whether a change is warranted. Record the source location, examined part of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.</p>\n<p>Do not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.</p>\n<h2>Verification and evidence</h2>\n<p>Keep the source locations <strong>Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields)</strong>; <strong>Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A</strong>; <strong>Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields)</strong> adjacent to the sanitized artifacts used for comparison. Prefer request and response captures, negotiated protocol details, headers, cache behavior, certificate state, and server or proxy logs, with enough identity and timing data for an independent recheck.</p>\n<p>Retain the starting state, authorization, execution record, outcome, deviation, and final state as one review package. Move disruptive checks to an approved test path. Reopen the decision when versions, design, dependencies, ownership, or official guidance changes.</p>\n<h2>Official references</h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9651.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP</a> — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force</li>\n</ul>",
        "content_text": "Keep this document to one review outcome: Parse and serialize HTTP Structured Fields as ordered typed values. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.\nSource fact:\nThe official RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:\n\nA Structured Field serializer accepts a defined List, Dictionary, or Item and returns ASCII; it omits an empty List or Dictionary and fails when the supplied structure cannot be serialized. The research record locates this support at Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields).\nDictionaries and Parameters are order-preserving maps, and their serialization algorithms process members in that stored order so applications can retain ordering when a field assigns it meaning. The research record locates this support at Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A.\nA recipient parses a Structured Field according to its declared Dictionary, List, or Item type, and a parsing failure causes the entire field to be ignored. The research record locates this support at Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields).\n\nOnly the traced statements above are asserted as source facts. Apply the review to clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points after confirming that the source and deployed context match.\nWhat the source does not establish\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named web or transport decision; it does not prove browser, intermediary, library, or service compatibility. It does not establish a deployment’s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.\nApplicability questions\n\nFor source statement 1 at Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 2 at Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 3 at Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nWhat inventory proves which parts of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points are in and out of scope?\nWhich condition in DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership must be healthy before evidence is trustworthy?\nWhat result would disprove the working assumption and return the issue to the owner?\n\nDSE recommendation:\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Begin by recording scope and current state before deciding whether a change is warranted. Record the source location, examined part of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.\nDo not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.\nVerification and evidence\nKeep the source locations Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields); Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A; Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields) adjacent to the sanitized artifacts used for comparison. Prefer request and response captures, negotiated protocol details, headers, cache behavior, certificate state, and server or proxy logs, with enough identity and timing data for an independent recheck.\nRetain the starting state, authorization, execution record, outcome, deviation, and final state as one review package. Move disruptive checks to an approved test path. Reopen the decision when versions, design, dependencies, ownership, or official guidance changes.\nOfficial references\n\nRFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force",
        "content_markdown": "Keep this document to one review outcome: Parse and serialize HTTP Structured Fields as ordered typed values. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.\n\n## Source fact:\n\nThe official [RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9651.html) from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:\n\n- A Structured Field serializer accepts a defined List, Dictionary, or Item and returns ASCII; it omits an empty List or Dictionary and fails when the supplied structure cannot be serialized. The research record locates this support at Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields).\n\n- Dictionaries and Parameters are order-preserving maps, and their serialization algorithms process members in that stored order so applications can retain ordering when a field assigns it meaning. The research record locates this support at Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A.\n\n- A recipient parses a Structured Field according to its declared Dictionary, List, or Item type, and a parsing failure causes the entire field to be ignored. The research record locates this support at Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields).\n\nOnly the traced statements above are asserted as source facts. Apply the review to clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points after confirming that the source and deployed context match.\n\n## What the source does not establish\n\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named web or transport decision; it does not prove browser, intermediary, library, or service compatibility. It does not establish a deployment’s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.\n\n## Applicability questions\n\n- For source statement 1 at Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\n\n- For source statement 2 at Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\n\n- For source statement 3 at Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\n\n- What inventory proves which parts of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points are in and out of scope?\n\n- Which condition in DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership must be healthy before evidence is trustworthy?\n\n- What result would disprove the working assumption and return the issue to the owner?\n\n## DSE recommendation:\n\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Begin by recording scope and current state before deciding whether a change is warranted. Record the source location, examined part of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.\n\nDo not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.\n\n## Verification and evidence\n\nKeep the source locations Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields); Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A; Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields) adjacent to the sanitized artifacts used for comparison. Prefer request and response captures, negotiated protocol details, headers, cache behavior, certificate state, and server or proxy logs, with enough identity and timing data for an independent recheck.\n\nRetain the starting state, authorization, execution record, outcome, deviation, and final state as one review package. Move disruptive checks to an approved test path. Reopen the decision when versions, design, dependencies, ownership, or official guidance changes.\n\n## Official references\n\n- [RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9651.html) — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force"
    },
    "json_ld": {
        "@context": "https://schema.org",
        "@graph": [
            {
                "@type": "Organization",
                "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization",
                "name": "Detection Systems & Engineering",
                "alternateName": "DSE Security",
                "url": "https://dsesecurity.com/",
                "logo": {
                    "@type": "ImageObject",
                    "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/dse-logo-20260812.png?v=1.8.20"
                }
            },
            {
                "@type": "Organization",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#editorial-team",
                "name": "DSE Security Editorial Team",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/",
                "parentOrganization": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                }
            },
            {
                "@type": "WebSite",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#website",
                "name": "DSE Updates",
                "alternateName": "DSE Security Knowledge Hub",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/",
                "inLanguage": "en-US",
                "publisher": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                },
                "potentialAction": {
                    "@type": "SearchAction",
                    "target": {
                        "@type": "EntryPoint",
                        "urlTemplate": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/?q={search_term_string}"
                    },
                    "query-input": "required name=search_term_string"
                }
            },
            {
                "@type": "WebPage",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/",
                "isPartOf": {
                    "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#website"
                },
                "lastReviewed": "2026-08-26"
            },
            {
                "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/#breadcrumbs",
                "itemListElement": [
                    {
                        "@type": "ListItem",
                        "position": 1,
                        "name": "DSE Updates",
                        "item": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/"
                    },
                    {
                        "@type": "ListItem",
                        "position": 2,
                        "name": "Parse and serialize HTTP Structured Fields as ordered typed values",
                        "item": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "@type": [
                    "Article",
                    "TechArticle"
                ],
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/#article",
                "identifier": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/",
                "headline": "Parse and serialize HTTP Structured Fields as ordered typed values",
                "description": "Use RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP to review this narrow operational decision without extending the source beyond its stated scope.",
                "abstract": "Use RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP to review this narrow operational decision without extending the source beyond its stated scope.",
                "articleBody": "Keep this document to one review outcome: Parse and serialize HTTP Structured Fields as ordered typed values. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.\nSource fact:\nThe official RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:\n\nA Structured Field serializer accepts a defined List, Dictionary, or Item and returns ASCII; it omits an empty List or Dictionary and fails when the supplied structure cannot be serialized. The research record locates this support at Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields).\nDictionaries and Parameters are order-preserving maps, and their serialization algorithms process members in that stored order so applications can retain ordering when a field assigns it meaning. The research record locates this support at Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A.\nA recipient parses a Structured Field according to its declared Dictionary, List, or Item type, and a parsing failure causes the entire field to be ignored. The research record locates this support at Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields).\n\nOnly the traced statements above are asserted as source facts. Apply the review to clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points after confirming that the source and deployed context match.\nWhat the source does not establish\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named web or transport decision; it does not prove browser, intermediary, library, or service compatibility. It does not establish a deployment’s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.\nApplicability questions\n\nFor source statement 1 at Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 2 at Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 3 at Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nWhat inventory proves which parts of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points are in and out of scope?\nWhich condition in DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership must be healthy before evidence is trustworthy?\nWhat result would disprove the working assumption and return the issue to the owner?\n\nDSE recommendation:\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Begin by recording scope and current state before deciding whether a change is warranted. Record the source location, examined part of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.\nDo not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.\nVerification and evidence\nKeep the source locations Section 4.1 (Serializing Structured Fields); Sections 4.1.1.2 (Serializing Parameters), 4.1.2 (Serializing a Dictionary), and Appendix A; Sections 2.2 (Error Handling) and 4.2 (Parsing Structured Fields) adjacent to the sanitized artifacts used for comparison. Prefer request and response captures, negotiated protocol details, headers, cache behavior, certificate state, and server or proxy logs, with enough identity and timing data for an independent recheck.\nRetain the starting state, authorization, execution record, outcome, deviation, and final state as one review package. Move disruptive checks to an approved test path. Reopen the decision when versions, design, dependencies, ownership, or official guidance changes.\nOfficial references\n\nRFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force",
                "datePublished": "2026-08-27T12:15:51+00:00",
                "dateModified": "2026-08-27T12:53:58+00:00",
                "mainEntityOfPage": {
                    "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/"
                },
                "inLanguage": "en-US",
                "isAccessibleForFree": true,
                "author": {
                    "@type": "Organization",
                    "name": "DSE Security Editorial Team",
                    "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#editorial-team"
                },
                "publisher": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                },
                "image": {
                    "@type": "ImageObject",
                    "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/parse-and-serialize-http-structured-fields-as-ordered-typed-values/#primaryimage",
                    "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-social-v2.jpg?v=1.8.20",
                    "contentUrl": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-social-v2.jpg?v=1.8.20",
                    "width": 1200,
                    "height": 630,
                    "caption": "Parse and serialize HTTP Structured Fields as ordered typed values"
                },
                "articleSection": [
                    "Cybersecurity",
                    "Networks & Infrastructure"
                ],
                "keywords": [
                    "Cybersecurity",
                    "Networks & Infrastructure",
                    "Playbook",
                    "Advisory priority"
                ],
                "genre": "Playbook",
                "about": [
                    {
                        "@type": "Thing",
                        "name": "Cybersecurity",
                        "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/cybersecurity/"
                    },
                    {
                        "@type": "Thing",
                        "name": "Networks & Infrastructure",
                        "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/networks-infrastructure/"
                    }
                ],
                "wordCount": 623,
                "timeRequired": "PT3M",
                "publishingPrinciples": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/dse-updates-editorial-methodology/",
                "usageInfo": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/usage/",
                "copyrightHolder": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                },
                "copyrightNotice": "Copyright © 2026 Detection Systems & Engineering. All rights reserved.",
                "citation": {
                    "@type": "CreativeWork",
                    "name": "RFC 9651 — Structured Field Values for HTTP",
                    "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9651.html"
                }
            }
        ]
    }
}