Network Working GroupM. Nottingham
Internet-DraftDecember 1, 2008
Updates: 4287 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: June 4, 2009

Link Relations and HTTP Header Linking

draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress”.

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2009.

Abstract

This document specifies relation types for Web links, and defines a registry for them. It also defines how to send such links in HTTP headers with the Link header-field.


1. Introduction

A means of indicating the relationships between documents on the Web, as well as indicating the type of those relationships, has been available for some time in HTML [W3C.REC-html401-19991224], and more recently in Atom [RFC4287]. These mechanisms, although conceptually similar, are separate. However, links between resources need not be format-specific; it can be useful to have typed links that are independent of the format, especially when a resource has representations in multiple formats.

This document defines typed link relations, independent of the context they occur in. It does so by clarifying the status of the link relation registry established by Atom, and registering in it the relations that are defined by HTML.

Furthermore, an HTTP header-field for conveying typed links was defined in [RFC2068], but removed from [RFC2616], due to a lack of implementation experience. Since then, several use cases for doing so have surfaced. However, because it was removed, the status of the Link header is unclear, leading some to consider minting new application-specific HTTP headers instead of reusing it. This document addresses this by re-specifying the Link header with updated but backwards-compatible syntax.

[[ Feedback is welcome on the ietf-http-wg@w3.org mailing list, although this is NOT a work item of the HTTPBIS WG. ]]

2. Notational Conventions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119], as scoped to those conformance targets.

This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of [RFC2616], and explicitly includes the following rules from it: quoted-string, token, SP (space). Additionally, the following rules are included from [RFC3986]: URI and URI-Reference, and from [RFC4288]: type-name.

6. IANA Considerations

7. Security Considerations

The content of the Link header-field is not secure, private or integrity-guaranteed, and due caution should be exercised when using it.

Applications that take advantage of typed links should consider the attack vectors opened by automatically following, trusting, or otherwise using links gathered from HTTP headers.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels”, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, “Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1”, RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3864]
Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, “Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields”, BCP 90, RFC 3864, September 2004.
[RFC3986]
Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, “Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax”, STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4288]
Freed, N. and J. Klensin, “Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures”, BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.
[RFC5226]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs”, BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.

8.2. Informative References

[RFC2068]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., and T. Berners-Lee, “Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1”, RFC 2068, January 1997.
[RFC4287]
Nottingham, M. and R. Sayre, “The Atom Syndication Format”, RFC 4287, December 2005.
[RFC4685]
Snell, J., “Atom Threading Extensions”, RFC 4685, September 2006.
[RFC4946]
Snell, J., “Atom License Extension”, RFC 4946, July 2007.
[RFC5005]
Nottingham, M., “Feed Paging and Archiving”, RFC 5005, September 2007.
[RFC5023]
Gregorio, J. and B. de hOra, “The Atom Publishing Protocol”, RFC 5023, October 2007.
[W3C.REC-html401-19991224]
Jacobs, I., Raggett, D., and A. Hors, “HTML 4.01 Specification”, World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-html401-19991224, December 1999, <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>.

C. Acknowledgements

This specification lifts the idea and definition for the Link header from RFC2068; credit for it belongs entirely to the authors of and contributors to that document. The link relation registrations themselves are sourced from several documents; see the applicable references.

The author would like to thank the many people who commented upon, encouraged and gave feedback to this draft, especially including Frank Ellermann and Julian Reschke.

D. Document history

[[ to be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC. ]]

-03

-02

-01

-00

Author's Address

Mark Nottingham
EMail: mnot@mnot.net
URI: http://www.mnot.net/

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.