One document matched: draft-nottingham-site-meta-02.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629/rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2026 SYSTEM 'bibxml/reference.RFC.2026.xml'>      
<!ENTITY rfc2119 SYSTEM 'bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>      
<!ENTITY rfc2616 SYSTEM 'bibxml/reference.RFC.2616.xml'>      
<!ENTITY rfc3864 SYSTEM 'bibxml/reference.RFC.3864.xml'>      
<!ENTITY rfc3986 SYSTEM 'bibxml/reference.RFC.3986.xml'>      
<!ENTITY rfc4918 SYSTEM 'bibxml/reference.RFC.4918.xml'>      
<!ENTITY bcp26 SYSTEM 'bibxml/reference.RFC.5226.xml'>      
<!ENTITY rfc5234 SYSTEM 'bibxml/reference.RFC.5234.xml'>      
<!ENTITY P3P SYSTEM 'bibxml/reference.W3C.REC-P3P-20020416.xml'>
]>

<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3" ?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc comments="yes" ?>
<?rfc inline="yes" ?>

<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-nottingham-site-meta-02" category="info">
    <front>
        <title>Defining Well-Known URIs</title>
        <author initials="M." surname="Nottingham" fullname="Mark Nottingham">
            <organization></organization>
            <address>
                <email>mnot@mnot.net</email>
                <uri>http://www.mnot.net/</uri>
            </address>
        </author>
        <author initials="E." surname="Hammer-Lahav" fullname="Eran Hammer-Lahav">
            <organization></organization>
            <address>
                <email>eran@hueniverse.com</email>
                <uri>http://hueniverse.com/</uri>
            </address>
        </author>
        <date year="2009"/>
        <abstract>
            <t>This memo defines a path prefix for "well-known locations" in URIs.</t>
        </abstract>
    </front>

    <middle>

        <section title="Introduction">

            <t>It is increasingly common for Web-based protocols to require the discovery of policy or metadata before making a request. For example, the Robots Exclusion Protocol specifies a way for automated processes to obtain permission to access resources; likewise, the Platform for Privacy Preferences <xref target="W3C.REC-P3P-20020416"/> tells user-agents how to discover privacy policy beforehand.</t>

            <t>While there are several ways to access per-resource metadata (e.g., HTTP headers, WebDAV's PROPFIND <xref target="RFC4918"/>), the perceived overhead associated with them often precludes their use in these scenarios.</t>
            
            <t>When this happens, it is common to designate a "well-known location" for such metadata, so that it can be easily located. However, this approach has the drawback of risking collisions, both with other such designated "well-known locations" and with pre-existing resources.</t>
            
            <t>To address this, this memo defines a path prefix for these "well-known locations", "/.well-known/". Future specifications that need to define a resource for such site-wide metadata can register their use to avoid collisions and
minimise impingement upon sites' URI space.</t>
	
			<t>Please discuss this draft on the <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss">apps-discuss@ietf.org</eref> mailing list.</t>

        </section>


        <section title="Notational Conventions">
            <t>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 RFC 2119 <xref target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
        </section>

		<section title="Well-Known URIs">
			<t>A well-known URI is a URI <xref target="RFC3986"/> whose path component begins with the characters "/.well-known/".</t>

			<t>Applications that wish to mint new well-known URIs MUST register them, following the procedures in <xref target="registry"/>.</t>
			<t>For example, if an application registers the value 'example', the corresponding well-known URI on 'http://www.example.com/' would be 'http://www.example.com/.well-known/example'.</t>
				
			<t>Note that this specification defines neither how to determine the authority to use for a particular context, nor the scope of the metadata discovered by dereferencing the well-known URI; both should be defined by the application itself.</t>

			<t>Typically, a registration will reference a specification that defines the format and associated media type
			   to be obtained by dereferencing the well-known URI.</t>

			<t>It MAY also contain additional information, such as the syntax of URI query strings or additional path 
				components to be appended to the well-known URI, or protocol-specific details (e.g., HTTP <xref target="RFC2616"/> method handling).</t>
		</section>

        <section title="Security Considerations">
			<t>This memo does not specify the scope of applicability of metadata or policy obtained from a well-known URI, and does not
				specify how to discover a well-known URI for a particular application. Individual applications using this mechanism must define both aspects.</t>
			
			<t>An attacker with certain types of limited access to a server may be able to affect how well-known URIs are served; for example, they may be able to upload a file at that location, or they may be able to cause a server to redirect a well-known URI to a URI that they control.</t>
			
			<t>Because most URI schemes rely on DNS to resolve names, they are vulnerable to "DNS rebinding" attacks, whereby
				a request can be directed to a server under the control of an attacker.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="IANA Considerations">

			<section title="The Well-Known URI Registry" anchor="registry">
				<t>This document establishes the well-known URI registry as the name space of URIs that 
					have a path beginning with "/.well-known/".</t>
					
				<t>Well-known URIs are registered on the advice of a Designated Expert (appointed by the 
					IESG or their delegate), with a Specification Required (using terminology from <xref target="RFC5226"/>).</t>
					
				<t>Registration requests consist of the completed registration template 
					(see <xref target="template"/>), typically published in an RFC or Open Standard (in the sense described
				    by <xref target="RFC2026"/>, section 7). However, to allow for the
					   allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert may approve 
					registration once they are satisfied that an RFC (or other Open Standard) will be published.</t>
				
				<t>Upon receiving a registration request (usually via IANA), the Designated Expert should request 
					review and comment from the apps-discuss mailing list (or a successor designated by the APPS Area
					Directors). Before a period of 30 days has passed, the Designated Expert will either approve or 
					deny the registration request, communicating this decision both to the review list and to IANA.  
					Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the 
					request successful.</t>
					
				<section title="Registration Template" anchor="template">
					<t><list style="hanging">
					   <t hangText="URI suffix:">
					      The name requested for the well-known URI, relative to "/.well-known/";
					 	  e.g., "example".
					  	  MUST conform to the segment-nz production in <xref target="RFC3986"/>.</t>

					   <t hangText="Change controller:">
					      For RFCs, state "IETF". For other open
					      standards, give the name of the publishing body (e.g., ANSI, ISO,
					      ITU, W3C, etc.). A postal address, home page URI, telephone and fax
					      numbers may also be included.</t>

					   <t hangText="Specification document(s):">
					      Reference to document that specifies the field, preferably 
						  including a URI that can be used to
					      retrieve a copy of the document.  An indication of the relevant
					      sections may also be included, but is not required.</t>

					   <t hangText="Related information:">
     					Optionally, citations to additional documents containing further
					      relevant information.</t>
					  </list></t>
					</section>				   
			
			</section>
			
        </section>

    </middle>

    <back>
        <references title="Normative References">&bcp26; &rfc2026; &rfc2119; &rfc3986;</references>

		<references title="Informative References">&P3P; &rfc2616; &rfc4918;</references>

        <section title="Acknowledgements">
            <t>We would like to acknowledge the contributions of everyone who provided feedback and use cases for this draft; in particular, 
				Phil Archer, 
				Dirk Balfanz,
				Adam Barth,
				Tim Bray, 
				Brian Eaton,
				Brad Fitzpatrick,
				Paul Hoffman, 
				Barry Leiba, 
				Ashok Malhotra, 
				Breno de Medeiros,
				John Panzer,
				and Drummond Reed.
			However, they are not responsible for errors and omissions.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="Frequently Asked Questions">

			<section title="Aren't well-known locations bad for the Web?">
				<t>They are, but for various reasons -- both technical and social -- they are commonly used, and their
					use is increasing. This memo defines a "sandbox" for them, to reduce the risks of collision and to 
					minimise the impact upon pre-existing URIs on sites.</t>
			</section>
            
            <section title="Why /.well-known?">
				<t>It's short, descriptive and according to search indices, not widely used.</t>
            </section>
            
			<section title="Is this just for HTTP URIs?">
				<t>No; although HTTP is the most typical use case, applications can define well-known URIs for 
					any URI scheme that allows path segments.</t>
			</section>

			<section title="What impact does this have on existing mechanisms, such as P3P and robots.txt?">
				<t>None, until they choose to use this mechanism.</t>
			</section>
			
			<section title="Why aren't per-directory well-known locations defined?">
				<t>Allowing every URI path segment to have a well-known location (e.g., "/images/.well-known/")
					would increase the risks of colliding with a pre-existing URI on a site, and generally these
					solutions are found not to scale well, because they're too "chatty".</t>
			</section>

        </section>
		<section title="Document History">
			<t>[[RFC Editor: please remove this section before publication.]]</t>
			<t><list style="symbols">
				<t>-02<list style="symbols">
					<t>Rewrote to just define a namespace for well-known URIs.</t>
					<t>Changed discussion forum to apps-discuss.</t>
				</list></t>
			</list></t>
			<t><list style="symbols">
				<t>-01<list style="symbols">
					<t>Changed "site-meta" to "host-meta" after feedback.</t>
					<t>Changed from XML to text-based header-like format.</t>
					<t>Remove capability for generic inline content.</t>
					<t>Added registry for host-meta fields.</t>
					<t>Clarified scope of metadata application.</t>
					<t>Added security consideration about HTTP vs. HTTPS, expanding scope.</t>
				</list></t>
			</list></t>
		</section>
    </back>
</rfc>