One document matched: draft-snell-additional-link-relations-02.txt

Differences from draft-snell-additional-link-relations-01.txt

Network Working Group                                           J. Snell
Internet-Draft                                               May 1, 2012
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 2, 2012


                     Additional Link Relation Types
                draft-snell-additional-link-relations-02

Abstract

   This specification defines a number of additional Link Relation
   Types.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 2, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.






Snell                   Expires November 2, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 HTTP Prefer                      May 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  "about" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  "implements"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  "privacy-policy"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  "terms-of-service"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  "type"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7





































Snell                   Expires November 2, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 HTTP Prefer                      May 2012


1.  Introduction

   This specification defines a number of additional Link Relation Types
   for a variety of common linking scenarios.

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


2.  "about"

   The "about" Link relation can be used to refer to a resource that is
   the subject of the link's context.  Multiple subjects can be
   indicated through the use of multiple "about" link relations.

   For example, if the context resource is a review about a particular
   product, the "about" link can be used to reference the URL of the
   product:

     HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     Content-Type: application/json
     Link: <http://store.example.org/product/abc>; rel="about"

     {...}


3.  "implements"

   The "implements" Link relation can be used to refer to a resource
   that specifies the behavior implemented by the link's context.  Links
   using the "implements" link relation can point either to formal
   specification documents such as RFC's, Internet-Drafts, W3C
   Recommendations, or to informal and possibly vendor specific
   documents that describe implementation details.

   For example, an HTTP client that implements the Atom Publishing
   Protocol [RFC5023] could include an "implements" Link (per [RFC5988])
   within the HTTP Request referencing RFC 5023:

     POST /collection HTTP/1.1
     Host: example.org
     Content-Type: application/atom+xml; type=entry
     Link: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023>; rel="implements"

     <entry ...

   Multiple "implements" Links can be used to indicate that multiple



Snell                   Expires November 2, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 HTTP Prefer                      May 2012


   specifications have been implemented.


4.  "privacy-policy"

   The "privacy-policy" Link relation can be used to refer to a resource
   describing the privacy policy associated with the link's context.
   The privacy policy can be any resource that discloses what personal
   information about the user is collected, and how that personal
   information is stored, used, managed and disclosed to other parties.

   For example, an HTTP server that collects personal information about
   a user throughout the course of the user's interaction with the
   service can include "privacy-policy" Links within all HTTP Responses
   using any combination of Link headers or links embedded in the
   response payload:

   An example showing various locations where privacy-policy links can
   potentially appear:

     HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     Content-Type: text/html
     Link: </privacy-policy.html>; rel="privacy-policy"

     <html>
       <head>
         ...
         <link rel="privacy-policy" href="/privacy-policy.html">
         ...
       </head>
       <body>
         ...
         <a rel="privacy-policy" href="/privacy-policy.html">
           Privacy Policy
         </a>
         ...
       </body>
     </html>

   Note that in the absence of clear legal obligations placed on an
   entity either through contract or law, the presence of a "privacy-
   policy" Link does not constitute a legally binding obligation on the
   part of the service.  The linked resource MUST be interpreted as only
   a description of the expected practice.

   Publishers of privacy policy resources linked to using the "privacy-
   policy" Link relation type SHOULD provide a clear and simple
   mechanism for signaling when changes to the Privacy Policy resource



Snell                   Expires November 2, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 HTTP Prefer                      May 2012


   have been made, such as generating a new Entity Tag for the resource
   or generating a hash over the Privacy Policy's content.


5.  "terms-of-service"

   The "terms-of-service" Link relation can be used to refer to a
   resource describing the Terms of Service associated with the link's
   context.  The Terms of Service can be any resource that describes the
   rules to which a consumer of the service must agree to follow when
   using the service provided by the link's context.

   For example, an HTTP server can include "terms-of-service" Links
   within all HTTP Responses using any combination of Link headers or
   links embedded in the response payload:

   An example showing various places where terms-of-service links can
   potentially appear:

     HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     Content-Type: text/html
     Link: </tos.html>; rel="terms-of-service"

     <html>
       <head>
         ...
         <link rel="terms-of-service" href="/tos.html">
         ...
       </head>
       <body>
         ...
         <a rel="terms-of-service" href="/tos.html">
           Privacy Policy
         </a>
         ...
       </body>
     </html>

   It must be noted that the Terms of Service linked to using this link
   relation carries no legal weight and can be ignored with impunity in
   the absence of an explicit, legally enforceable contract.  The linked
   Terms of Service are simply a notice of the terms that may be
   expected to apply once a contract is established.


6.  "type"

   The "type" Link relation can be used to indicate that the context



Snell                   Expires November 2, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 HTTP Prefer                      May 2012


   resource is an instance of the resource identified by the target IRI.

     HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     Content-Type: text/plain
     Link: <http://example.org/Person/givenName>; type="type"

     Sally

   Note that the "type" specified by the type link relation MUST NOT be
   confused with the media type of the payload itself as given by the
   Content-Type header.  The "type" link relation references the
   payload's abstract semantic type whereas the Content-Type header
   identifies the specific serialization format of the payload.

   If the context can be considered to be an instance of multiple
   semantic types, multiple "type" link relations can be used.


7.  IANA Considerations

   The Registry of Link Relations should be updated with the following
   entries:

   o  Relation Name: about
   o  Description: Refers to a resource that is the subject of the
      link's context.
   o  Reference: This specification.

   o  Relation Name: implements
   o  Description: Refers to a specification implemented by the link's
      context.
   o  Reference: This specification.

   o  Relation Name: privacy-policy
   o  Description: Refers to a Privacy Policy associated with the link's
      context.
   o  Reference: This specification.

   o  Relation Name: terms-of-service
   o  Description: Refers to the Terms of Service associated with the
      link's context.
   o  Reference: This specification.

   o  Relation Name: type
   o  Description: Refers to a resource identifying the abstract
      semantic type the link's context is considered to be an instance
      of.




Snell                   Expires November 2, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                 HTTP Prefer                      May 2012


   o  Reference: This specification.


8.  Security Considerations

   There are no additional security concerns introduced by the "terms-
   of-service", "implements", "about" or "type" Link relations.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5023]  Gregorio, J. and B. de hOra, "The Atom Publishing
              Protocol", RFC 5023, October 2007.

   [RFC5988]  Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.


Author's Address

   James M Snell

   Email: jasnell@gmail.com






















Snell                   Expires November 2, 2012                [Page 7]