< draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-07.txt   draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08.txt >
Network Working Group M. Nottingham Network Working Group M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft August 1, 2018 Internet-Draft October 4, 2018
Obsoletes: 5785, 8307 (if approved) Obsoletes: 5785, 8307 (if approved)
Updates: 7230, 6455 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: February 2, 2019 Expires: April 7, 2019
Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-07 draft-nottingham-rfc5785bis-08
Abstract Abstract
This memo defines a path prefix for "well-known locations", "/.well- This memo defines a path prefix for "well-known locations", "/.well-
known/", in selected Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes. known/", in selected Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes.
Note to Readers Note to Readers
_RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_ _RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 2, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Well-Known URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Well-Known URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Registering Well-Known URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Registering Well-Known URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Interaction with Web Browsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Interaction with Web Browsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Scoping Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Scoping Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Hidden Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Hidden Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. The Well-Known URI Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. The Well-Known URI Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Changes from RFC5785 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix B. Changes from RFC5785 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Some applications on the Web require the discovery of information Some applications on the Web require the discovery of information
about an origin [RFC6454] (sometimes called "site-wide metadata") about an origin [RFC6454] (sometimes called "site-wide metadata")
before making a request. For example, the Robots Exclusion Protocol before making a request. For example, the Robots Exclusion Protocol
(http://www.robotstxt.org/ [5]) specifies a way for automated (http://www.robotstxt.org/ [5]) specifies a way for automated
processes to obtain permission to access resources; likewise, the processes to obtain permission to access resources; likewise, the
Platform for Privacy Preferences [P3P] tells user-agents how to Platform for Privacy Preferences [P3P] tells user-agents how to
discover privacy policy before interacting with an origin server. discover privacy policy before interacting with an origin server.
skipping to change at page 3, line 15 skipping to change at page 3, line 15
While there are several ways to access per-resource metadata (e.g., While there are several ways to access per-resource metadata (e.g.,
HTTP headers, WebDAV's PROPFIND [RFC4918]), the perceived overhead HTTP headers, WebDAV's PROPFIND [RFC4918]), the perceived overhead
(either in terms of client-perceived latency and/or deployment (either in terms of client-perceived latency and/or deployment
difficulties) associated with them often precludes their use in these difficulties) associated with them often precludes their use in these
scenarios. scenarios.
At the same time, it has become more popular to use HTTP as a At the same time, it has become more popular to use HTTP as a
substrate for non-Web protocols. Sometimes, such protocols need a substrate for non-Web protocols. Sometimes, such protocols need a
way to locate one or more resources on a given host. way to locate one or more resources on a given host.
When this happens, one solution is designating a "well-known When this happens, one solution is to designate a "well-known
location" for data or services related to the origin overall, so that location" for data or services related to the origin overall, so that
it can be easily located. However, this approach has the drawback of it can be easily located. However, this approach has the drawback of
risking collisions, both with other such designated "well-known risking collisions, both with other such designated "well-known
locations" and with resources that the origin has created (or wishes locations" and with resources that the origin has created (or wishes
to create). Furthermore, defining well-known locations usurp's the to create). Furthermore, defining well-known locations usurp's the
origin's control over its own URI space [RFC7320]. origin's control over its own URI space [RFC7320].
To address these uses, this memo defines a path prefix in HTTP(S) To address these uses, this memo defines a path prefix in HTTP(S)
URIs for these "well-known locations", "/.well-known/". Future URIs for these "well-known locations", "/.well-known/". Future
specifications that need to define a resource for such metadata can specifications that need to define a resource for such metadata can
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
2. Notational Conventions 2. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Well-Known URIs 3. Well-Known URIs
A well-known URI is a URI [RFC3986] whose path component begins with A well-known URI is a URI [RFC3986] whose path component begins with
the characters "/.well-known/", and whose scheme is "http", "https", the characters "/.well-known/", and whose scheme is "http" [RFC7230],
"ws", "wss", or another scheme that has explicitly been specified to "https" [RFC7230], "ws" [RFC6455], "wss" [RFC6455], or another scheme
use well-known URIs. that has explicitly been specified to use well-known URIs.
Applications that wish to mint new well-known URIs MUST register Applications that wish to mint new well-known URIs MUST register
them, following the procedures in Section 5.1. them, following the procedures in Section 5.1.
For example, if an application registers the name 'example', the For example, if an application registers the name 'example', the
corresponding well-known URI on 'http://www.example.com/' would be corresponding well-known URI on 'http://www.example.com/' would be
'http://www.example.com/.well-known/example'. 'http://www.example.com/.well-known/example'.
Registered names MUST conform to the segment-nz production in Registered names MUST conform to the segment-nz production in
[RFC3986]. This means they cannot contain the "/" character. [RFC3986]. This means they cannot contain the "/" character.
skipping to change at page 5, line 22 skipping to change at page 5, line 22
Change controller: For Standards-Track RFCs, state "IETF". For Change controller: For Standards-Track RFCs, state "IETF". For
others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details
(e.g., postal address, e-mail address, home page URI) may also be (e.g., postal address, e-mail address, home page URI) may also be
included. included.
Specification document(s): Reference to the document that specifies Specification document(s): Reference to the document that specifies
the field, preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve the field, preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve
a copy of the document. An indication of the relevant sections a copy of the document. An indication of the relevant sections
may also be included, but is not required. may also be included, but is not required.
Status: One of "permanent" or "provisional". See guidance below.
Related information: Optionally, citations to additional documents Related information: Optionally, citations to additional documents
containing further relevant information. containing further relevant information.
General requirements for registered relation types are described in General requirements for registered relation types are described in
Section 3. Section 3.
Standards-defined values have a status of "permanent". Other values
can also be registered as permanent, if the Experts find that they
are in use, in consultation with the community. Other values should
be registered as "provisional".
Provisional entries can be removed by the Experts if - in
consultation with the community - the Experts find that they are not
in use. The Experts can change a provisional entry's status to
permanent at any time.
Note that well-known URIs can be registered by third parties Note that well-known URIs can be registered by third parties
(including the expert(s)), if the expert(s) determines that an (including the expert(s)), if the expert(s) determines that an
unregistered well-known URI is widely deployed and not likely to be unregistered well-known URI is widely deployed and not likely to be
registered in a timely manner otherwise. Such registrations still registered in a timely manner otherwise. Such registrations still
are subject to the requirements defined, including the need to are subject to the requirements defined, including the need to
reference a specification. reference a specification.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Applications minting new well-known URIs, as well as administrators Applications minting new well-known URIs, as well as administrators
skipping to change at page 8, line 18 skipping to change at page 8, line 29
o Conformance to the requirements in Section 3 o Conformance to the requirements in Section 3
o The availability and stability of the specifying document o The availability and stability of the specifying document
o The considerations outlined in Section 4 o The considerations outlined in Section 4
IANA will direct any incoming requests regarding the registry to this IANA will direct any incoming requests regarding the registry to this
document and, if defined, the processes established by the expert(s); document and, if defined, the processes established by the expert(s);
typically, this will mean referring them to the registry Web page. typically, this will mean referring them to the registry Web page.
IANA should replace all references to RFC 5988 in that registry have Upon publication, IANA should:
been replaced with references to this document.
o Replace all references to RFC 5988 in that registry have been
replaced with references to this document.
o Update the status of all existing registrations to "permanent".
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC6454] Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454, [RFC6454] Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6454>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6454>.
[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",
RFC 6455, DOI 10.17487/RFC6455, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6455>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[CSP] West, M., "Content Security Policy Level 3", World Wide [CSP] West, M., "Content Security Policy Level 3", World Wide
Web Consortium WD WD-CSP3-20160913, September 2016, Web Consortium WD WD-CSP3-20160913, September 2016,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-CSP3-20160913>. <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-CSP3-20160913>.
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 43 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/