< draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-00.txt   draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt >
Network Working Group M. Nottingham Network Working Group M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft August 20, 2019 Internet-Draft August 27, 2019
Obsoletes: 7320 (if approved) Obsoletes: 7320 (if approved)
Updates: 3986 (if approved) Updates: 3986 (if approved)
Intended status: Best Current Practice Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: February 21, 2020 Expires: February 28, 2020
URI Design and Ownership URI Design and Ownership
draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-00 draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01
Abstract Abstract
Section 1.1.1 of RFC 3986 defines URI syntax as "a federated and Section 1.1.1 of RFC 3986 defines URI syntax as "a federated and
extensible naming system wherein each scheme's specification may extensible naming system wherein each scheme's specification may
further restrict the syntax and semantics of identifiers using that further restrict the syntax and semantics of identifiers using that
scheme." In other words, the structure of a URI is defined by its scheme." In other words, the structure of a URI is defined by its
scheme. While it is common for schemes to further delegate their scheme. While it is common for schemes to further delegate their
substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards
that mandate particular forms of URI substructure is inappropriate, that mandate particular forms of substructure in URIs is often
because that essentially usurps ownership. This document further problematic.
describes this problematic practice and provides some acceptable
alternatives for use in standards. This document provides guidance on the specification of URI
substructure in standards.
Note to Readers Note to Readers
_RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_ _RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_
This is a proposed revision of RFC7320, aka BCP190. The -00 draft is This is a proposed revision of RFC7320, aka BCP190. The -00 draft is
a copy of the published RFC; subsequent revisions will update it. a copy of the published RFC; subsequent revisions will update it.
The issues list for this draft can be found at The issues list for this draft can be found at
https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/rfc7320 [1]. https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/rfc7320bis [1].
The most recent (often, unpublished) draft is at The most recent (often, unpublished) draft is at
https://mnot.github.io/I-D/rfc7320/ [2]. https://mnot.github.io/I-D/rfc7320bis/ [2].
Recent changes are listed at https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh- Recent changes are listed at https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-
pages/rfc7320 [3]. pages/rfc7320bis [3].
See also the draft's current status in the IETF datatracker, at See also the draft's current status in the IETF datatracker, at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc7320/ [4]. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis/ [4].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 21, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 28, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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 40 skipping to change at page 2, line 45
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Intended Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Intended Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Best Current Practices for Standardizing Structured URIs . . 5 2. Best Current Practices for Standardizing Structured URIs . . 5
2.1. URI Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. URI Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. URI Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. URI Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. URI Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. URI Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. URI Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. URI Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. URI Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5. URI Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Alternatives to Specifying Structure in URIs . . . . . . . . 7 3. Alternatives to Specifying Structure in URIs . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
URIs [RFC3986] very often include structured application data. This URIs [RFC3986] very often include structured application data. This
might include artifacts from filesystems (often occurring in the path might include artifacts from filesystems (often occurring in the path
component) and user information (often in the query component). In component) and user information (often in the query component). In
some cases, there can even be application-specific data in the some cases, there can even be application-specific data in the
authority component (e.g., some applications are spread across authority component (e.g., some applications are spread across
several hostnames to enable a form of partitioning or dispatch). several hostnames to enable a form of partitioning or dispatch).
Furthermore, constraints upon the structure of URIs can be imposed by Implementations can impose further constraints upon the structure of
an implementation; for example, many Web servers use the filename URIs; for example, many Web servers use the filename extension of the
extension of the last path segment to determine the media type of the last path segment to determine the media type of the response.
response. Likewise, prepackaged applications often have highly Likewise, prepackaged applications often have highly structured URIs
structured URIs that can only be changed in limited ways (often, just that can only be changed in limited ways (often, just the hostname
the hostname and port on which they are deployed). and port on which they are deployed).
Because the owner of the URI (as defined in [webarch] Because the owner of the URI (as defined in [webarch]
Section 2.2.2.1) is choosing to use the server or the application, Section 2.2.2.1) is choosing to use the server or the application,
this can be seen as reasonable delegation of authority. However, this can be seen as reasonable delegation of authority. However,
when such conventions are mandated by a party other than the owner, when such conventions are mandated by a party other than the owner,
it can have several potentially detrimental effects: it can have several potentially detrimental effects:
o Collisions - As more ad hoc conventions for URI structure become o Collisions - As more ad hoc conventions for URI structure become
standardized, it becomes more likely that there will be collisions standardized, it becomes more likely that there will be collisions
between them (especially considering that servers, applications, between them (especially considering that servers, applications,
skipping to change at page 4, line 11 skipping to change at page 4, line 16
o Client Assumptions - When conventions are standardized, some o Client Assumptions - When conventions are standardized, some
clients will inevitably assume that the standards are in use when clients will inevitably assume that the standards are in use when
those conventions are seen. This can lead to interoperability those conventions are seen. This can lead to interoperability
problems; for example, if a specification documents that the "sig" problems; for example, if a specification documents that the "sig"
URI query parameter indicates that its payload is a cryptographic URI query parameter indicates that its payload is a cryptographic
signature for the URI, it can lead to undesirable behavior. signature for the URI, it can lead to undesirable behavior.
Publishing a standard that constrains an existing URI structure in Publishing a standard that constrains an existing URI structure in
ways that aren't explicitly allowed by [RFC3986] (usually, by ways that aren't explicitly allowed by [RFC3986] (usually, by
updating the URI scheme definition) is inappropriate, because the updating the URI scheme definition) is therefore sometimes
structure of a URI needs to be firmly under the control of its owner, problematic, both for these reasons, and because the structure of a
and the IETF (as well as other organizations) should not usurp it. URI needs to be firmly under the control of its owner.
This document explains some best current practices for establishing This document explains some best current practices for establishing
URI structures, conventions, and formats in standards. It also URI structures, conventions, and formats in standards. It also
offers strategies for specifications to avoid violating these offers strategies for specifications in Section 3.
guidelines in Section 3.
1.1. Intended Audience 1.1. Intended Audience
This document's requirements target the authors of specifications This document's guidelines and requirements target the authors of
that constrain the syntax or structure of URIs or parts of them. Two specifications that constrain the syntax or structure of URIs or
classes of such specifications are called out specifically: parts of them. Two classes of such specifications are called out
specifically:
o Protocol Extensions ("extensions") - specifications that offer new o Protocol Extensions ("extensions") - specifications that offer new
capabilities that could apply to any identifier, or to a large capabilities that could apply to any identifier, or to a large
subset of possible identifiers; e.g., a new signature mechanism subset of possible identifiers; e.g., a new signature mechanism
for 'http' URIs, or metadata for any URI. for 'http' URIs, metadata for any URI, or a new format.
o Applications Using URIs ("applications") - specifications that use o Applications Using URIs ("applications") - specifications that use
URIs to meet specific needs; e.g., an HTTP interface to particular URIs to meet specific needs; e.g., an HTTP interface to particular
information on a host. information on a host.
Requirements that target the generic class "Specifications" apply to Requirements that target the generic class "specifications" apply to
all specifications, including both those enumerated above and others. all specifications, including both those enumerated above and others.
Note that this specification ought not be interpreted as preventing Note that this specification ought not be interpreted as preventing
the allocation of control of URIs by parties that legitimately own the allocation of control of URIs by parties that legitimately own
them, or have delegated that ownership; for example, a specification them, or have delegated that ownership; for example, a specification
might legitimately define the semantics of a URI on IANA's Web site might legitimately define the semantics of a URI on IANA's Web site
as part of the establishment of a registry. as part of the establishment of a registry.
There may be existing IETF specifications that already deviate from There may be existing IETF specifications that already deviate from
the guidance in this document. In these cases, it is up to the the guidance in this document. In these cases, it is up to the
relevant communities (i.e., those of the URI scheme as well as that relevant communities (i.e., those of the URI scheme as well as that
which produced the specification in question) to determine an which produced the specification in question) to determine an
appropriate outcome; e.g., updating the scheme definition, or appropriate outcome; e.g., updating the scheme definition, or
changing the specification. changing the specification.
1.2. Notational Conventions 1.2. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Best Current Practices for Standardizing Structured URIs 2. Best Current Practices for Standardizing Structured URIs
This section updates [RFC3986] by setting limitations on how other This section updates [RFC3986] by advising other specifications how
specifications may define structure and semantics within URIs. Best they should define structure and semantics within URIs. Best
practices differ depending on the URI component, as described below. practices differ depending on the URI component, as described below.
2.1. URI Schemes 2.1. URI Schemes
Applications and extensions MAY require use of specific URI Applications and extensions can require use of specific URI
scheme(s); for example, it is perfectly acceptable to require that an scheme(s); for example, it is perfectly acceptable to require that an
application support 'http' and 'https' URIs. However, applications application support 'http' and 'https' URIs. However, applications
SHOULD NOT preclude the use of other URI schemes in the future, ought not preclude the use of other URI schemes in the future, unless
unless they are clearly only usable with the nominated schemes. they are clearly only usable with the nominated schemes.
A specification that defines substructure within a specific URI A specification that defines substructure for URI schemes overall
scheme MUST do so in the defining document for that URI scheme. A (e.g., a prefix or suffix for URI scheme names) MUST do so by
specification that defines substructure for URI schemes overall MUST modifying [BCP115] (an exceptional circumstance).
do so by modifying [BCP115] (an exceptional circumstance).
2.2. URI Authorities 2.2. URI Authorities
Scheme definitions define the presence, format and semantics of an Scheme definitions define the presence, format and semantics of an
authority component in URIs; all other specifications MUST NOT authority component in URIs; all other specifications MUST NOT
constrain, or define the structure or the semantics for URI constrain, or define the structure or the semantics for URI
authorities, unless they update the scheme registration itself. authorities, unless they update the scheme registration itself, or
the structures it relies upon (e.g., DNS name syntax, defined in
Section 3.5 of [RFC1034]).
For example, an extension or application ought not say that the "foo" For example, an extension or application cannot say that the "foo"
prefix in "foo_app.example.com" is meaningful or triggers special prefix in "http://foo_app.example.com" is meaningful or triggers
handling in URIs. special handling in URIs, unless they update either the HTTP URI
scheme, or the DNS hostname syntax.
However, applications MAY nominate or constrain the port they use, Applications can nominate or constrain the port they use, when
when applicable. For example, BarApp could run over port nnnn applicable. For example, BarApp could run over port nnnn (provided
(provided that it is properly registered). that it is properly registered).
2.3. URI Paths 2.3. URI Paths
Scheme definitions define the presence, format, and semantics of a Scheme definitions define the presence, format, and semantics of a
path component in URIs; all other specifications MUST NOT constrain, path component in URIs, although these are often delegated to the
or define the structure or the semantics for any path component. application(s) in a given deployment.
The only exception to this requirement is registered "well-known" To avoid collisions, rigidity, and erroneous client assumptions,
URIs, as specified by [RFC5785]. See that document for a description specifications MUST NOT define a fixed prefix for their URI paths;
for example, "/myapp", unless allowed by the scheme definition.
One such exception to this requirement is registered "well-known"
URIs, as specified by [RFC8615]. See that document for a description
of the applicability of that mechanism. of the applicability of that mechanism.
For example, an application ought not specify a fixed URI path Note that this does not apply to applications defining a structure of
"/myapp", since this usurps the host's control of that space. URIs paths "under" a resource under control of the server. Because
the prefix is under control of the party deploying the application,
collisions and rigidity are avoided, and the risk of erroneous client
assumptions is reduced.
Specifying a fixed path relative to another (e.g., {whatever}/myapp) For example, an application might define "app_root" as a deployment-
is also bad practice (even if "whatever" is discovered as suggested controlled URI prefix. Application-defined resources might then be
in Section 3); while doing so might prevent collisions, it does not assumed to be present at "{app_root}/foo" and "{app_root}/bar".
avoid the potential for operational difficulties (for example, an
implementation that prefers to use query processing instead, because Extensions MUST NOT define a structure within individual URI
of implementation constraints). components (e.g., a prefix or suffix), again to avoid collisions and
erroneous client assumptions.
2.4. URI Queries 2.4. URI Queries
The presence, format and semantics of the query component of URIs is The presence, format and semantics of the query component of URIs is
dependent upon many factors, and MAY be constrained by a scheme dependent upon many factors, and can be constrained by a scheme
definition. Often, they are determined by the implementation of a definition. Often, they are determined by the implementation of a
resource itself. resource itself.
Applications MUST NOT directly specify the syntax of queries, as this Applications can specify the syntax of queries for the resources
can cause operational difficulties for deployments that do not under their control. However, doing so can cause operational
support a particular form of a query. For example, a site may wish difficulties for deployments that do not support a particular form of
to support an application using "static" files that do not support a query. For example, a site may wish to support an application
query parameters. using "static" files that do not support query parameters.
Extensions MUST NOT constrain the format or semantics of queries.
For example, an extension that indicates that all query parameters Extensions MUST NOT constrain the format or semantics of queries, to
with the name "sig" indicate a cryptographic signature would collide avoid collisions and erroneous client assumptions. For example, an
with potentially preexisting query parameters on sites and lead extension that indicates that all query parameters with the name
clients to assume that any matching query parameter is a signature. "sig" indicate a cryptographic signature would collide with
potentially preexisting query parameters on sites and lead clients to
assume that any matching query parameter is a signature.
HTML [W3C.REC-html401-19991224] constrains the syntax of query HTML [W3C.REC-html401-19991224] constrains the syntax of query
strings used in form submission. New form languages SHOULD NOT strings used in form submission. New form languages are encouraged
emulate it, but instead allow creation of a broader variety of URIs to allow creation of a broader variety of URIs (e.g., by allowing the
(e.g., by allowing the form to create new path components, and so form to create new path components, and so forth).
forth).
Note that "well-known" URIs (see [RFC5785]) MAY constrain their own
query syntax, since these name spaces are effectively delegated to
the registering party.
2.5. URI Fragment Identifiers 2.5. URI Fragment Identifiers
Media type definitions (as per [RFC6838]) SHOULD specify the fragment Section 3.5 of [RFC3986] specifies fragment identiers' syntax and
identifier syntax(es) to be used with them; other specifications MUST semantics as being dependent upon the media type of a potentially
NOT define structure within the fragment identifier, unless they are retrieved resource. As a result, other specifications MUST NOT
explicitly defining one for reuse by media type definitions. define structure within the fragment identifier, unless they are
explicitly defining one for reuse by media types in their definitions
(for example, as JSON Pointer [RFC6901] does).
For example, an application that defines common fragment identifiers An application that defines common fragment identifiers across media
across media types not controlled by it would engender types not controlled by it would engender interoperability problems
interoperability problems with handlers for those media types with handlers for those media types (because the new, non-standard
(because the new, non-standard syntax is not expected). syntax is not expected).
3. Alternatives to Specifying Structure in URIs 3. Alternatives to Specifying Structure in URIs
Given the issues described in Section 1, the most successful strategy Given the issues described in Section 1, the most successful strategy
for applications and extensions that wish to use URIs is to use them for applications and extensions that wish to use URIs is to use them
in the fashion they were designed: as links that are exchanged as in the fashion they were designed: as links that are exchanged as
part of the protocol, rather than statically specified syntax. part of the protocol, rather than statically specified syntax.
Several existing specifications can aid in this. Several existing specifications can aid in this.
[RFC5988] specifies relation types for Web links. By providing a [RFC8288] specifies relation types for Web links. By providing a
framework for linking on the Web, where every link has a relation framework for linking on the Web, where every link has a relation
type, context and target, it allows applications to define a link's type, context and target, it allows applications to define a link's
semantics and connectivity. semantics and connectivity.
[RFC6570] provides a standard syntax for URI Templates that can be [RFC6570] provides a standard syntax for URI Templates that can be
used to dynamically insert application-specific variables into a URI used to dynamically insert application-specific variables into a URI
to enable such applications while avoiding impinging upon URI owners' to enable such applications while avoiding impinging upon URI owners'
control of them. control of them.
[RFC5785] allows specific paths to be 'reserved' for standard use on [RFC8615] allows specific paths to be 'reserved' for standard use on
URI schemes that opt into that mechanism ('http' and 'https' by URI schemes that opt into that mechanism ('http' and 'https' by
default). Note, however, that this is not a general "escape valve" default). Note, however, that this is not a general "escape valve"
for applications that need structured URIs; see that specification for applications that need structured URIs; see that specification
for more information. for more information.
Specifying more elaborate structures in an attempt to avoid Specifying more elaborate structures in an attempt to avoid
collisions is not an acceptable solution, and does not address the collisions is not an acceptable solution, and does not address the
issues in Section 1. For example, prefixing query parameters with issues in Section 1. For example, prefixing query parameters with
"myapp_" does not help, because the prefix itself is subject to the "myapp_" does not help, because the prefix itself is subject to the
risk of collision (since it is not "reserved"). risk of collision (since it is not "reserved").
skipping to change at page 8, line 25 skipping to change at page 8, line 32
[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>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[webarch] Jacobs, I. and N. Walsh, "Architecture of the World Wide [webarch] Jacobs, I. and N. Walsh, "Architecture of the World Wide
Web, Volume One", December 2004, Web, Volume One", December 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215>.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[BCP115] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and [BCP115] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", RFC 4395, Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 115,
BCP 115, February 2006, RFC 4395, February 2006,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp115>. <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp115>.
[RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785, STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5785, April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5785>.
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5988>.
[RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M., [RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.
[RFC6901] Bryan, P., Ed., Zyp, K., and M. Nottingham, Ed.,
"JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Pointer", RFC 6901,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6901, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6901>.
[RFC6943] Thaler, D., Ed., "Issues in Identifier Comparison for [RFC6943] Thaler, D., Ed., "Issues in Identifier Comparison for
Security Purposes", RFC 6943, DOI 10.17487/RFC6943, May Security Purposes", RFC 6943, DOI 10.17487/RFC6943, May
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6943>. 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6943>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
[RFC8615] Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8615>.
[W3C.REC-html401-19991224] [W3C.REC-html401-19991224]
Raggett, D., Hors, A., and I. Jacobs, "HTML 4.01 Raggett, D., Hors, A., and I. Jacobs, "HTML 4.01
Specification", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation Specification", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
REC-html401-19991224, December 1999, REC-html401-19991224, December 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>.
6.3. URIs 6.3. URIs
[1] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/rfc7320 [1] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/rfc7320bis
[2] https://mnot.github.io/I-D/rfc7320/ [2] https://mnot.github.io/I-D/rfc7320bis/
[3] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-pages/rfc7320 [3] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-pages/rfc7320bis
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc7320/ [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis/
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Thanks to David Booth, Dave Crocker, Tim Bray, Anne van Kesteren, Thanks to David Booth, Dave Crocker, Tim Bray, Anne van Kesteren,
Martin Thomson, Erik Wilde, Dave Thaler and Barry Leiba for their Martin Thomson, Erik Wilde, Dave Thaler and Barry Leiba for their
suggestions and feedback. suggestions and feedback.
Author's Address Author's Address
Mark Nottingham Mark Nottingham
 End of changes. 47 change blocks. 
109 lines changed or deleted 126 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/