idnits 2.17.1 draft-danisch-webspacelets-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (Feb 2004) is 7376 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Missing reference section? '1' on line 52 looks like a reference Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Hadmut Danisch 3 Category: Experimental Feb 2004 4 Expires: Sep 1, 2004 6 Webspacelets - compact webspace units 7 draft-danisch-webspacelets-00.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions 12 of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 16 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 17 Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 20 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 21 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts 22 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 23 progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 31 Abstract 33 This draft proposes to pack collections of static web objects 34 belonging together such as HTML pages, graphics etc. into single 35 archive files and to transport and treat them as a single compact 36 object. 38 Table of Contents 40 1. General Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 41 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 42 3. The descriptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 43 4. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 44 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 45 Draft History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 46 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 47 1. General Issues 49 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 50 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in 51 this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. 53 2. Overview 55 The web language HTML has become the universal standard for any 56 kind of written information. One of it's most powerful properties 57 are Hyperlinks, which allow to reference other objects for 58 immediate access, and the ability to include graphics stored as 59 separate data objects. Consequently, most documents written in HTML 60 do consist of much more than just a single HTML text. They usually 61 consist of a collection of related HTML pages and other objects 62 such as graphical elements. 64 Access to those documents usually causes separate access to every 65 single one of these objects. Transferring them e.g. as an e-mail 66 usually require to manually pack and archive them, and to unpack 67 them before reading. 69 This draft proposes to pack such a portion of webspace consisting 70 of tightly related web objects into a single compressed archive 71 file (like a zip archive), and to extend Web Browsers to treat 72 these objects as a single file, e.g. when downloading or as 73 attachments to e-mail. 75 Such an archive file is called "spacelet". 77 When displaying the contents of such a spacelet, the browser could 78 treat it very much as if it were a web server or a directory tree 79 on its own. URIs with the documents should be relative or relative 80 to the root omitting the protocol and the server part, e.g. . 83 3. The descriptor 85 The spacelet should contain a descriptor file with informations 86 like 88 - Title/Subject 89 - Version and Date 90 - Author 91 - Validity and Expiry 92 - Languages 93 - Location where to look for newer versions 95 It is still to be defined whether this file is to be an XML file or 96 any other format. 98 4. Security and Privacy 100 Security mechanisms are yet to be defined in detail. However, it 101 is obvious that there are security requirements, most of all the 102 authenticity and integrity of a spacelet. 104 As a first approach, security should be compatible with those 105 mechanisms already contained in common Web Browsers. 107 The spacelet archive file could have a digital signature, and the 108 descriptor file could tell details about the signer. If the 109 signature is made with a secret key certified by those certificate 110 authorities which are already known to common web browsers 111 (normally used to verify HTTPS connections). Those keys might 112 either be new signature keys made especially for spacelet signing, 113 or simply the same key used for HTTPS web servers (if the 114 certificate allows object signing). In the latter case, the host 115 name of the webserver which's certificate was used it to be given 116 as the signer in the descriptor file. 118 Web browsers should treat and display spacelets with a digital 119 signature similar to pages from HTTPS servers (i.e. show icons for 120 digital signatures or ask whether to trust certificates from 121 unknown authorities). 123 Web browsers should also inform or ask the user before following a 124 link pointing outside the spacelet. E.g. the web pages inside a 125 spacelet should not be able to include graphics from outside the 126 spacelet without explicit confirmation of the user to avoid 127 compromising the user's privacy. Following Hyperlinks should not 128 lead the user outside the spacelet without explicit approval. 130 References 132 1. S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Lev- 133 els," RFC 2119 (March 1997). 135 Draft History 137 00 Feb 2004 139 Author's Address 141 Hadmut Danisch 143 Tennesseeallee 58 144 76149 Karlsruhe 145 Germany 147 Phone: ++49-721-843004 or ++49-351-4850477 148 E-Mail: rfc@danisch.de 150 Comments 152 Please send comments to rfc@danisch.de. 154 Expiry 156 This drafts expires on Sep 1, 2004.