idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-uri-url-irp-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-26) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 189 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Abstract 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. ** There are 20 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 5 characters in excess of 72. ** There are 10 instances of lines with control characters in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 110 has weird spacing: '...alue of small...' -- 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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 146, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1738 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 4248, RFC 4266) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '3' Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 IETF URI Working Group R. Denenberg 2 Internet-Draft J. Kunze 3 draft-ietf-uri-url-irp-01.txt B. McLean 4 6 March 1995 Editors 6 Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50 8 1. Status of this Document 10 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents 11 of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, and its Working 12 Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as 13 Internet-Drafts. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents valid for a maximum of six months. 16 Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 17 at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 18 material or to cite them other than as a ``working draft' or ``work in 19 progress.'' 21 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 22 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 23 Directories on ds.internic.net, nic.nordu.net, ftp.isi.edu, or 24 munnari.oz.au. 26 Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to 27 jak@violet.berkeley.edu, or to the discussion lists uri@bunyip.com and 28 z3950iw@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu. 30 2. Introduction 32 Z39.50 is an information retrieval protocol that does not fit neatly into 33 a retrieval model designed primarily around the stateless fetch of data. 34 Instead, it models a general user inquery as a session-oriented, multi- 35 step task, any step of which may be suspended temporarily while the 36 server requests additional parameters from the client before continuing. 37 Some, none, or all of these client/server interactions may require 38 participation of the client user, depending only on the client software 39 (the protocol itself makes no such requirements). 41 On the other hand, retrieval of "well-known" data may be performed in 42 a single step, that is, with a degenerate Z39.50 session consisting of 43 exactly one protocol search request and response. Besides the basic 44 search sub-service, there are several ancillary sub-services (e.g., Scan, 45 Result Set Delete). Among the functions covered by combinations of the 46 sub-services, two core functions emerge as appropriately handled by two 47 separate URL schemes: the Session URL and the Retrieval URL. 49 Using two schemes instead of one makes a critical distinction between 50 a Z39.50 Session URL, which opens a client session -- leaving the user 51 to close it -- and a Z39.50 Retrieval URL, which opens and closes a client 52 session, then displays any retrieved results. Making this distinction at 53 the scheme level allows the user interface to reflect it on to the user, 54 but without actually requiring the user display formatter to parse 55 otherwise opaque parts of the URL (consistent with current practice). 57 3. The Z39.50 Session URL 59 The Z39.50 Session and Retrieval URLs follow the Common Internet Scheme 60 Syntax as defined in RFC 1738, "Uniform Resource Locators (URL)" [1]. 61 The specific syntax for the Session URL is: 63 z39.50s://host[:port] 64 [/database[+database...] 65 [?docid 66 [;esn=elementset] 67 [;rs=recordsyntax[+recordsyntax...]]]] 69 This may be informally described as providing the mechanism to switch 70 the user of the browser to a window in which a Z39.50 client is running. 72 - Host is required. 73 - Port is optional, and defaults to 210. 74 - All other parameters are optional, however, if docid is present, 75 then database must be present. 76 - The Z39.50 client will start a session to the specified host/port 77 (alternatively, it need not explicitly start a session, but may 78 instead utilize an already open session to the same host/port). 79 - If docid is included, the client will perform the specified search 80 (in the same manner as for the retrieval URL, specified below). 81 - If docid is not included, and other parameters (besides host/port) 82 are specified, the client may use those parameters as "hints". 83 Various clients may choose to treat them as requirements, or as 84 preferences, or ignore them. 85 - In any case (whether a search is performed or not), the client will 86 leave the Z39.50 session open for the user, to do retrievals, new 87 searches, etc. This is the main distinction from the z39.50r URL. 89 4. The Z39.50 Retrieval URL 91 The specific syntax for the Retrieval URL is: 93 z39.50r://host[:port] 94 [/database[+database...] 95 [?docid 96 [;esn=elementset] 97 [;rs=recordsyntax[+recordsyntax...]]]] 99 The model is designed for minimal interaction by the user with the Z39.50 100 session to be used as a transparent transfer mechanism if possible. The 101 result of processing this URL should be a Result Set, which the client is 102 responsible for returning to the user's browser in an appropriate form 103 (e.g., HTML). 105 - Host, database, and docid are all required. 106 - The docid is server-defined and otherwise opaque. 107 - Port is optional, and defaults to 210. 108 - If element set name (esn) is not specified, it is client's choice. 109 If esn is specified, it should be used within the Search request for 110 the value of small- and/or medium- set-element-set-names. These 111 terms and their use are defined within the Z39.50 Standard [2]. 112 - If record syntax (rs) is not specified, it is client's choice. 113 If one or more record syntaxes are specified, the client should 114 select one (preferably the first in the list that it supports) and 115 use it within the Search request as the value of PreferredRecordSyntax. 116 - The docid is placed into a type-1 query, as the single term, in 117 the general format (tag 45), using the Bib-1 attribute set, with 118 a Use attribute value of docid, and a structure attribute of URX. 119 The docid string is completely opaque to the client. 121 Future extensions to these URLs will be of the form of [;keyword=value]. 123 5. Security Considerations 125 The two Z39.50 URL schemes are subject to the same security implications 126 as the general URL scheme [1], so the usual precautions apply. This means, 127 for example, that a locator might no longer point to the object that was 128 originally intended. It also means that it may be possible to construct 129 a URL so that an attempt to perform a harmless idempotent operation such 130 as the retrieval of an object will in fact cause a possibly damaging 131 remote operation to occur. 133 6. Acknowledgements 135 The Z39.50 Implementors Group contributed the substance of this document. 137 7. References 139 [1] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., McCahill, M. (editors), "Uniform 140 Resource Locators (URL)", soon to be RFC 1738, October 1994. 141 ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1738.txt 143 [2] ANSI/NISO Z39.50-1994, "ANSI Z39.50: Information Retrieval Service 144 and Protocol", 1994. ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/z3950/ 146 [3] ANSI/NISO Z39.50-1992, "ANSI Z39.50: Information Retrieval Service 147 and Protocol", 1992. 148 ftp://ftp.cni.org/pub/NISO/docs/Z39.50-1992/www/Z39.50.toc.html 149 (also available in hard copy from Omnicom Information Service, 150 115 Park St., SE, Vienna, VA 22180). 152 7. Editors' Addresses 154 Ray Denenberg 155 Library of Congress 156 Collections Services 157 Network Development/MSO 158 Washington DC 20540 159 ray@rden.loc.gov 160 Voice: (202) 707-5795 161 Fax: (202) 707-0115 163 John A. Kunze 164 Information Systems and Technology 165 University of California at Berkeley 166 293 Evans Hall 167 Berkeley, CA 94720 168 jak@violet.berkeley.edu 169 Voice: (510) 642-1530 170 Fax: (510) 643-5385 172 Bradley McLean 173 Gaylord Information Systems 174 7272 Morgan Rd. 175 Liverpool, NY 13088 176 brad@bradpc.gaylord.com 177 Voice: (315) 457-5070 178 Fax: (800) 272-3412