GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6415

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Hammer-Lahav, Ed. Request for Comments: 6415 B. Cook Category: Standards Track October 2011 ISSN: 2070-1721

                         Web Host Metadata

Abstract

 This specification describes a method for locating host metadata as
 well as information about individual resources controlled by the
 host.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6415.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2011 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.

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
    1.1. Example ....................................................3
         1.1.1. Processing Resource-Specific Information ............4
    1.2. Notational Conventions .....................................5
 2. Obtaining host-meta Documents ...................................6
 3. The host-meta Document ..........................................6
    3.1. XML Document Format ........................................7
         3.1.1. The "Link" Element ..................................7
 4. Processing host-meta Documents ..................................8
    4.1. Host-Wide Information ......................................9
    4.2. Resource-Specific Information ..............................9
 5. Security Considerations ........................................10
 6. IANA Considerations ............................................11
    6.1. The "host-meta" Well-Known URI ............................11
    6.2. The "host-meta.json" Well-Known URI .......................11
    6.3. The "lrdd" Relation Type ..................................11
 Appendix A. JRD Document Format ...................................12
 Appendix B. Acknowledgments .......................................15
 Normative References ..............................................15

1. Introduction

 Web-based protocols often require the discovery of host policy or
 metadata, where "host" is not a single resource but the entity
 controlling the collection of resources identified by Uniform
 Resource Identifiers (URIs) with a common URI host [RFC3986], which
 can be served by one or more servers.
 While web protocols have a wide range of metadata needs, they often
 use metadata that is concise, has simple syntax requirements, and can
 benefit from storing their metadata in a common location used by
 other related protocols.
 Because there is no URI or representation available to describe a
 host, many of the methods used for associating per-resource metadata
 (such as HTTP headers) are not available.  This often leads to the
 overloading of the root HTTP resource (e.g., 'http://example.com/')
 with host metadata that is not specific or relevant to the root
 resource itself.
 This document defines a lightweight metadata document format for
 describing hosts (thus the name "host-meta"), intended for use by
 web-based protocols.  This document also registers the well-known URI
 suffix "host-meta" in the Well-Known URI Registry established by
 [RFC5785].

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

 In addition, there are times when a host-wide scope for policy or
 metadata is too coarse-grained. host-meta provides two mechanisms for
 providing resource-specific information:
 o  Link Templates - links using a URI template instead of a fixed
    target URI, providing a way to define generic rules for generating
    resource-specific links by applying the individual resource URI to
    the template.
 o  Link-based Resource Descriptor Documents (LRDD, pronounced 'lard')
    - descriptor documents providing resource-specific information,
    typically information that cannot be expressed using link
    templates.  LRDD documents are linked to resources or host-meta
    documents using link templates with the "lrdd" relation type.

1.1. Example

 The following is a simple host-meta document including both host-wide
 and resource-specific information for the 'example.com' host:
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
 <XRD xmlns='http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/xri/xrd-1.0'>
   <!-- Host-Wide Information -->
   <Property type='http://protocol.example.net/version'>1.0</Property>
   <Link rel='copyright'
    href='http://example.com/copyright' />
   <!-- Resource-specific Information -->
   <Link rel='hub'
    template='http://example.com/hub' />
   <Link rel='lrdd'
    type='application/xrd+xml'
    template='http://example.com/lrdd?uri={uri}' />
   <Link rel='author'
    template='http://example.com/author?q={uri}' />
 </XRD>

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

 The host-wide information that applies to the host in its entirety
 provided by the document includes:
 o  An "http://protocol.example.net/version" host property with a
    value of "1.0".
 o  A link to the host's copyright policy ("copyright").
 The resource-specific information provided by the document includes:
 o  A link template for receiving real-time updates ("hub") about
    individual resources.  Since the template does not include a
    template variable, the target URI is identical for all resources.
 o  A LRDD document link template ("lrdd") for obtaining additional
    resource-specific information contained in a separate document for
    each individual resource.
 o  A link template for finding information about the author of
    individual resources ("author").

1.1.1. Processing Resource-Specific Information

 When looking for information about an individual resource -- for
 example, the resource identified by 'http://example.com/xy' -- the
 resource URI is applied to the templates found, producing the
 following links:
  <Link rel='hub'
   href='http://example.com/hub' />
  <Link rel='lrdd'
   type='application/xrd+xml'
   href='http://example.com/lrdd?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fxy' />
  <Link rel='author'
   href='http://example.com/author?q=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fxy' />
 The LRDD document for 'http://example.com/xy' (obtained via an HTTP
 "GET" request):
   <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
   <XRD xmlns='http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/xri/xrd-1.0'>
     <Subject>http://example.com/xy</Subject>
     <Property type='http://spec.example.net/color'>red</Property>

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

     <Link rel='hub'
      href='http://example.com/another/hub' />
     <Link rel='author'
      href='http://example.com/john' />
   </XRD>
 Together, the information available about the individual resource
 (presented as an Extensible Resource Descriptor (XRD) document for
 illustration purposes) is:
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
 <XRD xmlns='http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/xri/xrd-1.0'>
  <Subject>http://example.com/xy</Subject>
  <Property type='http://spec.example.net/color'>red</Property>
  <Link rel='hub'
   href='http://example.com/hub' />
  <Link rel='hub'
   href='http://example.com/another/hub' />
  <Link rel='author'
   href='http://example.com/john' />
  <Link rel='author'
   href='http://example.com/author?q=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fxy' />
 </XRD>
 Note that the order of links matters and is based on their original
 order in the host-meta and LRDD documents.  For example, the "hub"
 link obtained from the host-meta link template has a higher priority
 than the link found in the LRDD document because the host-meta link
 appears before the "lrdd" link.
 On the other hand, the "author" link found in the LRDD document has a
 higher priority than the link found in the host-meta document because
 it appears after the "lrdd" link.

1.2. Notational Conventions

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

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

 This document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of
 [RFC5234].  Additionally, the following rules are included from
 [RFC3986]: reserved, unreserved, and pct-encoded.

2. Obtaining host-meta Documents

 The client obtains the host-meta document for a given host by sending
 an HTTP [RFC2616] or an HTTPS [RFC2818] GET request to the host for
 the "/.well-known/host-meta" path, using the default ports defined
 for each protocol (e.g., port 80 for HTTP and port 443 for HTTPS).
 The scope and meaning of host-meta documents obtained via other
 protocols or ports is undefined.
 The server MUST support at least one protocol but MAY support both.
 If both protocols are supported, they MUST produce the same document.
 The decision as to which protocol is used to obtain the host-meta
 document has significant security ramifications, as described in
 Section 5.
 For example, the following request is used to obtain the host-meta
 document for the 'example.com' host:
   GET /.well-known/host-meta HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
 If the server response indicates that the host-meta resource is
 located elsewhere (a 301, 302, or 307 response status code), the
 client SHOULD try to obtain the resource from the location provided
 in the response.  This means that the host-meta document for one host
 MAY be retrieved from another host.  Likewise, if the resource is not
 available or does not exist (e.g., a 404 or 410 response status
 code), the client SHOULD infer that metadata is not available via
 this mechanism.
 The host-meta document SHOULD be served with the
 "application/xrd+xml" media type.

3. The host-meta Document

 The host-meta document uses the XRD 1.0 document format as defined by
 [OASIS.XRD-1.0], which provides a simple and extensible XML-based
 schema for describing resources.  This specification defines
 additional processing rules needed to describe hosts.  Documents MAY
 include any elements included in the XRD 1.0 schema that are not
 explicitly excluded by this specification.

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

 The server MAY offer alternative representations of any XRD document
 it serves (host-meta, LRDD, or other XRD-based documents).  The
 client MAY request a particular representation using the HTTP
 "Accept" request header field.  If no "Accept" request header field
 is included with the request, or if the client requests an
 "application/xrd+xml" representation, the server MUST respond using
 the REQUIRED XRD 1.0 XML representation described in Section 3.1.
 Applications using the host-meta document MAY require the server to
 provide a specific alternative representation in addition to the
 XRD 1.0 XML representation when explicitly requested by the client.
 A JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Resource Descriptor, known as
 JRD, is described in Appendix A.  It is RECOMMENDED that servers
 offer the JRD representation in addition to the XRD representation.

3.1. XML Document Format

 The host-meta document root MUST be an "XRD" element.  The document
 SHOULD NOT include a "Subject" element, as at this time no URI is
 available to identify hosts.  The use of the "Alias" element in
 host-meta is undefined and NOT RECOMMENDED.
 The subject (or "context IRI", as defined by [RFC5988]) of the XRD
 "Property" and "Link" elements is the host described by the host-meta
 document.  However, the subject of "Link" elements with a "template"
 attribute is the individual resource whose URI is applied to the link
 template, as described in Section 3.1.1.

3.1.1. The "Link" Element

 The XRD "Link" element, when used with the "href" attribute, conveys
 a link relation between the host described by the document and a
 common target URI.
 For example, the following link declares a common copyright license
 for the entire scope:
   <Link rel='copyright' href='http://example.com/copyright' />
 However, a "Link" element with a "template" attribute conveys a
 relation whose context is an individual resource within the host-meta
 document scope, and whose target is constructed by applying the
 context resource URI to the template.  The template string MAY
 contain a URI string without any variables to represent a resource-
 level relation that is identical for every individual resource.

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

 For example, a blog with multiple authors can provide information
 about each article's author by providing an endpoint with a parameter
 set to the URI of each article.  Each article has a unique author,
 but all share the same pattern of where that information is located:
   <Link rel='author'
    template='http://example.com/author?article={uri}' />

3.1.1.1. Template Syntax

 This specification defines a simple template syntax for URI
 transformation.  A template is a string containing brace-enclosed
 ("{}") variable names marking the parts of the string that are to be
 substituted by the corresponding variable values.
 Before substituting template variables, values MUST be encoded using
 UTF-8, and any character other than unreserved (as defined by
 [RFC3986]) MUST be percent-encoded per [RFC3986].
 This specification defines a single variable -- "uri" -- as the
 entire context resource URI.  Protocols MAY define additional
 relation-specific variables and syntax rules, but SHOULD only do so
 for protocol-specific relation types, and MUST NOT change the meaning
 of the "uri" variable.  If a client is unable to successfully process
 a template (e.g., unknown variable names, unknown or incompatible
 syntax), the parent "Link" element SHOULD be ignored.
 The template syntax ABNF follows:
  URI-Template =  *( uri-char / variable )
  variable     =  "{" var-name "}"
  uri-char     =  ( reserved / unreserved / pct-encoded )
  var-name     =  %x75.72.69 / ( 1*var-char ) ; "uri" or other names
  var-char     =  ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "_"
 For example:
  Input:    http://example.com/r?f=1
  Template: http://example.org/?q={uri}
  Output:   http://example.org/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fr%3Ff%3D1

4. Processing host-meta Documents

 Once the host-meta document has been obtained, the client processes
 its content based on the type of information desired: host-wide or
 resource-specific.

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

 Clients usually look for a link with a specific relation type or
 other attributes.  In such cases, the client does not need to process
 the entire host-meta document and all linked LRDD documents, but
 instead process the various documents in their prescribed order until
 the desired information is found.
 Protocols using host-meta must indicate whether the information they
 seek is host-wide or resource-specific -- for example, "obtain the
 first host-meta resource-specific link using the 'author' relation
 type".  If both types are used for the same purpose (e.g., first look
 for resource-specific, then look for host-wide), the protocol must
 specify the processing order.

4.1. Host-Wide Information

 When looking for host-wide information, the client MUST ignore any
 "Link" elements with a "template" attribute, as well as any link
 using the "lrdd" relation type.  All other elements are scoped as
 host-wide.

4.2. Resource-Specific Information

 Unlike host-wide information, which is contained solely within the
 host-meta document, resource-specific information is obtained from
 host-meta link templates, as well as from linked LRDD documents.
 When looking for resource-specific information, the client constructs
 a resource descriptor by collecting and processing all the host-meta
 link templates.  For each link template:
 1.  The client applies the URI of the desired resource to the
     template, producing a resource-specific link.
 2.  If the link's relation type is other than "lrdd", the client adds
     the link to the resource descriptor in order.
 3.  If the link's relation type is "lrdd":
     3.1.  The client obtains the LRDD document by following the
           scheme-specific rules for the LRDD document URI.  If the
           document URI scheme is "http" or "https", the document is
           obtained via an HTTP "GET" request to the identified URI.
           If the HTTP response status code is 301, 302, or 307, the
           client MUST follow the redirection response and repeat the
           request with the provided location.

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

     3.2.  The client adds any links found in the LRDD document to the
           resource descriptor in order, except for any link using the
           "lrdd" relation type (processing is limited to a single
           level of inclusion).  When adding links, the client SHOULD
           retain any extension attributes and child elements if
           present (e.g., <Property> or <Title> elements).
     3.3.  The client adds any resource properties found in the LRDD
           document to the resource descriptor in order (e.g., <Alias>
           or <Property> child elements of the LRDD document <XRD>
           root element).

5. Security Considerations

 The host-meta document is designed to be used by other applications
 explicitly "opting-in" to use the facility.  Therefore, any such
 application MUST review the specific security implications of using
 host-meta documents.  By itself, this specification does not provide
 any protections or guarantees that any given host-meta document is
 under the control of the appropriate entity as required by each
 application.
 The metadata returned by the host-meta resource is presumed to be
 under the control of the appropriate authority and representative of
 all the resources described by it.  If this resource is compromised
 or otherwise under the control of another party, it may represent a
 risk to the security of the server and data served by it, depending
 on the applications using it.
 Applications utilizing the host-meta document where the authenticity
 of the information is necessary MUST require the use of the HTTPS
 protocol and MUST NOT produce a host-meta document using other means.
 In addition, such applications MUST require that any redirection
 leading to the retrieval of a host-meta document also utilize the
 HTTPS protocol.
 Since the host-meta document is authoritative for the entire host,
 not just the authority (combination of scheme, host, and port) of the
 host-meta document server, applications MUST ensure that using a
 host-meta document for another URI authority does not represent a
 potential security exploit.
 Protocols using host-meta templates must evaluate the construction of
 their templates as well as any protocol-specific variables or syntax
 to ensure that the templates cannot be abused by an attacker.  For
 example, a client can be tricked into following a malicious link due
 to a poorly constructed template that produces unexpected results
 when its variable values contain unexpected characters.

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

6. IANA Considerations

6.1. The "host-meta" Well-Known URI

 This specification registers the "host-meta" well-known URI in the
 Well-Known URI Registry as defined by [RFC5785].
 URI suffix:  host-meta
 Change controller:  IETF
 Specification document(s):  RFC 6415
 Related information:  The "host-meta" documents obtained from the
    same host using the HTTP and HTTPS protocols (using default ports)
    MUST be identical.

6.2. The "host-meta.json" Well-Known URI

 This specification registers the "host-meta.json" well-known URI in
 the Well-Known URI Registry as defined by [RFC5785].
 URI suffix:  host-meta.json
 Change controller:  IETF
 Specification document(s):  RFC 6415
 Related information:  The "host-meta.json" documents obtained from
    the same host using the HTTP and HTTPS protocols (using default
    ports) MUST be identical.

6.3. The "lrdd" Relation Type

 This specification registers the "lrdd" relation type in the Link
 Relation Type Registry defined by [RFC5988]:
 Relation Name:  lrdd
 Description:  Refers to further information about the link's context,
    expressed as a LRDD ("Link-based Resource Descriptor Document")
    resource.  See RFC 6415 for information about processing this
    relation type in host-meta documents.  When used elsewhere, it
    refers to additional links and other metadata.  Multiple instances
    indicate additional LRDD resources.  LRDD resources MUST have an
    "application/xrd+xml" representation, and MAY have others.
 Reference:  RFC 6415

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

Appendix A. JRD Document Format

 The JRD document format -- a general-purpose XRD 1.0 representation
 -- uses the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format defined in
 [RFC4627].  JRD uses the same elements and processing rules described
 in Section 3.1.  The JRD format is designed to include the same base
 functionality provided by the XML format, with the exception of
 extensibility, as extensibility is beyond the scope of this
 specification.
 The client MAY request a JRD representation using the HTTP "Accept"
 request header field with a value of "application/json".  The server
 MUST include the HTTP "Content-Type" response header field with a
 value of "application/json".  Any other "Content-Type" value (or lack
 thereof) indicates that the server does not support the JRD format.
 Alternatively, the client MAY request a JRD representation by
 requesting the "host-meta.json" well-known document, by making a GET
 request for "/.well-known/host-meta.json", following the same process
 used for "/.well-known/host-meta".  If the server does not support
 serving a JRD representation at this location, the server MUST
 respond with an HTTP 404 (Not Found) status code.
 XRD elements are serialized into a JSON object as follows:
 o  The XML document declaration and "XRD" element are discarded.
 o  The "Subject" element is included as a name/value pair with the
    name 'subject', and value included as a string.
 o  The "Expires" element is included as a name/value pair with the
    name 'expires', and value included as a string.
 o  "Alias" elements are included as a single name/value pair with the
    name 'aliases', and value a string array containing the values of
    each element in order.
 o  "Property" elements are included as a single name/value pair with
    the name 'properties', and value an object with each element
    included as a name/value pair with the value of the "type"
    attribute as name, and element value included as a string value.
    The values of properties with empty values (i.e., using the
    REQUIRED "xsi:nil='true'" attribute) are included as null.  If
    more than one "Property" element is present with the same "type"
    attribute, only the last instance is included.

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

 o  "Link" elements are included as a single name/value pair with the
    name 'links', and value an array with each element included as an
    object.  Each attribute is included as a name/value pair with the
    attribute name as name, and value included as a string.
 o  "Link" child "Property" elements are included using the same
    method as XRD-level "Property" elements using a name/value pair
    inside the link object.
 o  "Link" child "Title" elements are included as a single object with
    the name 'titles', and value an object with each element included
    as a name/value pair with the value of the "xml:lang" attribute as
    name, and element value included as a string value.  The names of
    elements without an "xml:lang" attribute are added with the name
    'default'.  If more than one "Title" element is present with the
    same (or no) "xml:lang" attribute, only the last instance is
    included.
 o  The conversion of any other element is left undefined.
 For example, the following XRD document...
  <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
  <XRD xmlns='http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/xri/xrd-1.0'
       xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance'>
    <Subject>http://blog.example.com/article/id/314</Subject>
    <Expires>2010-01-30T09:30:00Z</Expires>
    <Alias>http://blog.example.com/cool_new_thing</Alias>
    <Alias>http://blog.example.com/steve/article/7</Alias>
    <Property type='http://blgx.example.net/ns/version'>1.2</Property>
    <Property type='http://blgx.example.net/ns/version'>1.3</Property>
    <Property type='http://blgx.example.net/ns/ext' xsi:nil='true' />
    <Link rel='author' type='text/html'
          href='http://blog.example.com/author/steve'>
      <Title>About the Author</Title>
      <Title xml:lang='en-us'>Author Information</Title>
      <Property type='http://example.com/role'>editor</Property>
    </Link>
    <Link rel='author' href='http://example.com/author/john'>
      <Title>The other guy</Title>
      <Title>The other author</Title>
    </Link>

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

    <Link rel='copyright'
          template='http://example.com/copyright?id={uri}' />
  </XRD>
 ...is represented by the following JRD document:
  {
    "subject":"http://blog.example.com/article/id/314",
    "expires":"2010-01-30T09:30:00Z",
    "aliases":[
      "http://blog.example.com/cool_new_thing",
      "http://blog.example.com/steve/article/7"],
    "properties":{
      "http://blgx.example.net/ns/version":"1.3",
      "http://blgx.example.net/ns/ext":null
    },
    "links":[
      {
        "rel":"author",
        "type":"text/html",
        "href":"http://blog.example.com/author/steve",
        "titles":{
          "default":"About the Author",
          "en-us":"Author Information"
        },
        "properties":{
          "http://example.com/role":"editor"
        }
      },
      {
        "rel":"author",
        "href":"http://example.com/author/john",
        "titles":{
          "default":"The other author"
        }
      },
      {
        "rel":"copyright",
        "template":"http://example.com/copyright?id={uri}"
      }
    ]
  }

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

 Note that the "Subject" and "Alias" elements are NOT RECOMMENDED in
 the context of host-meta documents, and are included in the example
 for completeness only.

Appendix B. Acknowledgments

 The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of everyone
 who provided feedback and use cases for this specification -- in
 particular, Dirk Balfanz, DeWitt Clinton, Eve Maler, Breno de
 Medeiros, Brad Fitzpatrick, James Manger, Will Norris, Mark
 Nottingham, John Panzer, Drummond Reed, and Peter Saint-Andre.

Normative References

 [OASIS.XRD-1.0]
            Hammer-Lahav, E., Ed., and W. Norris, Ed., "Extensible
            Resource Descriptor (XRD) Version 1.0", November 2010,
            <http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xrd/v1.0/xrd-1.0.html>.
 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
            Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
            Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
 [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
 [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
            Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
            RFC 3986, January 2005.
 [RFC4627]  Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
            JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
 [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
            Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
            January 2008.
 [RFC5785]  Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
            Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,
            April 2010.
 [RFC5988]  Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 6415 host-meta October 2011

Authors' Addresses

 Eran Hammer-Lahav (editor)
 EMail: eran@hueniverse.com
 URI:   http://hueniverse.com
 Blaine Cook
 EMail: romeda@gmail.com
 URI:   http://romeda.org

Hammer-Lahav & Cook Standards Track [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6415.txt · Last modified: 2011/11/01 04:47 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki