CoRE Application Descriptions
draft-hartke-core-apps-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Klaus Hartke | ||
| Last updated | 2016-10-10 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-hartke-core-apps-04
Thing-to-Thing Research Group K. Hartke
Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational October 10, 2016
Expires: April 13, 2017
CoRE Application Descriptions
draft-hartke-core-apps-04
Abstract
The interfaces of RESTful, hypertext-driven applications consist of
reusable components such as Internet media types and link relation
types. This document defines a simple standard that application
designers can use to describe the interface of their application in a
structured way so that other parties can develop interoperable
clients and servers or reuse the components in their own
applications.
Note to Readers
This Internet-Draft should be discussed on the Thing-to-Thing
Research Group (T2TRG) mailing list <t2trg@irtf.org>
<https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/t2trg>.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Application Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. URI Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Internet Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Representation Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3. Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Link Relation Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. Form Relation Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. Well-Known Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. URI Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Content-Format Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Link Relation Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Form Relation Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3.1. Registering New Form Relation Types . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Representational State Transfer (REST) [15] is an architectural style
for distributed hypermedia systems. Over the years, REST has gained
popularity not only as an approach for large-scale information
dissemination, but also as the basic principle for designing and
building Internet-based applications in general.
In the coming years, the size and scope of the Internet is expected
to greatly increase as physical-world objects become smart enough to
communicate over the Internet -- a phenomenon known as the Internet
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
of Things (IoT). As things learn to speak the languages of the net,
the idea of applying REST principles to the design of IoT application
architectures suggests itself. To this end, the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP) [23] has been created, an application-
layer protocol that enables RESTful applications in Constrained-Node
Networks [11], thus giving rise to a new setting for Internet-based
applications: the Constrained RESTful Environment (CoRE).
To realize the full benefits and advantages of the REST style, a set
of constraints needs to be maintained when designing new applications
and their application programming interfaces (APIs). One of the
fundamental principles is that "REST APIs must be hypertext-driven"
[16]. This principle is often ignored by application designers who
instead specify their APIs in terms of fixed URIs through some out-
of-band mechanism, e.g., in an API documentation. Although this
approach may appear easy for clients to use, the fixed resource names
and data formats lead to a tight coupling between client and server
implementations and make the system less flexible. Violations of
REST design principles like this result in APIs that may not be as
scalable, extensible, and interoperable as promised by REST [19].
REST is intended for long-lived network-based applications that span
multiple organizations [16]. Principled REST APIs require some
design effort, as application designers do not only have to take
current requirements into consideration, but also have to anticipate
changes that may be required in the future -- years or even decades
after the application has been deployed for the first time. The
reward is long-term stability and evolvability, both of which are
desirable features in the Internet of Things.
To aid application designers in the design process, this document
proposes CoRE Application Descriptions, a simple standard for
describing the APIs of constrained, RESTful, hypertext-driven
applications. CoRE Application Descriptions help application
designers avoid common mistakes by focusing almost all of the
descriptive effort on defining the Internet media type(s) that are
used for representing resources and driving application state.
A template provides a consistent format for the description of APIs
so that implementers can easily build interoperable clients and
servers, and other application designers can reuse application
components in their own applications.
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
2. Application Descriptions
A CoRE Application Description is a named set of reusable components.
It is comprised of:
o URI schemes that identify communication protocols,
o Internet media types that identify representation formats,
o link relation types that identify link semantics,
o form relation types that identify form semantics, and
o optionally, well-known locations.
Together, these components provide the specific, in-band instructions
for interfacing with a given service.
2.1. URI Schemes
The foundation of a hypertext-driven REST API are the communication
protocol(s) spoken between a client and a server. Although HTTP/1.1
[13] is by far the most common communication protocol for REST APIs,
a REST API should typically not be dependent on any specific
communication protocol.
The use of a particular protocol is guided by URI schemes [7]. URI
schemes specify the syntax and semantics of URI references [1] found
in links (Section 2.2.2) and forms (Section 2.2.3).
A URI scheme refers to a family of protocols, typically distinguished
by a version number. For example, the "http" URI scheme refers to
the three members of the HTTP family of protocols: HTTP/1.0 [10],
HTTP/1.1 [13] and HTTP/2 [8]. The specific HTTP version is
negotiated between the client and the server through version
indicators in the protocol or the TLS application-layer protocol
negotiation (ALPN) extension [17].
IANA maintains a list of registered URI schemes at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes>.
2.2. Internet Media Types
One of the most important aspect of hypertext-driven communications
is the concept of Internet media types [2]. Media types are used to
label representations so that it is known how the representation
should be interpreted and how it is encoded. The core of a CoRE
application description should be one or more media types.
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
A media type identifies a versioned series of representation formats
(Section 2.2.1): a media type does not identify a particular version
of a representation format; rather, the media type identifies the
family, and includes provisions for version indicator(s) embedded in
the representations themselves to determine more precisely the nature
of how the data is to be interpreted [20]. A new media type is only
needed to designate a completely incompatible format [20].
Media types consist of a top-level type and a subtype, structured
into trees [2]. Optionally, media types can have parameters. For
example, the media type "text/plain; charset=utf-8" is a subtype for
plain text under the "text" top-level type in the standards tree and
has a parameter "charset" set to "utf-8".
Media types can be further refined by structured type name suffixes
(e.g., "+xml" appended to the base subtype name; see Section 4.2.8 of
RFC 6838), or by subtype information embedded in the representations
themselves (e.g., "xmlns" declarations in XML documents [12]).
Structured type name suffixes should be preferred, because embedded
subtype information cannot be negotiated (e.g., using the CoAP Accept
option).
In CoAP, media types are combined with content coding information
[14] to indicate the "content format" [23] of a representation.
Content formats are assigned a numeric identifier that can be used
instead of the (typically much larger) textual name of the media type
in representation formats with space constraints.
A media type must be determined from in-band information (e.g., from
the CoAP Content-Format option). Clients must not assume a structure
from the application context or other out-of-band information.
IANA maintains a list of registered Internet media types at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
IANA maintains a list of registered structured suffixes at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-suffix>.
IANA maintains a list of registered CoAP content formats at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>.
2.2.1. Representation Formats
In RESTful applications, clients and servers exchange representations
that capture the current or intended state of a resource and that are
labeled with a media type. A representation is a sequence of bytes
whose structure and semantics are specified by a representation
format: a set of rules for encoding information.
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
Representation formats should generally allow clients with different
goals, so they can do different things with the same data. The
specification of a representation format "describes a problem space,
not a prescribed relationship between client and server. Client and
server must share an understanding of the representations they're
passing back and forth, but they don't need to have the same idea of
what the problem is that needs to be solved." [21]
Representation formats and their specifications evolve over time. It
is part of the responsibility of the designer of a new version of a
format to try to insure both forward and backward compatibility: new
documents should work reasonably (with some fallback) with old
processors, and old documents should work reasonably with new
processors [20].
Representation formats enable hypertext-driven applications when they
support the expression of hypermedia controls: links (Section 2.2.2)
and/or forms (Section 2.2.3).
It is beyond the scope of this document to specify how hypermedia
controls can be expressed. The appropriate syntax, when available,
is described by the representation format specification associated
with each media type.
2.2.2. Links
A link is the primary means for a client to change application state,
i.e., to navigate from one resource to another. A link is a typed
connection between two resources [5], and is comprised of:
o a context (usually the current resource),
o a link relation type that identifies the semantics of the link
(Section 2.3),
o a target resource URI, and
o optionally, attributes that further describe the link target.
A link can be viewed as a statement of the form "{context} has a
{relation type} resource at {target URI}, which has {target
attributes}" [5]. For example, the resource <http://example.com/>
could have a "terms-of-service" resource at <http://example.com/tos>,
which has the media type "text/html".
There are two special kinds of links:
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
o An embedding link is a link with the additional hint that it, when
processed, should be substituted with a representation of the
referenced resource. Thus, traversing an embedding link adds to
the application state, rather than replacing it.
The most well known example for an embedding link is the HTML
<img> element. When a web browser processes this element, it
automatically dereferences the "src" and renders the returned
image in place of the <img> element.
o A templated link is a link where the client constructs the target
resource URI from provided in-band instructions. The specific
rules for such instructions are described by the representation
format. URI Templates [3] provide a generic way to construct URIs
through variable expansion.
Templated links allow a client to construct resource URIs without
being coupled to the resource structure at the server (provided
that the client learns the template from a representation sent by
the server and does not have the template hard coded).
2.2.3. Forms
A form is the primary means for a client to change resource state.
It is comprised of:
o a context (usually the current resource),
o a form relation type that identifies the semantics of the form
(Section 2.4),
o a target resource URI,
o a submission method (PUT, POST, PATCH, or DELETE), and
o a description of a representation that the service accepts as part
of form submission. This description can be a set of form fields
or simply a list of acceptable media types.
A form can be viewed as an instruction of the form "To {relation
type} the {context}, make a {method} request to {target URI}". For
example, to "update" the resource <http://example.com/config>, a
client should make a PUT request to <http://example.com/config>.
Note: A form with a submission method of GET is, strictly speaking,
a templated link, since it provides a way to construct a URI and
does not change resource state.
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
2.3. Link Relation Types
A link relation type identifies the semantics of a link [5]. For
example, a link with the relation type "copyright" indicates that the
resource identified by the target URI is a statement of the copyright
terms applying to the current context.
Relation types are not to be confused with media types; they do not
identify the format of the representation that results when the link
is dereferenced. Rather, they only describe how the current context
is related to another resource.
IANA maintains a list of registered link relation types at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations>.
Applications that don't wish to register a relation type can use an
extension relation type, which is a URI that uniquely identifies the
relation type (similar to a URI used as an XML namespace names). For
example, an application can use "http://example.com/foo" as link
relation type without having to register it.
In order to minimize the overhead of link relation types in
representation formats with space constraints, link relation types
are assigned a numeric identifier that can be used in place of the
textual name of the link relation type (see also Section 6.2). For
example, the link relation type "copyright" has the numeric
identifier 12.
2.4. Form Relation Types
A form relation type identifies the semantics of a form. For
example, a form with the relation type "create-item" indicates that a
new item can be created within the current context by making a
request to the resource identified by the target URI.
IANA maintains a list of registered form relation types at
<TBD>.
Similar to link relation types, applications can use extension
relation types when they don't wish to register a relation type.
Form relation types are also assigned a numeric identifier that can
be used in place of the form relation type name.
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
2.5. Well-Known Locations
Some applications may require the discovery of information about a
host (known as "site-wide metadata" in RFC 5785 [4]). For example,
RFC 6415 [18] defines a metadata document format for describing
hosts; similarly, RFC 6690 [22] defines a link format for the
discovery of resources hosted by a server.
Applications that need to define a resource for this kind of metadata
can register new "well-known locations". RFC 5785 [4] defines a path
prefix in "http" and "https" URIs for this purpose, "/.well-known/";
RFC 7252 [23] extends this concept to "coap" and "coaps" URIs.
IANA maintains a list of registered well-known URIs at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris>.
3. Template
Application name:
URI schemes:
Media types:
Link relation types:
Form relation types:
Well-known locations:
Interoperability considerations:
Security considerations:
Contact:
Author/Change controller:
4. URI Design Considerations
URIs [1] are a cornerstone of RESTful applications. They enable
uniform identification of resources via URI schemes [7] and are used
every time a client interacts with a particular resource or when a
resource representation references another resource.
URIs often include structured application data in the path and query
components, such as paths in a filesystem or keys in a database. It
is common for many REST APIs to prescribe a fixed format for this
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
data. However, there are a number of problems with this practice
[6], in particular if the application designer and the server owner
are not the same entity.
Therefore, in hypertext-driven applications URIs are not included in
the application interface. A CoRE Application Description must not
mandate any particular form of URI substructure that is not
explicitly allowed by RFC 3986 [1].
RFC 7320 [6] describes the problematic practice of fixed URI
structures in detail and provides some acceptable alternatives.
Even though URIs are not part of the application interface, the
design of the URI structure on a server is an essential part of
implementing a RESTful application. The server implementer is
responsible for binding the resources identified by the application
designer to URIs.
A good RESTful URI is:
o Short. Short URIs are easier to remember and cause less overhead
in requests and representations.
o Meaningful. A URI should describe the resource in a way that is
meaningful and useful to humans.
o Consistent. URIs should follow a consistent pattern to make it
easy to reason about the application.
o Bookmarkable. Cool URIs don't change [9]. However, application
resource structures change. That should naturally cause URIs to
change so they better reflect reality. So implementations should
not depend on unchanging URIs.
o Shareable. A URI should not be context sensitive, e.g., to the
currently logged-in user. It should be possible to share a URI
with third parties so they can access the same resource.
o Extension-less. Some applications return different data for
different extensions, e.g., for "contacts.xml" or "contacts.json".
But different URIs imply different resources. RESTful URIs should
identify a single resource. Different representations of the
resource can be negotiated (e.g., using the CoAP Accept option).
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations of RFC 3986 [1], RFC 5785 [4], RFC 5988
[5], RFC 6570 [3], RFC 6838 [2], RFC 7320 [6], and RFC 7595 [7] are
inherited.
All components of an application description are expected to contain
clear security considerations. CoRE Application Descriptions should
furthermore contain security considerations that need to be taken
into account for the security of the overall application.
6. IANA Considerations
[Note to RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX in this section with the RFC
number of this specification.]
6.1. Content-Format Registry
RFC 6838 [2] establishes a IANA registry for media types. Many of
these media types are also useful in constrained environments as CoAP
content formats. RFC 7252 [23] establishes a IANA registry for these
content formats. This specification tasks IANA with the allocation
of a content format for any existing or new media type registration
that does not define any parameters (required or optional). The
content formats shall be allocated in the range 1000-9999.
6.2. Link Relation Type Registry
RFC 5988 [5] establishes a IANA registry for link relation types.
This specification extends the registration template with a "Relation
ID": a numeric identifier that can be used instead of the "Relation
Name" to identify a link relation type. IANA is tasked with the
assignment of an ID to any existing or new link relation type. The
IDs shall be assigned in the range 1-9999.
6.3. Form Relation Type Registry
This specification establishes a IANA registry for form relation
types.
6.3.1. Registering New Form Relation Types
Form relation types are registered in the same way as link relation
types [5], i.e., they are registered on the advice of a Designated
Expert with a Specification Required.
The requirements for registered relation types are adopted from
Section 4.1 of RFC 5988 [5].
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
The registration template is:
o Relation Name:
o Relation ID:
o Description:
o Reference:
o Notes: [optional]
The IDs shall be assigned in the range 1-9999.
6.3.2. Initial Registry Contents
The Form Relation Type registry's initial contents are:
o Relation Name: create-item
Relation ID: 1
Description: Refers to a resource that can be used to create a
resource in a collection of resources.
Reference: [RFCXXXX]
o Relation Name: delete
Relation ID: 2
Description: Refers to a resource that can be used to delete a
resource in a collection of resources.
Reference: [RFCXXXX]
o Relation Name: update
Relation ID: 3
Description: Refers to a resource that can be used to update the
state of the form's context.
Reference: [RFCXXXX]
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
[2] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[3] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.
[4] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5785, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5785>.
[5] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5988>.
[6] Nottingham, M., "URI Design and Ownership", BCP 190,
RFC 7320, DOI 10.17487/RFC7320, July 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7320>.
[7] Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines
and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35,
RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
7.2. Informative References
[8] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
[9] Berners-Lee, T., "Cool URIs don't change", 1998,
<http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html>.
[10] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Frystyk, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1945, May 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1945>.
[11] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
[12] Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H.
Thompson, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", World
Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208,
December 2009,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.
[13] 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[14] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[15] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of California, Irvine, 2000,
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
fielding_dissertation.pdf>.
[16] Fielding, R., "REST APIs must be hypertext-driven",
October 2008, <http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/
rest-apis-must-be-hypertext-driven>.
[17] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
[18] Hammer-Lahav, E., Ed. and B. Cook, "Web Host Metadata",
RFC 6415, DOI 10.17487/RFC6415, October 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6415>.
[19] Li, L., Wei, Z., Luo, M., and W. Chou, "Requirements and
Design Patterns for REST Northbound API in SDN", draft-li-
sdnrg-design-restapi-02 (work in progress), July 2016.
[20] Masinter, L., "MIME and the Web", draft-masinter-mime-web-
info-02 (work in progress), January 2011.
[21] Richardson, L. and M. Amundsen, "RESTful Web APIs",
O'Reilly Media, ISBN 978-1-4493-5806-8, September 2013.
[22] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CoRE Application Descriptions October 2016
[23] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
Acknowledgements
Jan Algermissen, Mike Amundsen, Mike Kelly, Julian Reschke, and Erik
Wilde provided valuable input on link and form relation types.
Thanks to Olaf Bergmann, Carsten Bormann, Stefanie Gerdes, Ari
Keranen, Michael Koster, Matthias Kovatsch, Teemu Savolainen, and
Bilhanan Silverajan for helpful comments and discussions that have
shaped the document.
Some of the text in this document has been borrowed from [5], [6],
[16], [19], and [20]. All errors are my own.
This work was funded in part by Nokia.
Author's Address
Klaus Hartke
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63905
Email: hartke@tzi.org
Hartke Expires April 13, 2017 [Page 15]