Constrained Resource Identifiers
draft-ietf-core-href-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (core WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Klaus Hartke , Carsten Bormann | ||
| Last updated | 2021-05-07 (Latest revision 2020-03-09) | ||
| Replaces | draft-hartke-t2trg-ciri | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-core-href-04
CoRE Working Group K. Hartke
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track C. Bormann, Ed.
Expires: 8 November 2021 Universitaet Bremen TZI
7 May 2021
Constrained Resource Identifiers
draft-ietf-core-href-04
Abstract
The Constrained Resource Identifier (CRI) is a complement to the
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that serializes the URI components
in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) instead of a sequence
of characters. This simplifies parsing, comparison and reference
resolution in environments with severe limitations on processing
power, code size, and memory size.
Note to Readers
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The issues list for this Internet-Draft can be found at
<https://github.com/core-wg/coral/labels/href>.
A reference implementation and a set of test vectors can be found at
<https://github.com/core-wg/coral/tree/master/binary/python>.
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 https://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 8 November 2021.
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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 (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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Creation and Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. CRI References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. CBOR Serialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Reference Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Relationship between CRIs, URIs and IRIs . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Converting CRIs to URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [RFC3986] and its most common
usage, the URI reference, are the Internet standard for linking to
resources in hypertext formats such as HTML [W3C.REC-html52-20171214]
or the HTTP "Link" header field [RFC8288].
A URI reference is a sequence of characters chosen from the
repertoire of US-ASCII characters. The individual components of a
URI reference are delimited by a number of reserved characters, which
necessitates the use of a character escape mechanism called "percent-
encoding" when these reserved characters are used in a non-delimiting
function. The resolution of URI references involves parsing a
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
character sequence into its components, combining those components
with the components of a base URI, merging path components, removing
dot-segments, and recomposing the result back into a character
sequence.
Overall, the proper handling of URI references is quite intricate.
This can be a problem especially in constrained environments
[RFC7228], where nodes often have severe code size and memory size
limitations. As a result, many implementations in such environments
support only an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, non-
interoperable subset of half of RFC 3986.
This document defines the Constrained Resource Identifier (CRI) by
constraining URIs to a simplified subset and serializing their
components in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949]
instead of a sequence of characters. This allows typical operations
on URI references such as parsing, comparison and reference
resolution (including all corner cases) to be implemented in a
comparatively small amount of code.
As a result of simplification, however, CRIs are not capable of
expressing all URIs permitted by the generic syntax of RFC 3986
(hence the "constrained" in "Constrained Resource Identifier"). The
supported subset includes all URIs of the Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252], most URIs of the Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP) [RFC7230], Uniform Resource Names (URNs) [RFC8141],
and other similar URIs. The exact constraints are defined in
Section 2.
1.1. 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
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
In this specification, the term "byte" is used in its now customary
sense as a synonym for "octet".
Terms defined in this document appear in _cursive_ where they are
introduced (rendered in plain text as the new term surrounded by
underscores).
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
2. Constraints
A Constrained Resource Identifier consists of the same five
components as a URI: scheme, authority, path, query, and fragment.
The components are subject to the following constraints:
C1. The scheme name can be any Unicode string (see Definition D80
in [Unicode]) that matches the syntax of a URI scheme (see
Section 3.1 of [RFC3986]) and is lowercase (see Definition D139
in [Unicode]).
C2. An authority is always a host identified by an IP address or
registered name, along with optional port information. User
information is not supported.
C3. An IP address can be either an IPv4 address or an IPv6 address.
IPv6 scoped addressing zone identifiers and future versions of
IP are not supported.
C4. A registered name can be any Unicode string that is lowercase
and in Unicode Normalization Form C (NFC) (see Definition D120
in [Unicode]). (The syntax may be further restricted by the
scheme.)
C5. A port is always an integer in the range from 0 to 65535.
Empty ports or ports outside this range are not supported.
C6. The port is omitted if and only if the port would be the same
as the scheme's default port (provided the scheme is defining
such a default port) or the scheme is not using ports.
C7. A path consists of zero or more path segments. A path must not
consist of a single zero-length path segment, which is
considered equivalent to a path of zero path segments.
C8. A path segment can be any Unicode string that is in NFC, with
the exception of the special "." and ".." complete path
segments. It can be the zero-length string. No special
constraints are placed on the first path segment.
C9. A query always consists of one or more query parameters. A
query parameter can be any Unicode string that is in NFC. It
is often in the form of a "key=value" pair. When converting a
CRI to a URI, query parameters are separated by an ampersand
("&") character. (This matches the structure and encoding of
the target URI in CoAP requests.) Queries are optional; there
is a difference between an absent query and a single query
parameter that is the empty string.
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
C10. A fragment identifier can be any Unicode string that is in NFC.
Fragment identifiers are optional; there is a difference
between an absent fragment identifier and a fragment identifier
that is the empty string.
C11. The syntax of registered names, path segments, query
parameters, and fragment identifiers may be further restricted
and sub-structured by the scheme. There is no support,
however, for escaping sub-delimiters that are not intended to
be used in a delimiting function.
C12. When converting a CRI to a URI, any character that is outside
the allowed character range or is a delimiter in the URI syntax
is percent-encoded. For CRIs, percent-encoding always uses the
UTF-8 encoding form (see Definition D92 in [Unicode]) to
convert the character to a sequence of bytes (that is then
converted to a sequence of %HH triplets).
3. Creation and Normalization
In general, resource identifiers are created on the initial creation
of a resource with a certain resource identifier, or the initial
exposition of a resource under a particular resource identifier.
A Constrained Resource Identifier SHOULD be created by the naming
authority that governs the namespace of the resource identifier (see
also [RFC8820]). For example, for the resources of an HTTP origin
server, that server is responsible for creating the CRIs for those
resources.
The naming authority MUST ensure that any CRI created satisfies the
constraints defined in Section 2. The creation of a CRI fails if the
CRI cannot be validated to satisfy all of the constraints.
If a naming authority creates a CRI from user input, it MAY apply the
following (and only the following) normalizations to get the CRI more
likely to validate:
* map the scheme name to lowercase (C1);
* map the registered name to NFC (C4);
* elide the port if it is the default port for the scheme (C6);
* elide a single zero-length path segment (C7);
* map path segments, query parameters and the fragment identifier to
NFC (C8, C9, C10).
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
Once a CRI has been created, it can be used and transferred without
further normalization. All operations that operate on a CRI SHOULD
rely on the assumption that the CRI is appropriately pre-normalized.
(This does not contradict the requirement that when CRIs are
transferred, recipients must operate on as-good-as untrusted input
and fail gracefully in the face of malicious inputs.)
4. Comparison
One of the most common operations on CRIs is comparison: determining
whether two CRIs are equivalent, without dereferencing the CRIs
(using them to access their respective resource(s)).
Determination of equivalence or difference of CRIs is based on simple
component-wise comparison. If two CRIs are identical component-by-
component (using code-point-by-code-point comparison for components
that are Unicode strings) then it is safe to conclude that they are
equivalent.
This comparison mechanism is designed to minimize false negatives
while strictly avoiding false positives. The constraints defined in
Section 2 imply the most common forms of syntax- and scheme-based
normalizations in URIs, but do not comprise protocol-based
normalizations that require accessing the resources or detailed
knowledge of the scheme's dereference algorithm. False negatives can
be caused, for example, by CRIs that are not appropriately pre-
normalized and by resource aliases.
When CRIs are compared to select (or avoid) a network action, such as
retrieval of a representation, fragment components (if any) should be
excluded from the comparison.
5. CRI References
The most common usage of a Constrained Resource Identifier is to
embed it in resource representations, e.g., to express a hyperlink
between the represented resource and the resource identified by the
CRI.
This section defines the serialization of CRIs in Concise Binary
Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949]. To reduce representation
size, CRIs are not serialized directly. Instead, CRIs are indirectly
referenced through _CRI references_. These take advantage of
hierarchical locality and provide a very compact encoding. The CBOR
serialization of CRI references is specified in Section 5.1.
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
The only operation defined on a CRI reference is _reference
resolution_: the act of transforming a CRI reference into a CRI. An
application MUST implement this operation by applying the algorithm
specified in Section 5.2 (or any algorithm that is functionally
equivalent to it).
The reverse operation of transforming a CRI into a CRI reference is
unspecified; implementations are free to use any algorithm as long as
reference resolution of the resulting CRI reference yields the
original CRI. Notably, a CRI reference is not required to satisfy
all of the constraints of a CRI; the only requirement on a CRI
reference is that reference resolution MUST yield the original CRI.
When testing for equivalence or difference, applications SHOULD NOT
directly compare CRI references; the references should be resolved to
their respective CRI before comparison.
5.1. CBOR Serialization
A CRI reference is encoded as a CBOR array [RFC8949], with the
structure as described in the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)
[RFC8610] as follows:
CRI-Reference = [
(authority // discard),
*path,
? (([], fragment) ; include array only if
//([+query], ?fragment)) ; at least one query and/or fragment
]
authority = (?scheme, ?(host, ?port))
scheme = (scheme-name
// COAP // COAPS // HTTP // HTTPS)
scheme-name = (false, text .regexp "[a-z][a-z0-9+.-]*")
COAP = -1 COAPS = -2 HTTP = -3 HTTPS = -4
host = (host-name // host-ip)
host-name = (true, text)
host-ip = bytes .size 4 / bytes .size 16
port = 0..65535
discard = 0..127
path = text
query = text
fragment = text
The rules "scheme", "host", "port", "path", "query", "fragment"
correspond to the (sub-)components of a CRI, as described in
Section 2, with the addition of the "discard" element. While
"scheme" and "host" can comprise two array elements, we will treat
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
such a combination as a single "element" in the following exposition.
(The combination is needed to disambiguate what would otherwise be a
leading text string as a scheme, host, or path element.) The
"discard" element or its absence can be used to express path prefixes
such as "/", "./", "../", "../../", etc. The exact semantics of the
element values are defined by Section 5.2.
Examples:
[-1, / scheme -- equivalent to ...false, "coap",... /
h'C6336401', / host /
61616, / port /
".well-known", / path /
"core"] / path /
[".well-known", / path /
"core", / path /
["rt=temperature-c"]] / query /
A CRI reference is considered _well-formed_ if it matches the CDDL
structure.
A CRI reference is considered _absolute_ if it is well-formed and the
sequence of elements starts with a "scheme".
A CRI reference is considered _relative_ if it is well-formed and the
sequence of elements is empty or starts with an element other than
those that would constitute a "scheme".
5.2. Reference Resolution
The term "relative" implies that a "base CRI" exists against which
the relative reference is applied. Aside from fragment-only
references, relative references are only usable when a base CRI is
known.
The following steps define the process of resolving any well-formed
CRI reference against a base CRI so that the result is a CRI in the
form of an absolute CRI reference:
1. Establish the base CRI of the CRI reference and express it in the
form of an absolute CRI reference. (The base CRI can be
established in a number of ways; see Section 5.1 of [RFC3986].)
Assign each element an element number according to the number E
for that element in Table 1.
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
2. Determine the values of two variables, T and E, based on the
first element in the sequence of elements of the CRI reference to
be resolved, according to Table 1.
3. Initialize a buffer with all the elements from the base CRI where
the element number is less than the value of E.
4. If the value of T is greater than 0, remove the last T-many
"path" elements from the end of the buffer (up to the number of
"path" elements in the buffer).
5. Append all the elements from the CRI reference to the buffer,
except for any "discard" element.
6. If the number of "path" elements in the buffer is one and the
value of that element is the zero-length string, remove that
element from the buffer.
7. Return the sequence of elements in the buffer as the resolved
CRI.
+=====================+===============+===+
| First Element | T | E |
+=====================+===============+===+
| (scheme) | 0 | 0 |
+---------------------+---------------+---+
| (host) | 0 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------+---+
| (discard) | element value | 3 |
+---------------------+---------------+---+
| (path) | 0 | 2 |
+---------------------+---------------+---+
| (query) | 0 | 3 |
+---------------------+---------------+---+
| (fragment) | 0 | 4 |
+---------------------+---------------+---+
| none/empty sequence | 0 | 4 |
+---------------------+---------------+---+
Table 1: Values of the Variables T and E
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
6. Relationship between CRIs, URIs and IRIs
CRIs are meant to replace both Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
[RFC3986] and Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) [RFC3987]
in constrained environments [RFC7228]. Applications in these
environments may never need to use URIs and IRIs directly, especially
when the resource identifier is used simply for identification
purposes or when the CRI can be directly converted into a CoAP
request.
However, it may be necessary in other environments to determine the
associated URI or IRI of a CRI, and vice versa. Applications can
perform these conversions as follows:
CRI to URI
A CRI is converted to a URI as specified in Section 6.1.
URI to CRI
The method of converting a URI to a CRI is unspecified;
implementations are free to use any algorithm as long as
converting the resulting CRI back to a URI yields an equivalent
URI.
CRI to IRI
A CRI can be converted to an IRI by first converting it to a URI
as specified in Section 6.1, and then converting the URI to an IRI
as described in Section 3.2 of [RFC3987].
IRI to CRI
An IRI can be converted to a CRI by first converting it to a URI
as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC3987], and then converting the
URI to a CRI as described above.
Everything in this section also applies to CRI references, URI
references and IRI references.
6.1. Converting CRIs to URIs
Applications MUST convert a CRI reference to a URI reference by
determining the components of the URI reference according to the
following steps and then recomposing the components to a URI
reference string as specified in Section 5.3 of [RFC3986].
scheme
If the CRI reference contains a "scheme" element, the scheme
component of the URI reference consists of the value of that
element. Otherwise, the scheme component is unset.
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
authority
If the CRI reference contains a "host-name" or "host-ip" element,
the authority component of the URI reference consists of a host
subcomponent, optionally followed by a colon (":") character and a
port subcomponent. Otherwise, the authority component is unset.
The host subcomponent consists of the value of the "host-name" or
"host-ip" element.
Any character in the value of a "host-name" element that is not in
the set of unreserved characters (Section 2.3 of [RFC3986]) or
"sub-delims" (Section 2.2 of [RFC3986]) MUST be percent-encoded.
The value of a "host-ip" element MUST be represented as a string
that matches the "IPv4address" or "IP-literal" rule (Section 3.2.2
of [RFC3986]).
If the CRI reference contains a "port" element, the port
subcomponent consists of the value of that element in decimal
notation. Otherwise, the colon (":") character and the port
subcomponent are both omitted.
path
If the CRI reference is an empty sequence of elements or starts
with a "port" element, a "path" element, or a "discard" element
where the value is not 0, the conversion fails.
If the CRI reference contains a "host-name" element, a "host-ip"
element or a "discard" element, the path component of the URI
reference is prefixed by a slash ("/") character. Otherwise, the
path component is prefixed by the zero-length string.
If the CRI reference contains one or more "path" elements, the
prefix is followed by the value of each element, separated by a
slash ("/") character.
Any character in the value of a "path" element that is not in the
set of unreserved characters or "sub-delims" or a colon (":") or
commercial at ("@") character MUST be percent-encoded.
If the authority component is defined and the path component does
not match the "path-abempty" rule (Section 3.3 of [RFC3986]), the
conversion fails.
If the authority component is unset and the scheme component is
defined and the path component does not match the "path-absolute",
"path-rootless" or "path-empty" rule (Section 3.3 of [RFC3986]),
the conversion fails.
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
If the authority component is unset and the scheme component is
unset and the path component does not match the "path-absolute",
"path-noscheme" or "path-empty" rule (Section 3.3 of [RFC3986]),
the conversion fails.
query
If the CRI reference contains one or more "query" elements, the
query component of the URI reference consists of the value of each
element, separated by an ampersand ("&") character. Otherwise,
the query component is unset.
Any character in the value of a "query" element that is not in the
set of unreserved characters or "sub-delims" or a colon (":"),
commercial at ("@"), slash ("/") or question mark ("?") character
MUST be percent-encoded. Additionally, any ampersand character
("&") in the element value MUST be percent-encoded.
fragment
If the CRI reference contains a fragment element, the fragment
component of the URI reference consists of the value of that
element. Otherwise, the fragment component is unset.
Any character in the value of a "fragment" element that is not in
the set of unreserved characters or "sub-delims" or a colon (":"),
commercial at ("@"), slash ("/") or question mark ("?") character
MUST be percent-encoded.
7. Security Considerations
Parsers of CRI references must operate on input that is assumed to be
untrusted. This means that parsers MUST fail gracefully in the face
of malicious inputs. Additionally, parsers MUST be prepared to deal
with resource exhaustion (e.g., resulting from the allocation of big
data items) or exhaustion of the call stack (stack overflow). See
Section 10 of [RFC8949] for additional security considerations
relating to CBOR.
The security considerations discussed in Section 7 of [RFC3986] and
Section 8 of [RFC3987] for URIs and IRIs also apply to CRIs.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987,
January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[Unicode] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
13.0.0", ISBN 978-1-936213-26-9, March 2020,
<https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode13.0.0/>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC7230] 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC8141] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names
(URNs)", RFC 8141, DOI 10.17487/RFC8141, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
[RFC8820] Nottingham, M., "URI Design and Ownership", BCP 190,
RFC 8820, DOI 10.17487/RFC8820, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8820>.
[W3C.REC-html52-20171214]
Faulkner, S., Eicholz, A., Leithead, T., Danilo, A., and
S. Moon, "HTML 5.2", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-html52-20171214, 14 December 2017,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-html52-20171214>.
Appendix A. Change Log
This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Changes from -03 to -04:
* Minor editorial improvements.
* Renamed path.type/path-type to discard.
* Renamed option to element.
* Simplied Table 1.
* Use the CBOR structure inspired by Jim Schaad's proposals.
Changes from -02 to -03:
* Expanded the set of supported schemes (#3).
* Specified creation, normalization and comparison (#9).
* Clarified the default value of the "discard" option (#33).
* Removed the "append-relation" discard option (#41).
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers May 2021
* Renumbered the remaining discards.
* Renumbered the option numbers.
* Restructured the document.
* Minor editorial improvements.
Changes from -01 to -02:
* Changed the syntax of schemes to exclude upper case characters
(#13).
* Minor editorial improvements (#34 #37).
Changes from -00 to -01:
* None.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Christian Amsüss, Ari Keränen, Jim Schaad and Dave Thaler
for helpful comments and discussions that have shaped the document.
Authors' Addresses
Klaus Hartke
Ericsson
Torshamnsgatan 23
SE-16483 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: klaus.hartke@ericsson.com
Carsten Bormann (editor)
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Hartke & Bormann Expires 8 November 2021 [Page 15]