Indicating, Discovering, Negotiating, and Writing Profiled Representations
draft-svensson-profiled-representations-00
Internet Engineering Task Force L. Svensson
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational R. Verborgh
Expires: August 7, 2021 Ghent University - imec
H. Van de Sompel
Data Archiving and Networked Services
February 3, 2021
Indicating, Discovering, Negotiating, and Writing Profiled
Representations
draft-svensson-profiled-representations-00
Abstract
This document details approaches for enriching HTTP interactions with
information pertaining to the profiles to which resource
representations conform. It surveys approaches that were recently
introduced to indicate the profile of a resource representation, and
to make representations that conform to a profile discoverable. It
introduces a generally applicable approach to negotiate for a
resource representation that conforms to a profile preferred by a
user agent. That approach leverages the existing content negotiation
mechanism but applies it to the profile dimension to which it was
previously not applied. The document also shows how a server can
convey which profiled representations it is able to accept from a
user agent.
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 August 7, 2021.
Svensson, et al. Expires August 7, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Handling Profiled Representations February 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Indicating Profiled Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Discovering Profiled Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Negotiating for Profiled Representations . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Profile Negotiation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Proactive Profile Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Reactive Profile Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Accept-Profile HTTP Header Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Writing Profiled Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
Any given web resource can typically be represented in a variety of
ways. For example, the same information could be rendered according
to different media types, say, as XML or JSON. But in many cases,
variations in representation other than those inherent to a given
media type are also possible. For example, the same structured data
could be rendered in XML according to different XML Schema
[W3C.REC-xmlschema11-1-20120405]. Or the same RDF graph could be
expressed on the basis of different vocabularies.
Svensson, et al. Expires August 7, 2021 [Page 2]
Show full document text