Network Working Group E. Wilde
Internet-Draft CA Technologies
Intended status: Informational August 17, 2016
Expires: February 18, 2017
Link Relation Types for Web Services
draft-wilde-service-link-rel-02
Abstract
Many resources provided on the Web are part of sets of resources that
are provided in a context that is managed by one particular service
provider. Often, these sets of resources are referred to as "Web
Services" or "Web APIs". This specification defines link relations
for representing relationships from those resources to ones that
provide documentation or descriptions of the Web services. The
difference between these concepts is that documentation is primarily
intended for human consumers, whereas descriptions are primarily
intended for automated consumers. It also defines a link relation to
identify a status resource that is used to represent operational
information about a service's status.
Note to Readers
Please discuss this draft on the apps-discuss mailing list
(<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>).
Online access to all versions and files is available on GitHub
(<https://github.com/dret/I-D/tree/master/service-link-rel>).
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 February 18, 2017.
Wilde Expires February 18, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Link Relation Types for Web Services August 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Documenting Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Describing Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Unified Documentation/Description . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Link Relations for Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. The service-doc Link Relation Type . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. The service-desc Link Relation Type . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Web Service Status Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Link Relation Type: service-doc . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Link Relation Type: service-desc . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. Link Relation Type: status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
One of the defining aspects of the Web is that it is possible to
interact with Web resources without any prior knowledge of the
specifics of the resource. Following Web Architecture [3] by using
URIs, HTTP, and media types, the Web's uniform interface allows
interactions with resources without the more complex binding
procedures of other approaches.
Wilde Expires February 18, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Link Relation Types for Web Services August 2016
Many resources on the Web are provided as part of a set of resources
that are referred to as a "Web Service" or a "Web API". In many
cases, these services or APIs are defined and managed as a whole, and
it may be desirable for clients to be able to discover this service
information.
Service information can be broadly separated into two categories: One
category is primarily targeted for human users and often uses generic
representations for human readable documents, such as HTML or PDF.
The other category is structured information that follows some more
formalized description model, and is primarily intended for
consumption by machines, for example for tools and code libraries.
In the context of this memo, the human-oriented variant is referred
to as "documentation", and the machine-oriented variant is referred
to as "description".
These two categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as there
are representations that have been proposed that are intended for
both human consumption, and for interpretation by machine clients.
In addition, a typical pattern for service documentation/description
is that there is human-oriented high-level documentation that is
intended to put a service in context and explain the general model,
which is complemented by a machine-level description that is intended
as a detailed technical description of the service. These two
resources could be interlinked, but since they are intended for
different audiences, it can make sense to provide entry points for
both of them.
This memo places no constraints on the specific representations used
for either of those two categories. It simply allows providers of a
Web service to make the documentation and/or the description of their
services discoverable, and defines two link relations that serve that
purpose.
In addition, this memo defines a link relation that allows providers
of a Web service to link to a resource that represents status
information about the service. This information often represents
operational information that allows service consumers to retrieve
information about "service health" and related issues.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
Wilde Expires February 18, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Link Relation Types for Web Services August 2016
3. Web Services
"Web Services" or "Web APIs" (sometimes also referred to as "HTTP
API" or "REST API") are a way to expose information and services on
the Web. Following the principles of Web architecture [3], they
expose URI-identified resources, which are then accessed and
transferred using a specific representation. Many services use
representations that contain links, and often these links are typed
links.
Using typed links, resources can identify relationship types to other
resources. RFC 5988 [2] establishes a framework of well-known
registered link relation types, which are identified by simple
strings and registered in an IANA registry. Any resource that
supports typed links according to RFC 5988 can then use these
identifiers to represent resource relationships on the Web without
having to re-invent registered relation types.
In recent years, Web services as well as their documentation and
description languages have gained popularity, due to the general
popularity of the Web as a platform for providing information and
services. However, the design of documentation and description
languages varies with a number of factors, such as the general
application domain, the preferred application data model, and the
preferred approach for exposing services.
This specification allows service providers to use a unified way to
link to service documentation and/or description. This link should
not make any assumptions about the provided type of documentation
and/or description, so that service providers can choose the ones
that best fit their services and needs.
3.1. Documenting Web Services
In the context of this specification, "documentation" refers to
information that is primarily intended for human consumption.
Typical representations for this kind of documentation are HTML and
PDF.
Documentation is often structured, but the exact kind of structure
depends on the structure of the service that is documented, as well
as on the specific way in which the documentation authors choose to
document it.
Wilde Expires February 18, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Link Relation Types for Web Services August 2016
3.2. Describing Web Services
In the context of this specification, "description" refers to
information that is primarily intended for machine consumption.
Typical representations for this are dictated by the technology
underlying the service itself, which means that in today's technology
landscape, description formats exist that are based on XML, JSON,
RDF, and a variety of other structured data models. Also, in each of
those technologies, there may be a variety of languages that are
defined to achieve the same general purpose of describing a Web
service.
Descriptions are always structured, but the structuring principles
depend on the nature of the described service. For example, one of
the earlier service description approaches, the Web Services
Description Language (WSDL), uses "operations" as its core concept,
which are essentially identical to function calls, because the
underlying model is based on that of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
model. Other description languages for non-RPC approaches to
services will use different structuring approaches.
3.3. Unified Documentation/Description
If service providers use an approach where there is no distinction of
service documentation Section 3.1 and service description
Section 3.2, then they may not feel the need to use two separate
links. In such a case, an alternative approach is to use the
"service" link relation type, which has no indication of whether it
links to documentation or description, and thus may be better fit if
no such differentiation is required.
4. Link Relations for Web Services
In order to allow Web services to represent the relation of
individual resources to service documentation or description, this
specification introduces and registers two new link relation types.
4.1. The service-doc Link Relation Type
The "service-doc" link relation type is used to represent the fact
that a resource is part of a bigger set of resources that are
documented at a specific URI. The target resource is expected to
provide documentation that is primarily intended for human
consumption.
Wilde Expires February 18, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Link Relation Types for Web Services August 2016
4.2. The service-desc Link Relation Type
The "service-desc" link relation type is used to represent the fact
that a resource is part of a bigger set of resources that are
described at a specific URI. The target resource is expected to
provide a service description that is primarily intended for machine
consumption. In many cases, it is provided in a representation that
is consumed by tools, code libraries, or similar components.
5. Web Service Status Resources
Web services providing access to a set of resources often are hosted
and operated in an environment for which status information may be
available. This information may be as simple as confirming that a
service is operational, or may provide additional information about
different aspects of a service, and/or a history of status
information, possibly listing incidents and their resolution.
The "status" link relation type can be used to link to such a status
resource, allowing service consumers to retrieve status information
about a Web service's status. Such a link may not be available from
all resources provided by a Web service, but from key resources such
as a Web service's home resource [4].
This memo does not restrict the representation of a status resource
in any way. It may be primarily focused on human or machine
consumption, or a combination of both. It may be a simple "traffic
light" indicator for service health, or a more sophisticated
representation conveying more detailed information such as service
subsystems and/or a status history.
6. IANA Considerations
The link relation types below have been registered by IANA per
Section 6.2.1 of RFC 5988 [2]:
6.1. Link Relation Type: service-doc
Relation Name: service-doc
Description: Linking to service documentation that is primarily
intended for human consumption.
Reference: [[ This document ]]
Wilde Expires February 18, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Link Relation Types for Web Services August 2016
6.2. Link Relation Type: service-desc
Relation Name: service-desc
Description: Linking to service description that is primarily
intended for consumption by machines.
Reference: [[ This document ]]
6.3. Link Relation Type: status
Relation Name: status
Description: Linking to a resource that represents the status of a
Web service or API.
Reference: [[ This document ]]
7. Security Considerations
...
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.
8.2. Informative References
[3] Jacobs, I. and N. Walsh, "Architecture of the World Wide
Web, Volume One", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-webarch-20041215, December 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215>.
[4] Nottingham, M., "Home Documents for HTTP APIs", draft-
nottingham-json-home-04 (work in progress), May 2016.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks for comments and suggestions provided by Mike Amundsen, Oliver
Gierke, Sebastien Lambla, and Darrell Miller.
Wilde Expires February 18, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Link Relation Types for Web Services August 2016
Author's Address
Erik Wilde
CA Technologies
Email: erik.wilde@dret.net
URI: http://dret.net/netdret/
Wilde Expires February 18, 2017 [Page 8]