URI Design and Ownership
RFC 8820
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-06-30
|
03 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8820, changed abstract to 'Section 1.1.1 of RFC 3986 defines URI syntax as "a federated … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8820, changed abstract to 'Section 1.1.1 of RFC 3986 defines URI syntax as "a federated and extensible naming system wherein each scheme's specification may further restrict the syntax and semantics of identifiers using that scheme." In other words, the structure of a URI is defined by its scheme. While it is common for schemes to further delegate their substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards that mandate particular forms of substructure in URIs is often problematic. This document provides guidance on the specification of URI substructure in standards. This document obsoletes RFC 7320 and updates RFC 3986.', changed pages to 8, changed standardization level to Best Current Practice, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2020-06-30, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created obsoletes relation between draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis and RFC 7320, created updates relation between draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis and RFC 3986) |
|
2020-06-30
|
03 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2020-06-29
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8820">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2020-06-11
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8820">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2020-06-02
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2020-05-08
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from IESG |
|
2020-03-10
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | As an unintended side effect of recovering information lost in the 2020-02-27 server transition, the IESG state on this document reverted from "RFC Editor Queue" … As an unintended side effect of recovering information lost in the 2020-02-27 server transition, the IESG state on this document reverted from "RFC Editor Queue" to "Approved-announcement to be sent." The state has been changed back to "RFC Editor Queue" manually. The RFC Editor state is "IESG" because there is an appeal pending. |
|
2020-03-10
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement to be sent |
|
2020-03-09
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IESG |
|
2020-02-05
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IESG from EDIT |
|
2020-01-29
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
|
2020-01-28
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2020-01-28
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2020-01-28
|
03 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2020-01-28
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2020-01-28
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
|
2020-01-28
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2020-01-28
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2020-01-28
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2020-01-23
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
|
2020-01-23
|
03 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
|
2020-01-23
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
|
2020-01-22
|
03 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the well-written document! A few minor comments: Section 2.1 Applications and Extensions can require use of specific URI scheme(s); … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the well-written document! A few minor comments: Section 2.1 Applications and Extensions can require use of specific URI scheme(s); for example, it is perfectly acceptable to require that an Application support 'http' and 'https' URIs. However, Applications ought not preclude the use of other URI schemes in the future, unless they are clearly only usable with the nominated schemes. I'm having a little trouble squaring "can require specific schemes" with "ought not preclude the use of other schemes". How accurate would it be to try to summarize this guidance as "specify what properties you need the scheme to have, not the scheme itself"? Section 2.4 side note: the discussion we give here about the flaws in assumptions about query parameters named "sig" is more complete than the earlier such discussion in Section 1; the earlier treatment is slightly confusing without the additional context present here. It's not really clear that a forward reference would be appropriate, though, hence this is just a side note. Section 3 Specifying more elaborate structures in an attempt to avoid collisions is not an acceptable solution, and does not address the issues in Section 1. For example, prefixing query parameters with "myapp_" does not help, because the prefix itself is subject to the risk of collision (since it is not "reserved"). nit: I'm not sure what purpose the scare-quotes on "reserved" serve. nit^2: the previous paragraph uses single-quotes around 'reserved'. |
|
2020-01-22
|
03 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2020-01-22
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2020-01-22
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
|
2020-01-22
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2020-01-21
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2020-01-21
|
03 | Adam Roach | Shepherd writeup for draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis Intended status: BCP Shepherd: Martin Thomson Source: Individual Draft (AD Sponsored) This revision to RFC 7320 exists to make a single … Shepherd writeup for draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis Intended status: BCP Shepherd: Martin Thomson Source: Individual Draft (AD Sponsored) This revision to RFC 7320 exists to make a single change. The original document had a prohibition on specifications defining structure or semantics to the suffix of a URI (that is, the tail of the hierarchical path). This applies to both trailing path elements and query parameters. This might be good theory on the basis that it allows greater latitude in how implementation of protocols are structured, but - once aware of this BCP - the IETF community at large violently rejected any suggestion that their power be so curtailed. Thus, this revision exists to document that view and remove the restriction. The IETF community believes that once within the confines of an "Application" or "Extension", constraints on how semantics are carried are overly restrictive. For instance, while recommendations to use further indirection through directory resources or link relations, prearranged semantics in URI structure allows for easy construction of destination URLs without the overhead of finding those resources. This is a very common practice. In short, the argument says that if a random API on a website gets to do these things, why not the IETF? There are numerous editorial tweaks in line with this change, such as expanding the rationale for prohibitions on attaching semantics to protocol elements with semantics defined by the URI scheme itself. Of particular note, the author removed an Oxford comma in the Acknowledgments. This revision also replaces a reference to RFC 6838 with a reference to RFC 3986 for specifying fragment identifier syntax and semantics. This was done because the original reference was misleading: RFC 6838 doesn't make such a requirement a SHOULD. The focus of this update was to reduce the number of unnecessary requirements. These changes have been debated extensively, sometimes bitterly, making this shepherd confident that this document now represents IETF consensus. The strictures that remain are far more firmly grounded. Not in the doctrine of REST, which was never a single theory anyway, but in stronger principles. For instance, the IETF cannot dictate what domain names people can have. This includes whether they are allowed to use emoji, apparently. |
|
2020-01-21
|
03 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] As asked by Eric, and the OpsDir review (Qin Wu - "I am curious why this bis document is not published through WG … [Ballot comment] As asked by Eric, and the OpsDir review (Qin Wu - "I am curious why this bis document is not published through WG process but through individual stream process. If this document is published through individual steam process with AD sponsored, should this document be classified as informational? Where was this document initially discussed to build IETF consensus?") I'm also wondering why this wasn't a WG document -- anyway, I'm assuming the AD has a good reason, so, LGTM :-) |
|
2020-01-21
|
03 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
|
2020-01-21
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2020-01-21
|
03 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. I have really appreciated the justifications and explanations. Just wondering why it is not … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. I have really appreciated the justifications and explanations. Just wondering why it is not a WG document. -éric |
|
2020-01-21
|
03 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot comment text updated for Éric Vyncke |
|
2020-01-20
|
03 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. I have really appreciated the justifications and explanations. Just wondering why it is an … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. I have really appreciated the justifications and explanations. Just wondering why it is an individual submission. -éric |
|
2020-01-20
|
03 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
|
2020-01-20
|
03 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Please note the TSV-ART review (Thanks Joe!) and the issue raised regarding an outstaying errata on RFC7320 that may impact the change in … [Ballot comment] Please note the TSV-ART review (Thanks Joe!) and the issue raised regarding an outstaying errata on RFC7320 that may impact the change in this doc. |
|
2020-01-20
|
03 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2020-01-20
|
03 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2020-01-09
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2020-01-07
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2020-01-06
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2020-01-06
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-01-23 |
|
2020-01-06
|
03 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
|
2020-01-06
|
03 | Adam Roach | Ballot has been issued |
|
2020-01-06
|
03 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
|
2020-01-06
|
03 | Adam Roach | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2020-01-06
|
03 | Adam Roach | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2020-01-05
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2020-01-05
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2020-01-05
|
03 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-03.txt |
|
2020-01-05
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mark Nottingham) |
|
2020-01-05
|
03 | Mark Nottingham | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-12-24
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
|
2019-12-19
|
02 | Adam Roach | Waiting for new version based on edits already present in github. |
|
2019-12-19
|
02 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2019-12-16
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2019-12-14
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. |
|
2019-12-02
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2019-12-02
|
02 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
|
2019-12-02
|
02 | Joseph Touch | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Joseph Touch. Sent review to list. |
|
2019-11-28
|
02 | Qin Wu | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Qin Wu. Sent review to list. |
|
2019-11-27
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch |
|
2019-11-27
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch |
|
2019-11-26
|
02 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
|
2019-11-20
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
|
2019-11-20
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
|
2019-11-20
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2019-11-20
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2019-11-20
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
|
2019-11-20
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-12-16):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: art@ietf.org, draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-12-16):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: art@ietf.org, draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis@ietf.org, adam@nostrum.com, mt@lowentropy.net, mt@mozilla.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> (URI Design and Ownership) to Best Current Practice The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'URI Design and Ownership' <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-12-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Section 1.1.1 of RFC 3986 defines URI syntax as "a federated and extensible naming system wherein each scheme's specification may further restrict the syntax and semantics of identifiers using that scheme." In other words, the structure of a URI is defined by its scheme. While it is common for schemes to further delegate their substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards that mandate particular forms of substructure in URIs is often problematic. This document provides guidance on the specification of URI substructure in standards. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Adam Roach | Last call was requested |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Adam Roach | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Adam Roach | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Adam Roach | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Adam Roach | Notification list changed to mt@mozilla.com, art@ietf.org |
|
2019-11-18
|
02 | Adam Roach | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2019-11-15
|
02 | Martin Thomson | Shepherd writeup for draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis Intended status: BCP Shepherd: Martin Thomson Source: Individual Draft (AD Sponsored) This revision to RFC 7320 exists to make a single … Shepherd writeup for draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis Intended status: BCP Shepherd: Martin Thomson Source: Individual Draft (AD Sponsored) This revision to RFC 7320 exists to make a single change. The original document had a prohibition on specifications defining structure or semantics to the suffix of a URI (that is, the tail of the hierarchical path). This applies to both trailing path elements and query parameters. This might be good theory on the basis that it allows greater latitude in how implementation of protocols are structured, but - once aware of this BCP - the IETF community at large violently rejected any suggestion that their power be so curtailed. Thus, this revision exists to document that view and remove the restriction. The IETF community believes that once within the confines of an "Application" or "Extension", constraints on how semantics are carried are overly restrictive. For instance, while recommendations to use further indirection through directory resources or link relations, prearranged semantics in URI structure allows for easy construction of destination URLs without the overhead of finding those resources. This is a very common practice. In short, the argument says that if a random API on a website gets to do these things, why not the IETF? There are numerous editorial tweaks in line with this change, such as expanding the rationale for prohibitions on attaching semantics to protocol elements with semantics defined by the URI scheme itself. Of particular note, the author removed an Oxford comma in the Acknowledgments. These changes have been debated extensively, sometimes bitterly, making this shepherd confident that this document now represents IETF consensus. The strictures that remain are far more firmly grounded. Not in the doctrine of REST, which was never a single theory anyway, but in stronger principles. For instance, the IETF cannot dictate what domain names people can have. This includes whether they are allowed to use emoji, apparently. |
|
2019-10-14
|
02 | Adam Roach | Notification list changed to Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> |
|
2019-10-14
|
02 | Adam Roach | Document shepherd changed to Martin Thomson |
|
2019-10-06
|
02 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt |
|
2019-10-06
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-10-06
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> |
|
2019-10-06
|
02 | Mark Nottingham | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-10-01
|
01 | Adam Roach | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2019-10-01
|
01 | Adam Roach | Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None |
|
2019-10-01
|
01 | Adam Roach | Stream changed to IETF from None |
|
2019-10-01
|
01 | Adam Roach | Shepherding AD changed to Adam Roach |
|
2019-08-26
|
01 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt |
|
2019-08-26
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-08-26
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> |
|
2019-08-26
|
01 | Mark Nottingham | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-08-20
|
00 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-00.txt |
|
2019-08-20
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-08-20
|
00 | Mark Nottingham | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> |
|
2019-08-20
|
00 | Mark Nottingham | Uploaded new revision |