diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6903.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc6903.txt | 339 |
1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6903.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6903.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e2081b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6903.txt @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ + + + + + + +Independent Submission J. Snell +Request for Comments: 6903 March 2013 +Category: Informational +ISSN: 2070-1721 + + + Additional Link Relation Types + +Abstract + + This specification defines a number of additional link relation types + that can used for a range of purposes in a variety of applications + types. + +Status of This Memo + + This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is + published for informational purposes. + + This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other + RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at + its discretion and makes no statement about its value for + implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by + the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet + Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6903. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2013 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. + + + + + + + + + + +Snell Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 6903 Additional Link Relations March 2013 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. "about" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 3. "preview" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 4. "privacy-policy" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 4.1. The "privacy-policy" Link Relation and P3P . . . . . . . 4 + 5. "terms-of-service" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 6. "type" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + +1. Introduction + + The fundamental model for web links and the "Link Relations" registry + are established by [RFC5988]. This specification defines and adds + the following additional link relation types to the registry: + "about", "preview", "privacy-policy", "terms-of-service", and "type". + +2. "about" + + The "about" link relation can be used to refer to a resource that is + the subject or topic of the link's context. Multiple subjects can be + indicated through the use of multiple "about" link relations. + + For example, if the context resource is a review about a particular + product, the "about" link can be used to reference the URL of the + product: + + HTTP/1.1 200 OK + Content-Type: application/json + Link: <http://store.example.org/product/abc>; rel="about" + + {...} + +3. "preview" + + The "preview" link relation can be used to refer to a resource that + serves as a preview of the link's context, likely with reduced + quality or limited content. For instance, the preview link might + reference a screen capture of a video, a brief snippet of audio from + a song, or a thumbnail representation of an image. + + + + + + +Snell Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 6903 Additional Link Relations March 2013 + + + For example, issuing an HTTP HEAD request to a URI representing a + large video or image file might return a link to a short or lower- + quality preview of the original: + + HTTP/1.1 200 OK + Content-Text: video/mpeg + Link: <http://example.org/preview/10-second-preview.mpg>; + rel="preview"; type="video/mpeg" + +4. "privacy-policy" + + The "privacy-policy" link relation can be used to refer to a resource + describing the privacy policy associated with the link's context. + The privacy policy can be any resource that discloses what personal + information about the user is collected and how that personal + information is stored, used, managed, and disclosed to other parties. + + For example, an HTTP server that collects personal information about + a user throughout the course of the user's interaction with the + service can include "privacy-policy" links within all HTTP responses + using any combination of Link headers or links embedded in the + response payload: + + HTTP/1.1 200 OK + Content-Type: text/html + + <html> + <head> + ... + <link rel="privacy-policy" href="/privacy-policy.html" /> + ... + </head> + <body> + ... + </body> + </html> + + + Note that in the absence of clear legal obligations placed on an + entity, either through contract or law, the presence of a "privacy- + policy" link does not constitute a legally binding obligation on the + part of the service. The linked resource can only be interpreted as + a description of the expected practice. + + It is recommended that publishers of privacy-policy resources linked + to using the "privacy-policy" link relation provide a clear and + simple mechanism for signaling when changes to the privacy-policy + resource have been made, such as generating a new Entity Tag for the + + + +Snell Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 6903 Additional Link Relations March 2013 + + + resource or generating a hash over the privacy policy's content. The + extent to which mechanisms are utilized is out of the scope of this + specification, however. + +4.1. The "privacy-policy" Link Relation and P3P + + The Platform for Privacy Preferences [P3P] is a W3C Recommendation + that defines a data format for the expression of privacy policy + information. While the "privacy-policy" link relation can be used to + reference P3P documents, there is no intended relationship, normative + or otherwise, between this specification and the P3P Recommendation. + As far as this specification is concerned, P3P documents are just one + possible type of resource that "privacy-policy" links can reference. + +5. "terms-of-service" + + The "terms-of-service" link relation can be used to refer to a + resource describing the terms of service associated with the link's + context. The terms of service can be any resource that describes the + rules to which a consumer of the service must agree to follow when + using the service provided by the link's context. + + For example, an HTTP server can include "terms-of-service" links + within all HTTP responses using any combination of Link headers or + links embedded in the response payload: + + HTTP/1.1 200 OK + Content-Type: text/html + + <html> + <head> + ... + <link rel="terms-of-service" href="/tos.html"> + ... + </head> + <body> + ... + </body> + </html> + + It must be noted that the terms of service linked to using this link + relation carry no legal weight and can be ignored with impunity in + the absence of an explicit, legally enforceable contract. The linked + terms of service are simply a notice of the terms that may be + expected to apply once a contract is established. + + + + + + +Snell Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 6903 Additional Link Relations March 2013 + + +6. "type" + + The "type" link relation can be used to indicate that the context + resource is an instance of the resource identified by the target + Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI). + + HTTP/1.1 200 OK + Content-Type: text/plain + Link: <http://example.org/Person/givenName>; rel="type" + + Sally + + When used within the header of an HTTP message, the type specified by + the "type" link relation cannot be confused with the content type of + the payload as given by the Content-Type header. The "type" link + relation references the payload's abstract semantic type, whereas the + Content-Type header identifies the specific serialization format of + the payload. + + If the context can be considered to be an instance of multiple + semantic types, multiple "type" link relations can be used. + +7. IANA Considerations + + The "Link Relation Types" registry has been updated with the + following entries: + + o Relation Name: about + o Description: Refers to a resource that is the subject of the + link's context. + o Reference: This specification, Section 2 + + o Relation Name: preview + o Description: Refers to a resource that provides a preview of the + link's context. + o Reference: This specification, Section 3 + + o Relation Name: privacy-policy + o Description: Refers to a privacy policy associated with the link's + context. + o Reference: This specification, Section 4 + + o Relation Name: terms-of-service + o Description: Refers to the terms of service associated with the + link's context. + o Reference: This specification, Section 5 + + + + + +Snell Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 6903 Additional Link Relations March 2013 + + + o Relation Name: type + o Description: Refers to a resource identifying the abstract + semantic type of which the link's context is considered to be an + instance. + o Reference: This specification, Section 6 + +8. Security Considerations + + There are no additional security concerns introduced by this + document. + +9. References + +9.1. Normative References + + [RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010. + +9.2. Informative References + + [P3P] W3C, "P3P: The Platform for Privacy Preferences", November + 2007, <http://www.w3.org/P3P/>. + +Author's Address + + James M Snell + + EMail: jasnell@gmail.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Snell Informational [Page 6] + |