aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorfriendica <info@friendica.com>2013-10-21 15:46:31 -0700
committerfriendica <info@friendica.com>2013-10-21 15:46:31 -0700
commitb35122f7a6ad42756c35bb60ba1f06c3dcd45c77 (patch)
treeccdf373ce6475d264778523259cc32899b732fe7 /vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt
parente3504df514d306cfe6b83e44a11f550664564af4 (diff)
downloadvolse-hubzilla-b35122f7a6ad42756c35bb60ba1f06c3dcd45c77.tar.gz
volse-hubzilla-b35122f7a6ad42756c35bb60ba1f06c3dcd45c77.tar.bz2
volse-hubzilla-b35122f7a6ad42756c35bb60ba1f06c3dcd45c77.zip
add sabre (1.8.x) via composer in the !@#$ place it wants to be
Diffstat (limited to 'vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt')
-rw-r--r--vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt451
1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt b/vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c28ccf6bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Nottingham
+Request for Comments: 5785 E. Hammer-Lahav
+Updates: 2616, 2818 April 2010
+Category: Standards Track
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+ Defining Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
+
+Abstract
+
+ This memo defines a path prefix for "well-known locations",
+ "/.well-known/", in selected Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
+ schemes.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+ This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+ (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
+ received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+ Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
+ Internet Standards is available in 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/rfc5785.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2010 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5785 Defining Well-Known URIs April 2010
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 1.1. Appropriate Use of Well-Known URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 3. Well-Known URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 5.1. The Well-Known URI Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 5.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ Appendix B. Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ It is increasingly common for Web-based protocols to require the
+ discovery of policy or other information about a host ("site-wide
+ metadata") before making a request. For example, the Robots
+ Exclusion Protocol <http://www.robotstxt.org/> specifies a way for
+ automated processes to obtain permission to access resources;
+ likewise, the Platform for Privacy Preferences [W3C.REC-P3P-20020416]
+ tells user-agents how to discover privacy policy beforehand.
+
+ While there are several ways to access per-resource metadata (e.g.,
+ HTTP headers, WebDAV's PROPFIND [RFC4918]), the perceived overhead
+ (either in terms of client-perceived latency and/or deployment
+ difficulties) associated with them often precludes their use in these
+ scenarios.
+
+ When this happens, it is common to designate a "well-known location"
+ for such data, so that it can be easily located. However, this
+ approach has the drawback of risking collisions, both with other such
+ designated "well-known locations" and with pre-existing resources.
+
+ To address this, this memo defines a path prefix in HTTP(S) URIs for
+ these "well-known locations", "/.well-known/". Future specifications
+ that need to define a resource for such site-wide metadata can
+ register their use to avoid collisions and minimise impingement upon
+ sites' URI space.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5785 Defining Well-Known URIs April 2010
+
+
+1.1. Appropriate Use of Well-Known URIs
+
+ There are a number of possible ways that applications could use Well-
+ known URIs. However, in keeping with the Architecture of the World-
+ Wide Web [W3C.REC-webarch-20041215], well-known URIs are not intended
+ for general information retrieval or establishment of large URI
+ namespaces on the Web. Rather, they are designed to facilitate
+ discovery of information on a site when it isn't practical to use
+ other mechanisms; for example, when discovering policy that needs to
+ be evaluated before a resource is accessed, or when using multiple
+ round-trips is judged detrimental to performance.
+
+ As such, the well-known URI space was created with the expectation
+ that it will be used to make site-wide policy information and other
+ metadata available directly (if sufficiently concise), or provide
+ references to other URIs that provide such metadata.
+
+2. Notational Conventions
+
+ 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 [RFC2119].
+
+3. Well-Known URIs
+
+ A well-known URI is a URI [RFC3986] whose path component begins with
+ the characters "/.well-known/", and whose scheme is "HTTP", "HTTPS",
+ or another scheme that has explicitly been specified to use well-
+ known URIs.
+
+ Applications that wish to mint new well-known URIs MUST register
+ them, following the procedures in Section 5.1.
+
+ For example, if an application registers the name 'example', the
+ corresponding well-known URI on 'http://www.example.com/' would be
+ 'http://www.example.com/.well-known/example'.
+
+ Registered names MUST conform to the segment-nz production in
+ [RFC3986].
+
+ Note that this specification defines neither how to determine the
+ authority to use for a particular context, nor the scope of the
+ metadata discovered by dereferencing the well-known URI; both should
+ be defined by the application itself.
+
+ Typically, a registration will reference a specification that defines
+ the format and associated media type to be obtained by dereferencing
+ the well-known URI.
+
+
+
+Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5785 Defining Well-Known URIs April 2010
+
+
+ It MAY also contain additional information, such as the syntax of
+ additional path components, query strings and/or fragment identifiers
+ to be appended to the well-known URI, or protocol-specific details
+ (e.g., HTTP [RFC2616] method handling).
+
+ Note that this specification does not define a format or media-type
+ for the resource located at "/.well-known/" and clients should not
+ expect a resource to exist at that location.
+
+4. Security Considerations
+
+ This memo does not specify the scope of applicability of metadata or
+ policy obtained from a well-known URI, and does not specify how to
+ discover a well-known URI for a particular application. Individual
+ applications using this mechanism must define both aspects.
+
+ Applications minting new well-known URIs, as well as administrators
+ deploying them, will need to consider several security-related
+ issues, including (but not limited to) exposure of sensitive data,
+ denial-of-service attacks (in addition to normal load issues), server
+ and client authentication, vulnerability to DNS rebinding attacks,
+ and attacks where limited access to a server grants the ability to
+ affect how well-known URIs are served.
+
+5. IANA Considerations
+
+5.1. The Well-Known URI Registry
+
+ This document establishes the well-known URI registry.
+
+ Well-known URIs are registered on the advice of one or more
+ Designated Experts (appointed by the IESG or their delegate), with a
+ Specification Required (using terminology from [RFC5226]). However,
+ to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the
+ Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied
+ that such a specification will be published.
+
+ Registration requests should be sent to the
+ wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org mailing list for review and comment,
+ with an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request for well-known URI:
+ example").
+
+ Before a period of 14 days has passed, the Designated Expert(s) will
+ either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this
+ decision both to the review list and to IANA. Denials should include
+ an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the
+
+
+
+
+
+Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5785 Defining Well-Known URIs April 2010
+
+
+ request successful. Registration requests that are undetermined for
+ a period longer than 21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention
+ (using the iesg@iesg.org mailing list) for resolution.
+
+5.1.1. Registration Template
+
+ URI suffix: The name requested for the well-known URI, relative to
+ "/.well-known/"; e.g., "example".
+
+ Change controller: For Standards-Track RFCs, state "IETF". For
+ others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details
+ (e.g., postal address, e-mail address, home page URI) may also be
+ included.
+
+ Specification document(s): Reference to the document that specifies
+ the field, preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve
+ a copy of the document. An indication of the relevant sections
+ may also be included, but is not required.
+
+ Related information: Optionally, citations to additional documents
+ containing further relevant information.
+
+6. References
+
+6.1. Normative References
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
+ Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
+ RFC 3986, January 2005.
+
+ [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
+ IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
+ May 2008.
+
+6.2. Informative References
+
+ [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter,
+ L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer
+ Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
+
+ [RFC4918] Dusseault, L., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed
+ Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5785 Defining Well-Known URIs April 2010
+
+
+ [W3C.REC-P3P-20020416]
+ Marchiori, M., "The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0
+ (P3P1.0) Specification", World Wide Web Consortium
+ Recommendation REC-P3P-20020416, April 2002,
+ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/ REC-P3P-20020416>.
+
+ [W3C.REC-webarch-20041215]
+ 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>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 5785 Defining Well-Known URIs April 2010
+
+
+Appendix A. Acknowledgements
+
+ We would like to acknowledge the contributions of everyone who
+ provided feedback and use cases for this document; in particular,
+ Phil Archer, Dirk Balfanz, Adam Barth, Tim Bray, Brian Eaton, Brad
+ Fitzpatrick, Joe Gregorio, Paul Hoffman, Barry Leiba, Ashok Malhotra,
+ Breno de Medeiros, John Panzer, and Drummond Reed. However, they are
+ not responsible for errors and omissions.
+
+Appendix B. Frequently Asked Questions
+
+ 1. Aren't well-known locations bad for the Web?
+
+ They are, but for various reasons -- both technical and social --
+ they are commonly used and their use is increasing. This memo
+ defines a "sandbox" for them, to reduce the risks of collision and
+ to minimise the impact upon pre-existing URIs on sites.
+
+ 2. Why /.well-known?
+
+ It's short, descriptive, and according to search indices, not
+ widely used.
+
+ 3. What impact does this have on existing mechanisms, such as P3P and
+ robots.txt?
+
+ None, until they choose to use this mechanism.
+
+ 4. Why aren't per-directory well-known locations defined?
+
+ Allowing every URI path segment to have a well-known location
+ (e.g., "/images/.well-known/") would increase the risks of
+ colliding with a pre-existing URI on a site, and generally these
+ solutions are found not to scale well, because they're too
+ "chatty".
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 5785 Defining Well-Known URIs April 2010
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Mark Nottingham
+
+ EMail: mnot@mnot.net
+ URI: http://www.mnot.net/
+
+
+ Eran Hammer-Lahav
+
+ EMail: eran@hueniverse.com
+ URI: http://hueniverse.com/
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav Standards Track [Page 8]
+