Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Nottingham
Request for Comments: 7320
BCP: 190 July 2014
Updates: 3986
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
URI Design and Ownership
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 URI substructure is inappropriate,
because that essentially usurps ownership. This document further
describes this problematic practice and provides some acceptable
alternatives for use in standards.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
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
BCPs 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/rfc7320.
Nottingham Best Current Practice [Page 1]RFC 7320 URI Design Ownership July 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
1.1. Intended Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Best Current Practices for Standardizing Structured URIs . . 4
2.1. URI Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. URI Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. URI Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. URI Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. URI Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Alternatives to Specifying Structure in URIs . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
URIs [RFC3986] very often include structured application data. This
might include artifacts from filesystems (often occurring in the path
component) and user information (often in the query component). In
some cases, there can even be application-specific data in the
authority component (e.g., some applications are spread across
several hostnames to enable a form of partitioning or dispatch).
Furthermore, constraints upon the structure of URIs can be imposed by
an implementation; for example, many Web servers use the filename
extension of the last path segment to determine the media type of the
response. Likewise, prepackaged applications often have highly
structured URIs that can only be changed in limited ways (often, just
the hostname and port on which they are deployed).
Nottingham Best Current Practice [Page 2]RFC 7320 URI Design Ownership July 2014
Because the owner of the URI (as defined in [webarch]
Section 2.2.2.1) is choosing to use the server or the application,
this can be seen as reasonable delegation of authority. However,
when such conventions are mandated by a party other than the owner,
it can have several potentially detrimental effects:
o Collisions - As more ad hoc conventions for URI structure become
standardized, it becomes more likely that there will be collisions
between them (especially considering that servers, applications,
and individual deployments will have their own conventions).
o Dilution - When the information added to a URI is ephemeral, this
dilutes its utility by reducing its stability (see [webarch]
Section 3.5.1), and can cause several alternate forms of the URI
to exist (see [webarch] Section 2.3.1).
o Rigidity - Fixed URI syntax often interferes with desired
deployment patterns. For example, if an authority wishes to offer
several applications on a single hostname, it becomes difficult to
impossible to do if their URIs do not allow the required
flexibility.
o Operational Difficulty - Supporting some URI conventions can be
difficult in some implementations. For example, specifying that a
particular query parameter be used with "HTTP" URIs precludes the
use of Web servers that serve the response from a filesystem.
Likewise, an application that fixes a base path for its operation
(e.g., "/v1") makes it impossible to deploy other applications
with the same prefix on the same host.
o Client Assumptions - When conventions are standardized, some
clients will inevitably assume that the standards are in use when
those conventions are seen. This can lead to interoperability
problems; for example, if a specification documents that the "sig"
URI query parameter indicates that its payload is a cryptographic
signature for the URI, it can lead to undesirable behavior.
Publishing a standard that constrains an existing URI structure in
ways that aren't explicitly allowed by [RFC3986] (usually, by
updating the URI scheme definition) is inappropriate, because the
structure of a URI needs to be firmly under the control of its owner,
and the IETF (as well as other organizations) should not usurp it.
This document explains some best current practices for establishing
URI structures, conventions, and formats in standards. It also
offers strategies for specifications to avoid violating these
guidelines in Section 3.
Nottingham Best Current Practice [Page 3]RFC 7320 URI Design Ownership July 2014
1.1. Intended Audience
This document's requirements target the authors of specifications
that constrain the syntax or structure of URIs or parts of them. Two
classes of such specifications are called out specifically:
o Protocol Extensions ("extensions") - specifications that offer new
capabilities that could apply to any identifier, or to a large
subset of possible identifiers; e.g., a new signature mechanism
for 'http' URIs, or metadata for any URI.
o Applications Using URIs ("applications") - specifications that use
URIs to meet specific needs; e.g., an HTTP interface to particular
information on a host.
Requirements that target the generic class "Specifications" apply to
all specifications, including both those enumerated above and others.
Note that this specification ought not be interpreted as preventing
the allocation of control of URIs by parties that legitimately own
them, or have delegated that ownership; for example, a specification
might legitimately define the semantics of a URI on IANA's Web site
as part of the establishment of a registry.
There may be existing IETF specifications that already deviate from
the guidance in this document. In these cases, it is up to the
relevant communities (i.e., those of the URI scheme as well as that
which produced the specification in question) to determine an
appropriate outcome; e.g., updating the scheme definition, or
changing the specification.
1.2. 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 [RFC2119].
2. Best Current Practices for Standardizing Structured URIs
This section updates [RFC3986] by setting limitations on how other
specifications may define structure and semantics within URIs. Best
practices differ depending on the URI component, as described below.
Nottingham Best Current Practice [Page 4]RFC 7320 URI Design Ownership July 2014
2.1. URI Schemes
Applications and extensions MAY 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
SHOULD NOT preclude the use of other URI schemes in the future,
unless they are clearly only usable with the nominated schemes.
A specification that defines substructure within a specific URI
scheme MUST do so in the defining document for that URI scheme. A
specification that defines substructure for URI schemes overall MUST
do so by modifying [BCP115] (an exceptional circumstance).
2.2. URI Authorities
Scheme definitions define the presence, format and semantics of an
authority component in URIs; all other specifications MUST NOT
constrain, or define the structure or the semantics for URI
authorities, unless they update the scheme registration itself.
For example, an extension or application ought not say that the "foo"
prefix in "foo_app.example.com" is meaningful or triggers special
handling in URIs.
However, applications MAY nominate or constrain the port they use,
when applicable. For example, BarApp could run over port nnnn
(provided that it is properly registered).
2.3. URI Paths
Scheme definitions define the presence, format, and semantics of a
path component in URIs; all other specifications MUST NOT constrain,
or define the structure or the semantics for any path component.
The only exception to this requirement is registered "well-known"
URIs, as specified by [RFC5785]. See that document for a description
of the applicability of that mechanism.
For example, an application ought not specify a fixed URI path
"/myapp", since this usurps the host's control of that space.
Specifying a fixed path relative to another (e.g., {whatever}/myapp)
is also bad practice (even if "whatever" is discovered as suggested
in Section 3); while doing so might prevent collisions, it does not
avoid the potential for operational difficulties (for example, an
implementation that prefers to use query processing instead, because
of implementation constraints).
Nottingham Best Current Practice [Page 5]RFC 7320 URI Design Ownership July 2014
2.4. URI Queries
The presence, format and semantics of the query component of URIs is
dependent upon many factors, and MAY be constrained by a scheme
definition. Often, they are determined by the implementation of a
resource itself.
Applications MUST NOT directly specify the syntax of queries, as this
can cause operational difficulties for deployments that do not
support a particular form of a query. For example, a site may wish
to support an application using "static" files that do not support
query parameters.
Extensions MUST NOT constrain the format or semantics of queries.
For example, an extension that indicates that all query parameters
with the name "sig" indicate a cryptographic signature would collide
with potentially preexisting query parameters on sites and lead
clients to assume that any matching query parameter is a signature.
HTML [W3C.REC-html401-19991224] constrains the syntax of query
strings used in form submission. New form languages SHOULD NOT
emulate it, but instead allow creation of a broader variety of URIs
(e.g., by allowing the form to create new path components, and so
forth).
Note that "well-known" URIs (see [RFC5785]) MAY constrain their own
query syntax, since these name spaces are effectively delegated to
the registering party.
2.5. URI Fragment Identifiers
Media type definitions (as per [RFC6838]) SHOULD specify the fragment
identifier syntax(es) to be used with them; other specifications MUST
NOT define structure within the fragment identifier, unless they are
explicitly defining one for reuse by media type definitions.
For example, an application that defines common fragment identifiers
across media types not controlled by it would engender
interoperability problems with handlers for those media types
(because the new, non-standard syntax is not expected).
Nottingham Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 7320 URI Design Ownership July 2014
3. Alternatives to Specifying Structure in URIs
Given the issues described in Section 1, the most successful strategy
for applications and extensions that wish to use URIs is to use them
in the fashion they were designed: as links that are exchanged as
part of the protocol, rather than statically specified syntax.
Several existing specifications can aid in this.
[RFC5988] specifies relation types for Web links. By providing a
framework for linking on the Web, where every link has a relation
type, context and target, it allows applications to define a link's
semantics and connectivity.
[RFC6570] provides a standard syntax for URI Templates that can be
used to dynamically insert application-specific variables into a URI
to enable such applications while avoiding impinging upon URI owners'
control of them.
[RFC5785] allows specific paths to be 'reserved' for standard use on
URI schemes that opt into that mechanism ('http' and 'https' by
default). Note, however, that this is not a general "escape valve"
for applications that need structured URIs; see that specification
for more information.
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").
4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new protocol artifacts with security
considerations. It prohibits some practices that might lead to
vulnerabilities; for example, if a security-sensitive mechanism is
introduced by assuming that a URI path component or query string has
a particular meaning, false positives might be encountered (due to
sites that already use the chosen string). See also [RFC6943].
Nottingham Best Current Practice [Page 7]RFC 7320 URI Design Ownership July 2014
5. References
5.1. 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.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC
6838, January 2013.
[webarch] Jacobs, I. and N. Walsh, "Architecture of the World Wide
Web, Volume One", December 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215>.
5.2. Informative References
[BCP115] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", RFC 4395,
BCP 115, February 2006.
[RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785, April
2010.
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.
[RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, March 2012.
[RFC6943] Thaler, D., "Issues in Identifier Comparison for Security
Purposes", RFC 6943, May 2013.
[W3C.REC-html401-19991224]
Raggett, D., Hors, A., and I. Jacobs, "HTML 4.01
Specification", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
REC-html401-19991224, December 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>.
Nottingham Best Current Practice [Page 8]RFC 7320 URI Design Ownership July 2014
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Thanks to David Booth, Dave Crocker, Tim Bray, Anne van Kesteren,
Martin Thomson, Erik Wilde, Dave Thaler, and Barry Leiba for their
suggestions and feedback.
Author's Address
Mark Nottingham
EMail: mnot@mnot.net
URI: http://www.mnot.net/
Nottingham Best Current Practice [Page 9]
