Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 05 February 2010 12:37 UTC
Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACABF3A6EA3 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:37:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.960, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZ21XM4aynwp for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D7F4E3A6EDA for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:37:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Feb 2010 12:38:36 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp045) with SMTP; 05 Feb 2010 13:38:36 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX188uQ5xmzI8yfhYpyqnpqYwrb1Epwd8oweiDkURAf GodEdrtoCZ7r+Z
Message-ID: <4B6C1144.4090502@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:38:28 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
References: <20100119053002.5CD613A683B@core3.amsl.com> <E4FF7733-D744-4AC3-AB99-66A12868E4CE@mnot.net> <4B56E27D.800@gmx.de> <4B584E46.7000405@gmx.de> <2C94E45E-3373-4694-BFA3-FA7B595EAF65@mnot.net> <4B596450.7020001@gmx.de> <F1BF65AA-AE8F-435D-9097-AD629488E134@mnot.net> <4B62D875.102@gmx.de> <7B248F44-44D9-4054-84A2-E9C4C5C251E1@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <7B248F44-44D9-4054-84A2-E9C4C5C251E1@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.56000000000000005
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:37:49 -0000
Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 11:45 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> ... >>> If that's the case, you're saying that whether the anchor is allowed is really a property of the relation type, not the application, aren't you? ... >> First of all, I'd prefer to distinguish between (A) "must be processed" and (B) "may be processed, otherwise link must be rejected altogether". >> >> I see two purposes for the anchor parameter: >> >> 1) Making a statement about a subset of the context resource, by specifying a fragment identifier >> >> 2) Making a statement about a different resource than the context resource, such as >> >> 2a) because the context is anonymous (such as the response body for a 204, see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-07.html#rfc.section.A.1>), or >> >> 2b) because a reverse link is exposed (anchor as workaround for missing rev parameter) >> >> I'm still not sure why we would ever make special cases here, except for the known bugs in current implementations of the Link header where anchor is ignored (so mainly Mozilla/Opera for stylesheet links). Optimally, we just work with the vendors to get the bugs fixed. >> >> If that's not possible, allowing an opt-out per relation type might work, as long as behavior (B) would still be allowed. Is there any relation != "stylesheet" for which this would be relevant? > > > I think most of them. > > E.g., what happens when my weblog > http://www.mnot.net/blog/ > contains a link header > Link: </blog-publish>; rel="service"; anchor="http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/" > ? > After Sam visits my blog, should his browser (assuming it supports Atompub) use my site for editing next time he wants to post something? That's an excellent example. I do agree that - in general - we don't want <http://www.mnot.net/blog/> to be able to affect <http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/>. So the choices here are: a) Processing anchor, detecting the authority conflict, and ignoring the link, or b) ignoring anchor, and pretending we have <http://www.mnot.net/blog/> --service--> <http://www.mnot.net/blog/blog-publish> What I'm trying to say is that we never ever want b). So I'm fine with clients ignoring the link header altogether because it contains anchor, but simply ignoring the anchor parameter, but processing the rest seems to be a very bad idea. > Likewise, what happens after I put this link header in all of my responses? > Link: <http://www.yahoo.com/>; rel="self"; anchor="http://www.google.com/" > ? > > Or better yet: > Link: <http://www.mybank.com.au/mnot>; rel="payment"; anchor="http://www.amazon.com/" > > While it may be that browsers in general won't "remember" this information, that doesn't mean that we should specify things so that they're encouraged to handle these things, knowing full well that they won't. Opt-in seems much more sane that opt-out here, at least for different resources. Well, maybe we've been agreeing all the time, and just the spec text needs tuning. So again: a recipient MUST resolve the anchor parameter against the context IRI (*), producing a new context. It MAY ignore the link if the resulting context looks suspicious (maybe something like same-domain could be recommended here). Best regards, Julian (*) + handle the case where there's no context IRI
- Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-notting… Julian Reschke
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Jan Algermissen
- anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham… Julian Reschke
- rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-ht… Julian Reschke
- parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- editorial LC comments on draft-nottingham-http-li… Julian Reschke
- exposing sensitive information in URIs - LC comme… Julian Reschke
- Re: parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-notti… Julian Reschke
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Mike Burrows
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Subbu Allamaraju
- Re: parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-notti… Mike Burrows
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-notti… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Mark Nottingham
- Re: editorial LC comments on draft-nottingham-htt… Mark Nottingham
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-notti… Julian Reschke
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Subbu Allamaraju
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Jan Algermissen
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Mark Nottingham
- Re: exposing sensitive information in URIs - LC c… Mark Nottingham
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Subbu Allamaraju
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: editorial LC comments on draft-nottingham-htt… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Anne van Kesteren
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke