Re: Associating URI-based identities with HTTP requests

Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> Sun, 12 May 2013 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9A721F8E6E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2013 16:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oQfDAWbVBsQk for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2013 16:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642A021F8E59 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 12 May 2013 16:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UbfN2-000731-LY for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 12 May 2013 23:08:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 23:08:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UbfN2-000731-LY@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>) id 1UbfMd-0006z0-Oj for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 12 May 2013 23:07:35 +0000
Received: from [216.252.204.51] (helo=mail.digitalbazaar.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>) id 1UbfMc-0005of-HB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 12 May 2013 23:07:35 +0000
Received: from [192.168.100.5] by mail.digitalbazaar.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>) id 1UbfMF-0000gX-3h; Sun, 12 May 2013 19:07:12 -0400
Message-ID: <51902099.9080100@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 19:07:05 -0400
From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.4) Gecko/20120510 Icedove/10.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Auth WG <http-auth@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <518C07DD.2090307@digitalbazaar.com> <403D922E-86CF-4355-BBD2-A05F409C25F7@mnot.net> <518D3D0A.1010207@digitalbazaar.com> <CABP7RbdpBesOjAXThe3LA8JPLP36xM5CP1Msk_4p-JjuTyEjew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbdpBesOjAXThe3LA8JPLP36xM5CP1Msk_4p-JjuTyEjew@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: none client-ip=216.252.204.51; envelope-from=msporny@digitalbazaar.com; helo=mail.digitalbazaar.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-4.054, RDNS_NONE=1.274
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UbfMc-0005of-HB c757336cb3b302b5f5027dde31cf47b2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Associating URI-based identities with HTTP requests
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51902099.9080100@digitalbazaar.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17956
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 05/10/2013 07:42 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> Re: when to use a link header, the rule I follow is fairly basic :
> if the value consists of a uri that is optionally typed and
> potentially requires additional metadata,  and if you think the link
> relation will be generally useful in other scenarios (e.g.  Atom
> links,  json documents, html tags), then use a link relation.

The link could be typed, or it could just be a plain 'ol URI. If the
link is typed, it could have multiple different types (since we're
dealing with Linked Data). The purpose of the link is to express an
identity, but the same link can be used for describing ownership, access
control, etc.

> If, on the other hand it is something that only requires a uri with
> no additional metadata, and you don't care about non-http use cases,
> use a new header.

Yeah, I think we're in this scenario.

> Based on an initial review of your note, a new header is likely 
> appropriate.

Thanks - your basic rule was very helpful... would be good if we could
put it in an RFC somewhere. :)

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch
http://blog.meritora.com/launch/