HTTP Working Group Koen Holtman, TUE
Internet-Draft Andrew Mutz, Hewlett-Packard
Expires: January 28, 1998 July 28, 1997
Feature Tag Registration Procedures
draft-ietf-http-feature-reg-02.txt
STATUS OF THIS MEMO
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of
six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use
Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other
than as "work in progress".
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please
check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the
Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za
(Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific
Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US
West Coast).
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send
comments to the HTTP working group at
<http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>. Discussions of the working
group are archived at
<URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/>. General
discussions about HTTP and the applications which use HTTP
should take place on the <www-talk@w3.org> mailing list.
A HTML version of this document can be found at
<URL:http://gewis.win.tue.nl/~koen/conneg/>.
ABSTRACT
Recent Internet applications, such as the World Wide Web, tie
together a great diversity in data formats, client and server
platforms, and communities. This has created a need for various
kinds of negotiation mechanisms, which tailor the data which is
exchanged, or the exchange process, to the capabilities and
preferences of the parties involved.
Extensible negotiation mechanisms need a vocabulary to identify
various things which can be negotiated on. To promote
interoperability, a registration process is needed to ensure that
that this vocabulary, which can be shared between negotiation
mechanisms, is developed in an orderly, well-specified, and public
manner.
This document defines registration procedures which use the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as a central registry
for this vocabulary, which is the vocabulary of feature tags.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction
2 Basic concepts and definitions
2.1 Areas of negotiation and feature tags
2.2 Complexity of negotiation
2.3 The result in an area of negotiation
2.4 Feature tag syntax
3 Feature tag registration
3.1 Registration trees
3.1.1 IETF tree
3.1.2 Global tree
3.1.3 Local or specialized tree
3.1.4 Special `x.' tree
3.1.5 Additional registration trees
3.2 Registration requirements
3.2.1 Functionality requirement
3.2.2 Naming requirements
3.2.3 Specification requirements
3.2.4 Interchange recommendations
3.2.5 Security requirements
3.2.6 Publication requirements
3.3 Registration procedure
3.3.1 Present the feature tag to the community for review
3.3.2 IESG approval
3.3.3 IANA registration
3.3.4 Delayed publication
3.4 Comments on feature tag registrations
3.5 Location of registered feature tag list
3.6 IANA procedures for registering feature tags
3.7 Change control
3.8 Registration template
4 Security considerations
5 Acknowledgments
6 References
7 Authors' addresses
Appendix A: IANA and RFC editor to-do list
1 Introduction
Recent Internet applications, such as the World Wide Web, tie
together a great diversity in data formats, client and server
platforms, and communities. This has created a need for various
kinds of negotiation mechanisms, which tailor the data which is
exchanged, or the exchange process itself, to the capabilities and
preferences of the parties involved.
Extensible negotiation mechanisms need a vocabulary to identify
various things which can be negotiated on. To promote
interoperability, a registration process is needed to ensure that
that this vocabulary, which can be shared between negotiation
mechanisms, is developed in an orderly, well-specified, and public
manner.
This document defines registration procedures which use the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as a central registry
for this vocabulary, which is the vocabulary of feature tags.
2 Basic concepts and definitions
2.1 Areas of negotiation and feature tags
Something which can be negotiated on is called an `area of
negotiation' in this document. Examples of areas of negotiation
are:
* the MIME media type of the data which is transmitted
* the language of the text document which is transmitted
* the color depth of the screen on which something is to be
displayed
* whether the recipient supports the `floating 5 dimensional
tables' feature
* the fonts which are available to the recipient
* whether a Web user prefers speed over graphical detail
* whether the recipient is capable of displaying graphical
content
* whether the user prefers a blue background with purple dots over
a green background with pictures of small furry animals, except
on Fridays.
A feature tag identifies a single area of negotiation.
It is expected that the majority of feature tags will identify new
areas of negotiation, in which the object of negotiation is to
decide on the presence or use of some new feature in a software
product. This explains the name `feature tag'.
It is recognized that there is continuous growth in the number of
areas in which some form of negotiation is desirable. To keep up
with this growth, extensible negotiation mechanisms are needed,
which refer to the feature tag vocabulary to identify new areas of
negotiation, rather than relying on hard-coded knowledge about a
few areas.
To avoid the duplication of work, and to promote the interoperable
naming of areas of negotiation across protocols and applications,
the feature tag namespace is not bound to a particular protocol or
negotiation mechanism. Also, there is no prior restriction on the
areas of negotiation which may be identified by a feature tag,
other than that it must be conceivable to negotiate in these areas
in the context of some Internet application.
2.2 Complexity of negotiation
Negotiation processes can often be complex. Two frequent sources
of complexity are:
1. An area of negotiation may be inherently complex. For
example, negotiating on the use of a particular media type is
inherently more complex than negotiating on the presence of a
single feature, because there are more possible outcomes.
2. There may be complex of interdependencies between the choices
in different areas of negotiation. For example, if the
following versions of a document are available on a Web server:
* text/html, English
* text/plain, French
* audio/x-wav, German
then the content negotiation mechanism cannot treat the areas
of `MIME media type negotiation' and `language negotiation' as
separate.
It is recognized that extensible negotiation mechanisms will often
differ in the type and amount of complexity they can handle. Thus,
though negotiation mechanisms share the feature tag namespace, it
will not be the case that every tag is usable in every negotiation
mechanism, or that every negotiation mechanism will be able to
handle all possible interdependencies.
2.3 The result in an area of negotiation
During negotiation, negotiation mechanisms will often need to
transmit (canonical representations of) the possible results in
various areas of negotiation over the wire. Also, at the end of a
negotiation process, the mechanism may need to return (a
canonical representation of) the result to the application which
invoked it.
In many areas of negotiation, there will be a natural, canonical
representation of the result. For example, in the area
* whether the recipient supports the `floating 5 dimensional
tables' feature
the canonical representation of the result is a boolean value (yes,
the feature is supported, or no, the feature is not supported). In
the area
* the MIME media type of the data which is transmitted
the canonical representation of the result will be a MIME media
type identifier like text/html or application/postscript. In some
areas of negotiation, the result could be a compound value (e.g. a
coordinate in a 3D space).
To promote interoperability, the registration entry of a feature
tag can include a definition of the canonical representations of
the possible results in the corresponding area of negotiation.
2.4 Feature tag syntax
A feature tag is a string consisting of one or more of the
following US-ASCII characters: uppercase letters, lowercase
letters, digits, the dot (".") and the dash ("-"). Feature tags
are case-insensitive.
3 Feature tag registration
Registration of a new feature tag starts with the construction of a
registration proposal. Registration may occur in several different
registration trees, which have different requirements as discussed
below. In general, the new registration proposal is circulated and
reviewed in a fashion appropriate to the tree involved. The
feature tag is then registered if the proposal is acceptable. The
following sections describe the requirements and procedures used
for each of the different registration trees.
3.1 Registration trees
The following subsections define registration "trees",
distinguished by the use of faceted names (e.g., names of the form
"tree.feature_name").
3.1.1 IETF tree
The IETF tree is intended for feature tags of general interest to
the Internet Community. Registration in the IETF tree requires
approval by the IESG and publication of the feature tag
specification as some form of RFC.
Feature tags in the IETF tree normally have names that are not
explicitly faceted, i.e., do not contain period (".", full stop)
characters.
The "owner" of a feature tag in the IETF tree is assumed to be the
IETF itself. Modification or alteration of the specification
requires the same level of processing (e.g. standards track)
required for the initial registration.
3.1.2 Global tree
The global tree is intended for feature tags of general interest to
the Internet Community. Unlike registration in the IETF tree,
registration in the global tree does not require approval by the
IESG. A registration may be placed in the global tree by anyone
who has the need to allow for feature negotiation on a particular
capability or preference.
Typically, if the creator of an Internet service or product
introduces something new to the Internet Community, and if it is
meaningful to do negotiation on it, the vendor can register a
feature tag in the global tree.
The owner of "global" tags and associated specifications is the
person or entity making the registration, or one to whom
responsibility has been transferred as described below.
Tags in the global tree will be distinguished by the leading facet
"g.". That may be followed, at the discretion of the registration,
by either a designation of an area of negotiation, (e.g.,
"g.blinktags") or by an IANA-approved designation of the producer's
name which is then followed by a designation of an area of
negotiation (e.g., g.bigcompany.obscurefeature).
While public exposure and review of feature tags to be registered
in the global tree is not required, using the ietf-feature-tags
list for review is strongly encouraged to improve the quality of
those specifications. Registrations in the global tree may be
submitted directly to the IANA.
3.1.3 Local or specialized tree
The local tree is intended for feature tags identifying areas
of negotiation which are relevant in a localized, specialized,
restricted, or experimental context.
The owner of "local" tags and associated specifications is the
person or entity making the registration, or one to whom
responsibility has been transferred as described below.
Tags in the local tree will be distinguished by the leading facet
"l.". While public exposure and review of feature tags to be
registered in the local tree is not required, using the
ietf-feature-tags list for review is strongly encouraged to improve
the quality of those specifications. Registrations in the local
tree may be submitted directly to the IANA.
3.1.4 Special `x.' tree
Feature tags with "x." as the first facet are reserved for use in
experimental contexts. These tags are unregistered, experimental,
and should be used only with the active agreement of the parties
exchanging them.
However, with the simplified registration procedures described
above for vendor and personal trees, it should rarely, if ever, be
necessary to use unregistered experimental tags, and as such use of
these tags is discouraged.
3.1.5 Additional registration trees
From time to time and as required by the community, the IANA may,
with the advice and consent of the IESG, create new top-level
registration trees. It is explicitly assumed that these trees may
be created for external registration and management by well-known
permanent bodies, such as scientific societies for media types
specific to the sciences they cover. In general, the quality of
review of specifications for one of these additional registration
trees is expected to be equivalent to that which IETF would give to
registrations in its own tree. Establishment of these new trees
will be announced through RFC publication approved by the IESG.
3.2 Registration requirements
Feature tag registration proposals are all expected to conform to
various requirements laid out in the following sections. Note that
requirement specifics sometimes vary depending on the registration
tree, again as detailed in the following sections.
3.2.1 Functionality requirement
A feature tag must function as an actual identifier of an area of
negotiation, and it must be conceivable to negotiate in this area
in the context of some Internet application.
This requirement applies regardless of the registration tree
involved.
3.2.2 Naming requirements
All feature tag names must be unique, and must conform to the
syntax in section 2.4.
This requirement applies regardless of the registration tree
involved.
The IANA may reject tag names which are obviously bogus or
misleading. Note however that other than in the IETF tree, the
acceptance of a feature tag does not imply certification that the
tag is adequately named.
3.2.3 Specification requirements
If a feature tag is registered in the IETF tree, a precise and
openly available specification of the indicated area of negotiation
is required, and must at a minimum be referenced by, if it isn't
actually included in, the feature tag registration proposal itself.
For the global and local trees, an openly available description of
the area is minimally required.
Regardless of the tree, the specification of a feature tag must
state whether the choice in the indicated area is a simple yes/no
choice, or if it is a choice for a single value among multiple
values.
If the choice in the indicated area is among multiple values, and
it is possible to define canonical representations for the
different possible result values, and the tag is registered in the
IETF tree, a precise and openly available specification of the
canonical format, and the exact meaning of the values is required,
and must at a minimum be referenced by, if it isn't actually
included in, the feature tag registration proposal itself. For any
canonical format which is defined, it must be possible to map this
format onto octet strings.
If the registration is motivated by the creation of a new feature
in a product, it is specifically permitted to name the product
involved, and the product version number for which the feature was
or will be first implemented.
The registration of feature tags referencing patented technology is
specifically permitted. However the restrictions set forth in RFC
1602 on the use of patented technology in standards-track protocols
must be respected when the specification of a feature tag is part
of a standards-track protocol.
3.2.4 Interchange recommendations
Feature tags should, whenever possible, interoperate across as many
systems, applications, and negotiation mechanisms as possible.
However, some feature tags will by nature be bound to specific
systems, and feature tag may indicate areas of negotiation in which
the choice is made among types of values which can only be handled
by highly specialized negotiation mechanisms.
Universal interoperability of feature tags is not required, but
known interoperability issues should be identified whenever
possible. Publication of a feature tag does not require an
exhaustive review of interoperability, and the interoperability
considerations section is subject to continuing evaluation.
These recommendations apply regardless of the registration tree
involved.
3.2.5 Security requirements
An analysis of security issues is required for all feature tags
registered in the IETF tree. (This is in accordance with the basic
requirements for all IETF protocols.) A similar analysis for
feature tags registered in the global or local trees is encouraged
but not required. All descriptions of security issues must be as
accurate as possible regardless of registration tree. In
particular, a statement that there are "no security issues
associated with the indicated feature tag" must not be confused
with "the security issues associates with this feature tag have not
been assessed".
There is absolutely no requirement that systems which negotiate
using the feature tags registered in any tree be secure or
completely free from risks. Nevertheless, all known security risks
must be identified in the registration of a feature tag, again
regardless of registration tree.
The security considerations section of all registrations is subject
to continuing evaluation and modification, and in particular may be
extended by use of the "comments on feature tags" mechanism
described in subsequent sections.
3.2.6 Publication requirements
Proposals for feature tags registered in the IETF tree must be
published as RFCs. RFC publication of global and local feature tag
proposals is not required. In all cases the IANA will retain
copies of all feature tag proposals and "publish" them as part of
the feature tag registration tree itself.
Other than in the IETF tree, the registration of a feature tag does
not imply endorsement, approval, or recommendation by the IANA or
the IETF or even certification that the specification is adequate.
It is neither possible nor necessary for the IANA to conduct a
comprehensive review of feature tag registrations. Nevertheless,
the IANA has the authority to identify obviously incompetent
material and exclude it.
3.3 Registration procedure
The following procedure has been implemented by the IANA for review
and approval of new feature tags. This is not a formal standards
process, but rather an administrative procedure intended to allow
community comment and sanity checking without excessive time delay.
For registration in the IETF tree, the normal IETF processes should
be followed, treating posting of an internet-draft and announcement
on the ietf-types list (as described in the next subsection) as a
first step. For registrations in the global or local trees, the
initial review step described below may be omitted and the tag
registered directly by submitting the template and an explanation
to the IANA (at iana@isi.edu). However, authors of global or local
feature tag specifications are encouraged to seek community review
and comment whenever that is feasible.
3.3.1 Present the feature tag to the community for review
Send a proposed feature tag registration to the
"ietf-feature-tags@iana.org" mailing list for a two week review
period. This mailing list has been established for the purpose of
reviewing proposed feature tags. Proposed feature tags are not
formally registered and must not be used; the "x." prefix can be
used until registration is complete.
The intent of the public posting is to solicit comments and
feedback on the choice of tag name, the clarity of the tag
specification, and a review of any interoperability or security
considerations. The submitter may submit a revised registration
proposal, or withdraw the registration proposal completely, at any
time.
3.3.2 IESG approval
Feature tags registered in the IETF tree must be submitted to
the IESG for approval.
3.3.3 IANA registration
Provided that the proposed tag meets the requirements for feature
tags and has obtained whatever approval is necessary, the
author may submit the registration request to the IANA, which
will register the feature tag and make the feature tag
registration available to the community.
3.3.4 Delayed publication
By default, feature tag registration proposals are published by the
IANA immediately after registration of the tag.
In some situations, a vendor may not wish that a specification of a
tag for a planned new feature is published before the date at which
the software implementing this feature is released to the Internet
Community. Therefore, when submitting a feature tag registration
proposal for a planned feature, a vendor may request a publication
delay of up to two months after registration of the tag by the
IANA. After registration, IANA will delay its publication of the
registration proposal for at least the duration of the requested
period.
Immediately after receiving a notification of registration from the
IANA, the vendor may release software which recognizes the tag to
the Internet Community, and make public the tag specification
though his own channels.
3.4 Comments on feature tag registrations
Comments on registered feature tags may be submitted by members of
the community to the IANA. These comments will be passed on to the
"owner" of the feature tag if possible. Submitters of comments may
request that their comment be attached to the feature tag
registration itself, and if the IANA approves of this the comment
will be made accessible in conjunction with the tag registration
itself.
3.5 Location of registered feature tag list
Feature tag registrations will be posted in the anonymous FTP
directory "ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/feature-
tags/" and all registered feature tags will be listed in the
periodically issued "Assigned Numbers" RFC [currently STD 2,
RFC-1700]. The feature tag description and other supporting
material may also be published as an Informational RFC by sending
it to "rfc-editor@isi.edu" (please follow the instructions to RFC
authors [RFC-1543]).
3.6 IANA procedures for registering feature tags
The IANA will only register feature tags in the IETF tree in
response to a communication from the IESG stating that a given
registration has been approved.
Global and local tags will be registered by the IANA automatically
and without any formal review as long as the following minimal
conditions are met:
(1) A feature tag must function as an actual identifier of an area
of negotiation.
(2) All feature tag names must be unique, and must conform to the
syntax in section 2.4.
(3) An openly available description of the area of negotiation is
minimally required. The specification of a feature tag must
state whether the choice in the indicated area is a simple
yes/no choice, or if it is a choice among multiple values.
If the choice is among multiple values, and a canonical
format for these values is defined, it must be possible to
map this format onto octet strings.
(4) Any security considerations given must not be obviously
bogus. (It is neither possible nor necessary for the
IANA to conduct a comprehensive security review of
feature tag registrations. Nevertheless, the IANA has
the authority to identify obviously incompetent material
and exclude it.)
3.7 Change control
Once a feature tag has been published by the IANA, the owner may
request a change to its definition. The descriptions of the
different registration trees above designate the "owners" of each
type of registration. The change request follows the following
procedure:
(1) Publish the revised template on the ietf-feature-tags list.
(2) Leave at least two weeks for comments.
(3) Publish using the IANA after formal review if required.
Changes should be requested only when there are serious omissions
or errors in the published specification. When review is required,
a change request may be denied if it renders a use of tags that was
valid under the previous definition invalid under the new
definition.
The owner of a feature tag may pass responsibility for the feature
tag to another person or agency by informing the IANA and the
ietf-feature-tags list; this can be done without discussion or
review.
The IESG may reassign responsibility for a feature tag. The most
common case of this will be to enable changes to be made to tags
where the author of the registration has died, moved out of contact
or is otherwise unable to make changes that are important to the
community.
Feature tag registrations may not be deleted; feature tags which
are no longer believed appropriate for use can be declared OBSOLETE
by a change to their "intended use" field; such feature tags will
be clearly marked in the lists published by the IANA.
3.8 Registration template
To: ietf-feature-tags@iana.org (Feature tags mailing list)
(or directly to iana@iana.org)
Subject: Registration of feature tag XXXX
| Instructions are preceded by `|'. Some fields are optional.
Feature tag name:
Summary of the area of negotiation indicated by this feature tag:
| Include a short (no longer than 4 lines) description or summary
| Examples:
| `Negotiation on whether to use the xyzzy feature of ...'
| `Negotiation on the MIME media type of the data which
| is transmitted for ...'
| `Negotiation on whether to use colors in displaying ...'
| `Negotiation on the number of colors to use in displaying ...'
Number of alternative results in this area of negotiation:
[ ] 1. Two alternatives, which can be labeled with `yes' and `no'
[ ] 2. More than two alternatives, or two alternatives with no
natural `yes/no' labeling
For case 1: nature of the `yes' and `no' alternatives:
[ ] 1a. A particular feature is used/invoked/enabled, or not
[ ] 1b. Other
For case 2: How is a single alternative result naturally identified?
[ ] 2a. With a name, keyword, label, or tag (e.g. a language tag)
[ ] 2b. With an integer value
[ ] 2c. With a numeric value of a non-integer type (e.g. float)
[ ] 2d. Other
[ ] 2e. There is no simple way to identify a single result
(Only for case 1a) Description of the feature which is used,
invoked, or enabled if the result is `yes':
| Descriptions may also reference outside material.
(Only for case 1b) Description of the effect of the 'yes' result:
(Only for case 1b) Description of the effect of the 'no' result:
(Only for case 2) Detailed description of the area of negotiation,
and (in cases 2a-2d) of the format and meaning of the identifiers
for the alternative results:
| If the number of alternative results is small, the description
| could simply enumerate the identifiers of the different results
| and describe their meaning.
|
| The identifiers of the alternative results could also be
| described by referring to another IANA registry, for example
| the MIME media type registry.
Default negotiation result (if applicable to the intended
application domain):
The feature tag is intended for use in the applications, protocols,
services, or negotiation mechanisms: [optional]
| For applications, also specify the number of the first version
| which will use the tag, if applicable.
Examples of typical use: [optional]
Related standards or documents: [optional]
Considerations particular to use in individual applications,
protocols, services, or negotiation mechanisms: [optional]
Interoperability considerations: [optional]
Security considerations:
Additional information: [optional]
Keywords: [optional]
Related feature tags: [optional]
Related media types or data formats: [optional]
Related HTML markup tags: [optional]
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Intended usage:
| one of COMMON, LIMITED USE or OBSOLETE
Author/Change controller:
Requested IANA publication delay: [optional]
| A delay may only be requested for registration in global or
| local trees, with a maximum of two months.
Other information: [optional]
| Any other information that the author deems interesting may be
| added here.
4 Security considerations
When used, negotiation mechanisms usually reveal some information
about one party to other parties. This may raise privacy concerns,
and may allow a malicious party to make more educated guesses about
the presence of security holes in the other party.
5 Acknowledgments
The details of the registration procedure in this document were
directly adapted from [1]. Much of the text in section 3 was
directly copied from this source.
The idea of creating a vocabulary of areas of negotiation, which is
maintained in a central open registry, is due to discussions on
extensible negotiation mechanisms in the IETF HTTP working group.
The authors wish to thank Larry Masinter and Graham Klyne for
contributing to discussions about feature tag registration.
6 References
[1] N. Freed, J. Klensin, J. Postel, Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures. RFC
2048, BCP 13, Network Working Group, November 1996
7 Authors' addresses
Koen Holtman
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
Postbus 513
Kamer HG 6.57
5600 MB Eindhoven (The Netherlands)
Email: koen@win.tue.nl
Andrew H. Mutz
Hewlett-Packard Company
1501 Page Mill Road 3U-3
Palo Alto CA 94304, USA
Fax +1 415 857 4691
Email: mutz@hpl.hp.com
Appendix A: IANA and RFC editor to-do list
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: This appendix is intended to communicate
various editorial and procedural tasks the IANA and the RFC
Editor should undertake prior to publication of this document
as an RFC. This appendix should NOT appear in the actual RFC
version of this document!
This document refers to the feature tags mailing list
ietf-feature-tags@iana.org. This list does not exist at the
present time and needs to be created.
The ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/feature-tags/" area
does not exist at the present time and needs to be created.
Expires: January 28, 1998