Internet Engineering Task Force H. VandeSompel
Internet-Draft Los Alamos National Laboratory
Intended status: Informational M. Nelson
Expires: December 5, 2011 Old Dominion University
R. Sanderson
Los Alamos National Laboratory
June 3, 2011
HTTP framework for time-based access to resource states -- Memento
draft-vandesompel-memento-02
Abstract
The HTTP-based Memento framework bridges the present and past Web by
interlinking current resources with resources that encapsulate their
past. It facilitates obtaining representations of prior states of a
resource, available from archival resources in Web archives or
version resources in content management systems, by leveraging the
resource's URI and a preferred datetime. To this end, the framework
introduces datetime negotiation (a variation on content negotiation),
and new Relation Types for the HTTP Link header aimed at interlinking
resources with their archival/version resources. It also introduces
various discovery mechanisms that further support bridging the
present and past Web.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. The Memento Framework, Datetime Negotiation component:
HTTP headers, HTTP Link Relation Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. HTTP Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1. Accept-Datetime, Memento-Datetime . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1.1. Values for Accept-Datetime . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.1.2. Values for Memento-Datetime . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.2. Vary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.3. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.4. Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Link Header Relation Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1. Memento Framework Relation Types . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1.1. Relation Type "original" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1.2. Relation Type "timegate" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1.3. Relation Type "timemap" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1.4. Relation Type "memento" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2. Other Relation Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. The Memento Framework, Datetime Negotiation component:
HTTP Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1. Interactions with an Original Resource . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.1. Step 1: User Agent Requests an Original Resource . . . 16
3.1.2. Step 2: Server Responds to a Request for an
Original Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.2.1. Original Resource is an Appropriate Memento . . . 18
3.1.2.2. Server Exists and Original Resource Used to
Exist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.2.3. Missing or Inadequate "timegate" Link in
Original Server's Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2. Interactions with a TimeGate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2.1. Step 3: User Agent Negotiates with a TimeGate . . . . 20
3.2.2. Step 4: Server Responds to Negotiation with
TimeGate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
3.2.2.1. Successful Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.2.2. Accept-Datetime with Interval Indicator
Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.2.3. Multiple Matching Mementos . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.2.4. TimeGate Redirects to another TimeGate . . . . . . 25
3.2.2.5. Accept-Datetime and other Accept Headers
Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.2.6. Accept-Datetime Unparseable . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.2.7. Accept-Datetime Not Provided . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.2.8. TimeGate Does Not Exist . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.2.9. HTTP Methods other than HEAD/GET . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.3. Recognizing a TimeGate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.3. Interactions with a Memento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.3.1. Step 5: User Agent Requests a Memento . . . . . . . . 29
3.3.2. Step 6: Server Responds to a Request for a Memento . . 29
3.3.2.1. Memento Does not Exist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.2.2. Mementos Without a TimeGate . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.3. Recognizing a Memento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4. Interactions with a TimeMap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4.1. User Agent Requests a TimeMap . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4.2. Server Responds to a Request for a TimeMap . . . . . . 33
4. The Memento Framework, Discovery Component . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1. Discovering TimeGates Via Robots Exclusion Protocol . . . 35
4.2. Discovering Mementos via Robots Exclusion Protocol . . . . 37
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Appendix B: A Sample, Successful Memento
Request/Response cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology
This specification uses the terms "resource", "request", "response",
"entity", "entity-body", "entity-header", "content negotiation",
"client", "user agent", "server" as described in RFC 2616 [RFC2616],
and it uses the terms "representation" and "resource state" as
described in W3C.REC-aww-20041215 [W3C.REC-aww-20041215].
In addition, the following terms specific to the Memento framework
are introduced:
o Original Resource: An Original Resource is a resource that exists
or used to exist, and for which access to one of its prior states
is desired.
o Memento: A Memento for an Original Resource is a resource that
encapsulates a prior state of the Original Resource. A Memento
for an Original Resource as it existed at time Tj is a resource
that encapsulates the state that the Original Resource had at time
Tj.
o TimeGate: A TimeGate for an Original Resource is a resource that
is capable of negotiation to allow selective, datetime-based,
access to prior states of the Original Resource.
o TimeMap: A TimeMap for an Original Resource is a resource from
which a list of URIs of Mementos of the Original Resource is
available.
1.2. Purpose
The state of an Original Resource may change over time.
Dereferencing its URI at any specific moment in time during its
existence yields a representation of its then current state.
Dereferencing its URI at any time past its existence no longer yields
a meaningful representation, if any. Still, in both cases, resources
may exist that encapsulate prior states of the Original Resource.
Each such resource, named a Memento, has its own URI that, when
dereferenced, returns a representation of a prior state of the
Original Resource. Mementos may, for example, exist in Web archives,
Content Management Systems, or Revision Control Systems.
Examples are:
Mementos for Original Resource http://www.ietf.org/ :
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
o http://web.archive.org/web/19970107171109/http://www.ietf.org/
o http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080906200044/http://
www.ietf.org/
Mementos for Original Resource
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol :
o http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol&oldid=366806574
o http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol&oldid=33912
o http://web.archive.org/web/20071011153017/http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol
Mementos for Original Resource http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ :
o http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-webarch-20041105/
o http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webarch-20020830/
o http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100304163140/http://
www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
In the abstract, Memento introduces a mechanism to access versions of
Web resources that:
o Is fully distributed in the sense that resource versions may
reside on multiple hosts, and that any such host is likely only
aware of the versions it holds;
o Uses the global notion of datetime as a resource version indicator
and access key;
o Leverages the following primitives of W3C.REC-aww-20041215
[W3C.REC-aww-20041215]: resource, resource state, representation,
content negotiation, and link.
The core components of Memento's mechanism to access resource
versions are:
1. The abstract notion of the state of a resource identified by
URI-R as it existed at some time Tj. Note the relationship with the
ability to identify a the state of a resource at some datetime Tj by
means of a URI as intended by the proposed Dated URI scheme
I-D.masinter-dated-uri [I-D.masinter-dated-uri].
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
2. A bridge from the present to the past, consisting of:
o An appropriately typed link from a resource identified by URI-R to
an associated TimeGate identified by URI-G, which is aware of (at
least part of the) version history of the resource identified by
URI-R;
o The ability to content negotiate in the datetime dimension with
the TimeGate identified by URI-G, as a means to obtain a
representation of the state that the resource identified by URI-R
had at some datetime Tj.
3. A bridge from the past to the present, consisting of an
appropriately typed link from a resource identified by URI-M, which
encapsulates the state a resource identified by URI-R had at some
datetime Tj, to the resource identified by URI-R.
Section 2 and Section 3 of this document are concerned with
specifying an instantiation of these abstractions for resources that
are identified by HTTP(S) URIs, whereas Section 4 details approaches
to discover TimeGates, TimeMaps, and Mementos on the HTTP(S) Web by
other means than typed links.
1.3. 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].
When needed for extra clarity, the following conventions are used:
o URI-R is used to denote the URI of an Original Resource.
o URI-G is used to denote the URI of a TimeGate.
o URI-M is used to denote the URI of a Memento.
o URI-T is used to denote the URI of a TimeMap.
o When scenarios are described that involve multiple Mementos,
URI-M0 denotes the URI of the first Memento known to the
responding server, URI-Mn denotes the URI of the most recent known
Memento, URI-Mj denotes the URI of the selected Memento, URI-Mi
denotes the URI of the Memento that is temporally previous to the
selected Memento, and URI-Mk denotes the URI of the Memento that
is temporally after the selected Memento. The respective
datetimes for these Mementos are T0, Tn, Tj, Ti, and Tk; it holds
that T0 <= Ti <= Tj <= Tk <= Tn.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
2. The Memento Framework, Datetime Negotiation component: HTTP headers,
HTTP Link Relation Types
The Memento framework is concerned with Original Resources,
TimeGates, Mementos, and TimeMaps that are identified by HTTP or
HTTPS URIs. Details are only provided for resources identified by
HTTP URIs but apply similarly to those with HTTPS URIs.
2.1. HTTP Headers
The Memento framework operates at the level of HTTP request and
response headers. It introduces two new headers ("Accept-Datetime",
"Memento-Datetime"), introduces new values for two existing headers
("Vary", "Link"), and uses an existing header ("Location") without
modification. All these headers are described below. Other HTTP
headers are present or absent in Memento response/request cycles as
specified by RFC 2616 [RFC2616].
2.1.1. Accept-Datetime, Memento-Datetime
The "Accept-Datetime" request header is used by a user agent to
indicate it wants to retrieve a representation of a Memento that
encapsulates a past state of an Original Resource. To that end, the
"Accept-Datetime" header is conveyed in an HTTP GET/HEAD request
issued against a TimeGate for an Original Resource, and its value
indicates the datetime of the desired past state of the Original
Resource. The "Accept-Datetime" request header has no defined
meaning for HTTP methods other than HEAD and GET.
The "Memento-Datetime" response header is used by a server to
indicate that the response contains a representation of a Memento,
and its value expresses the datetime of the state of an Original
Resource that is encapsulated in that Memento. The URI of that
Original Resource is provided in the response, as the Target IRI (see
RFC5988 [RFC5988]) of a link provided in the HTTP "Link" header that
has a Relation Type of "original" (see Section 2.2).
The presence of a "Memento-Datetime" header and associated value for
a given resource constitutes a promise that the resource is stable
and that its state will no longer change. This means that, in terms
of the Ontology for Relating Generic and Specific Information
Resources (see W3C.gen-ont-20090420 [W3C.gen-ont-20090420]), a
Memento is a FixedResource.
As a consequence, "Memento-Datetime" headers associated with a
Memento MUST be "sticky" in the following ways:
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
o The server that originally assigns the "Memento-Datetime" header
and value MUST retain that header in all responses to HTTP HEAD/
GET requests (with or without "Accept-Datetime" header) that occur
against the Memento after the time of the original assignment of
the header, and it MUST NOT change its associated value.
o Applications that mirror Mementos at a different URI MUST NOT
change the "Memento-Datetime" header and value of those Mementos
unless mirroring involves a meaningful state change. This allows,
for example, duplicating a Web archive at a new location while
preserving the value of the "Memento-Datetime" header of the
archived resources. In this example, the "Last-Modified" header
will be updated to reflect the time of mirroring at the new URI,
whereas the value for "Memento-Datetime" will be sticky.
2.1.1.1. Values for Accept-Datetime
Values for the "Accept-Datetime" header consist of a MANDATORY
datetime expressed according to the RFC 1123 [RFC1123] format, which
is formalized by the rfc1123-date construction rule of the BNF in
Figure 1, and an OPTIONAL interval indicator expressed according to
the iso8601-interval rule of the BNF in Figure 1. The datetime MUST
be represented in Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).
Examples of "Accept-Datetime" request headers with and without an
interval indicator:
Accept-Datetime: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:35:00 GMT
Accept-Datetime: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:35:00 GMT; -P3DT5H;+P2DT6H
The user agent uses the MANDATORY datetime value to convey its
preferred datetime for a Memento; it uses the OPTIONAL interval
indicator to convey it is interested in retrieving Mementos that
reside within this interval around the preferred datetime, and not
interested in Mementos that reside outside of it. Not using an
interval indicator is equivalent to expressing an infinite interval
around the preferred datetime.
The interval mechanism can be regarded as an implementation of the
functionality intended by the q-value approach that is used in
regular content negotiation. The q-value approach is not supported
for Memento's datetime negotiation because it is well-suited for
negotiation over a discrete space of mostly predictable values, not
for negotiation over a continuum of unpredictable datetime values.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
accept-dt-value = rfc1123-date *SP [ iso8601-interval ]
rfc1123-date = wkday "," SP date1 SP time SP "GMT"
date1 = 2DIGIT SP month SP 4DIGIT
; day month year (e.g., 20 Mar 1957)
time = 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT
; 00:00:00 - 23:59:59 (e.g., 14:33:22)
wkday = "Mon" | "Tue" | "Wed" | "Thu" | "Fri" | "Sat" |
"Sun"
month = "Jan" | "Feb" | "Mar" | "Apr" | "May" | "Jun" |
"Jul" | "Aug" | "Sep" | "Oct" | "Nov" | "Dec"
iso8601-interval = ";" *SP "-" duration *SP ";" *SP "+" duration
duration = "P" ( dur-date | dur-week )
dur-date = ( dur-day | dur-month | dur-year ) [ dur-time ]
dur-year = 1*DIGIT "Y" [ dur-month ] [ dur-day ]
dur-month = 1*DIGIT "M" [ dur-day ]
dur-day = 1*DIGIT "D"
dur-time = "T" ( dur-hour | dur-minute | dur-second )
dur-hour = 1*DIGIT "H" [ dur-minute ] [ dur-second ]
dur-minute = 1*DIGIT "M" [ dur-second ]
dur-second = 1*DIGIT "S"
dur-week = 1*DIGIT "W"
Figure 1: BNF for the datetime format
2.1.1.2. Values for Memento-Datetime
Values for the "Memento-Datetime" headers MUST be datetimes expressed
according to the rfc1123-date construction rule of the BNF in
Figure 1; they MUST be represented in Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).
An example "Memento-Datetime" response header:
Memento-Datetime: Wed, 30 May 2007 18:47:52 GMT
2.1.2. Vary
The "Vary" response header is used in responses to indicate the
dimensions in which content negotiation was successfully applied.
This header is used in the Memento framework to indicate both whether
datetime negotiation was applied or is supported by the responding
server.
For example, this use of the "Vary" header indicates that datetime is
the only dimension in which negotiation was applied:
Vary: negotiate, accept-datetime
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
The use of the "Vary" header in this example shows that both datetime
negotiation, and media type content negotiation were applied:
Vary: negotiate, accept-datetime, accept
2.1.3. Location
The "Location" header is used as defined in RFC 2616 [RFC2616].
Examples are given in Section 3 below.
2.1.4. Link
The "Link" response header is specified in RFC5988 [RFC5988]. The
Memento framework introduces new Relation Types to convey typed links
among Original Resources, TimeGates, Mementos, and TimeMaps. Already
existing Relation Types, among others, aimed at supporting navigation
among a series of ordered resources may also be used in the Memento
framework. This is detailed in Link Header Relation Types
(Section 2.2), below.
2.2. Link Header Relation Types
The "Link" header specified in RFC5988 [RFC5988] is semantically
equivalent to the "" element in HTML, as well as the "atom:
link" feed-level element in Atom RFC 4287 [RFC4287]. By default, the
origin of a link expressed by an entry in a "Link" header (named
Context IRI in RFC5988 [RFC5988]) is the IRI of the requested
resource. This default can be overwritten using the "anchor"
attribute in the entry.
2.2.1. Memento Framework Relation Types
The Relation Types used in the Memento framework are listed in the
remainder of this section, and their use is summarized in the below
table. Appendix A shows a Memento request/response cycle that uses
all the Relation Types that are introduced here.
+----------+-------------------+---------------------+--------------+
| Relation | Original Resource | TimeGate | Memento |
| Type | | | |
+----------+-------------------+---------------------+--------------+
| original | NA, except see | REQUIRED, 1 | REQUIRED, 1 |
| | Section 3.1.2.1 | | |
| timegate | RECOMMENDED, 0 or | REQUIRED, 1 in case | RECOMMENDED, |
| | more | of Section 3.2.2.4 | 0 or more |
| timemap | NA | RECOMMENDED, 0 or | RECOMMENDED, |
| | | more | 0 or more |
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
| memento | NA, except see | REQUIRED, 1 or more | REQUIRED, 1 |
| | Section 3.1.2.1 | | or more |
+----------+-------------------+---------------------+--------------+
Table 1: The use of Relation Types
2.2.1.1. Relation Type "original"
"original" -- A "Link" header entry with a Relation Type of
"original" is used to point from a TimeGate or a Memento to their
associated Original Resource. In both cases, an entry with the
"original" Relation Type MUST occur exactly once in a "Link" header.
Details for the entry are as follows:
o Context IRI: URI-G, URI-M
o Target IRI: URI-R
o Relation Type: "original"
o Use: REQUIRED
o Cardinality: 1
2.2.1.2. Relation Type "timegate"
"timegate" -- A "Link" header entry with a Relation Type of
"timegate" is used to point both from an Original Resource or a
Memento to a TimeGate for the Original Resource. In both cases, the
use of an entry with the "timegate" Relation Type is RECOMMENDED.
Since more than one TimeGate can exist for any Original Resource,
multiple entries with a "timegate" Relation Type MAY occur, each with
a distinct Target IRI. Since a TimeGate has no mime type, the "type"
attribute MUST NOT be used on Links with a "timegate" Relation Type.
Details for the entry are as follows:
o Context IRI: URI-R or URI-Mj
o Target IRI: URI-G
o Relation Type: "timegate"
o Use: RECOMMENDED
o Cardinality: 0 or more
In the special case (see Section 3.2.2.4) where a TimeGate redirects
to another TimeGate for the Original Resource, a "Link" header entry
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
with a Relation Type of "timegate" MUST be used to point from the
former to the latter.
2.2.1.3. Relation Type "timemap"
"timemap" -- A "Link" header entry with a Relation Type of "timemap"
is used to point from both a TimeGate or a Memento to a TimeMap
resource from which a list of Mementos known to the responding server
is available. Use of an entry with the "timemap" Relation Type is
RECOMMENDED, and, since multiple serializations of a TimeMap are
possible, multiple entries with a "timemap" Relation Type MAY occur,
each with a distinct Target IRI, and each with a MANDATORY "type"
attribute to convey the mime type of the TimeMap serialization.
Details for the entry are as follows:
o Context IRI: URI-G or URI-Mi
o Target IRI: URI-T
o Relation Type: "timemap"
o Target Attribute: "type"
o Use: RECOMMENDED
o Cardinality: 0 or more
Further details about TimeMap serializations are provided in
Section 3.4.
2.2.1.4. Relation Type "memento"
"memento" -- A "Link" header entry with a Relation Type of "memento"
is used to point from both a TimeGate and a Memento to various
Mementos for an Original Resource. This link MUST include a
"datetime" attribute with a value that matches the "Memento-Datetime"
of the Memento that is the target of the link; that is, the value of
the "Memento-Datetime" header that is returned when the URI of the
linked Memento is dereferenced. In addition, the link MAY include an
"embargo" attribute to convey the datetime until which the Memento
will remain inaccessible. The value for both the "datetime" and
"embargo" attributes MUST be a datetime expressed according to the
rfc1123-date construction rule of the BNF in Figure 1 and it MUST be
represented in Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). This link MAY also include
a "license" attribute to associate a license with the Memento; the
value for the "license" attribute SHOULD be a URI. The link SHOULD
also include a "type" attribute to convey the mime type of the
Memento that is the target of the link. Use of entries with the
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
"memento" Relation Type is REQUIRED and it MUST be as follows:
For all responses to HTTP HEAD/GET requests issued against a TimeGate
or a Memento in which a Memento is selected or served by the
responding server:
o One "memento" link MUST be included that has as Target IRI the URI
of the Memento that was selected or served;
o One "memento" link MUST be included that has as Target IRI the URI
of the temporally first Memento known to the responding server;
o One "memento" link MUST be included that has as Target IRI the URI
of the temporally most recent Memento known to the responding
server.
o One "memento" link SHOULD be included that has as Target IRI the
URI of the Memento that is previous to the selected Memento in the
temporal series of all Mementos (sorted by ascending "Memento-
Datetime" values) known to the server;
o One "memento" link SHOULD be included that has as Target IRI the
URI the Memento that is next to the selected Memento in the
temporal series of all Mementos (sorted by ascending "Memento-
Datetime" values) known to the server.
o Other "memento" links MAY only be included if both the
aforementioned previous and next links are provided. Each of
these OPTIONAL "memento" links MUST have as Target IRI the URI of
a Memento other than the ones listed above.
For all responses to HTTP HEAD/GET requests issued against an
existing TimeGate or Memento in which no Memento is selected or
served by the responding server:
o One "memento" link MUST be included that has as Target IRI the URI
of the temporally first Memento known to the responding server;
o One "memento" link MUST be included that has as Target IRI the URI
of the temporally most recent Memento known to the responding
server.
o Other "memento" links MAY be included, and each of these OPTIONAL
links MUST have as Target IRI the URI of a Memento other than the
two listed above.
Note that the Target IRI of some of these links may coincide. For
example, if the selected Memento actually is the first Memento known
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
to the server, only three distinct "memento" links may result. The
value for the "datetime" attribute of these links would be the
datetimes of the first (equal to selected), next, and most recent
Memento known to the responding server.
The summary is as follows:
o Context IRI: URI-G, URI-Mj
o Target IRI: URI-M
o Relation Type: "memento"
o Target Attributes: "datetime", "embargo", "license"
o Use: REQUIRED
o Cardinality: 1 or more
2.2.2. Other Relation Types
Web Linking RFC5988 [RFC5988] allows for the inclusion of links with
different Relation Types but the same Target IRI, and hence the
Relation Types introduced by the Memento framework MAY be combined
with others as deemed necessary. As the "memento" Relation Type
focuses on conveying the datetime of a linked Memento, Relation Types
that allow navigating among the temporally ordered series of Mementos
known to a server are of particular importance. With this regard,
the Relation Types listed in the below table SHOULD be considered for
combination with the "memento" Relation Type. A distinction is made
between responding servers that can be categorized as systems that
are the focus of RFC5829 [RFC5829] (such as version control systems)
and others that can not (such as Web archives). Note that, in terms
of RFC5829 [RFC5829], the last Memento (URI-Mn) is the version prior
to the latest (i.e. current) version.
+-----------------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| Memento Type | RFC5988 system | non RFC5988 |
| | | system |
+-----------------------------+---------------------+---------------+
| First Memento (URI-M0) | first | first |
| Last Memento (URI-Mn) | last | last |
| Selected Memento (URI-Mj) | NA | NA |
| Memento prior to selected | predecessor-version | prev |
| Memento (URI-Mi) | | |
| Memento next to selected | successor-version | next |
| Memento (URI-Mk) | | |
+-----------------------------+---------------------+---------------+
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
Table 2: The use of Relation Types
3. The Memento Framework, Datetime Negotiation component: HTTP
Interactions
This section describes the HTTP interactions of the Memento framework
for a variety of scenarios. First, Figure 2 provides a schematic
overview of a successful request/response chain that involves
datetime negotiation. Dashed lines depict HTTP transactions between
user agent and server. Appendix A shows these HTTP interactions in
detail for the case where the Original Resource resides on one
server, whereas both the TimeGate and the Mementos reside on another.
Scenarios also exist in which all these resources are on the same
server (for example, Content Management Systems) or on different
servers (for example, an aggregator of TimeGates). Note that, in
Step 2 and Step 6, the HTTP status code of the response is shown as
"200 OK", but a series of "206 Partial Content" responses could be
substituted without loss of generality.
1: UA --- HTTP GET/HEAD; Accept-Datetime: Tj ---------------> URI-R
2: UA <-- HTTP 200; Link: URI-G ----------------------------- URI-R
3: UA --- HTTP GET/HEAD; Accept-Datetime: Tj ---------------> URI-G
4: UA <-- HTTP 302; Location: URI-Mj; Vary; Link:
URI-R,URI-T,URI-M0,URI-Mn,URI-Mi,URI-Mj,URI-Mk -------- URI-G
5: UA --- HTTP GET URI-Mj; Accept-Datetime: Tj -------------> URI-Mj
6: UA <-- HTTP 200; Memento-Datetime: Tj; Link:
URI-R,URI-T,URI-G,URI-M0,URI-Mn,URI-Mi,URI-Mj,URI-Mk -- URI-Mj
Figure 2: Typical Memento request/response chain
o Step 1: In order to determine what the URI is of a TimeGate for an
Original Resource, the user agent issues an HTTP HEAD/GET request
against the URI of the Original Resource (URI-R).
o Step 2: The entity-header of the response from URI-R includes an
HTTP "Link" header with a Relation Type of "timegate" pointing at
a TimeGate (URI-G) for the Original Resource.
o Step 3: The user agent starts the datetime negotiation process
with the TimeGate by issuing an HTTP GET request against its URI-G
thereby including an "Accept-Datetime" HTTP header with a value of
the datetime of the desired prior state of the Original Resource.
o Step 4: The entity-header of the response from URI-G includes a
"Location" header pointing at the URI of a Memento (URI-Mj) for
the Original Resource. In addition, the entity-header contains an
HTTP "Link" header with a Relation Type of "original" pointing at
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
the Original Resource, and an HTTP "Link" header with a Relation
Type of "timemap" pointing at a TimeMap (URI-T). Also HTTP Links
pointing at various Mementos are provided using the "memento"
Relation Type, as specified in Section 2.2.1.4.
o Step 5: The user agent issues an HTTP GET request against the
URI-Mj of a Memento, obtained in Step 4.
o Step 6: The entity-header of the response from URI-Mj includes a
"Memento-Datetime" HTTP header with a value of the datetime of the
Memento. It also contains an HTTP "Link" header with a Relation
Type of "original" pointing at the Original Resource, with a
Relation Type of "timegate" pointing at a TimeGate associated with
the Original Resource, and with a Relation Type of "timemap"
pointing at a TimeMap. The state that is expressed by the
representation provided in the response is the state the Original
Resource had at the datetime expressed in the "Memento-Datetime"
header. This response also includes HTTP Links with a "memento"
Relation Type pointing at various Mementos, as specified in
Section 2.2.1.4.
The following sections detail the specifics of HTTP interactions with
Original Resources, TimeGates, Mementos, and TimeMaps under various
conditions.
3.1. Interactions with an Original Resource
This section details HTTP GET/HEAD requests targeted at an Original
Resource (URI-R).
3.1.1. Step 1: User Agent Requests an Original Resource
In order to try and discover a TimeGate for the Original Resource,
the user agent SHOULD issue an HTTP HEAD or GET request against the
Original Resource's URI. Use of the "Accept-Datetime" header in the
HTTP HEAD/GET request is OPTIONAL.
Figure 3 shows the use of HTTP HEAD indicating the user agent is not
interested in retrieving a representation of the Original Resource,
but only in determining a TimeGate for it. It also shows the use of
the "Accept-Datetime" header anticipating that the user agent will
set it for the entire duration of a Memento request/response cycle.
HEAD / HTTP/1.1
Host: a.example.org
Accept-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:35:00 GMT
Connection: close
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
Figure 3: User Agent Requests Original Resource
3.1.2. Step 2: Server Responds to a Request for an Original Resource
The response of the Original Resource's server to the user agent's
HTTP HEAD/GET request of Step 1, for the case where the Original
Resource exists, is as it would be in a regular HTTP request/response
cycle, but in addition MAY include a HTTP "Link" header with a
Relation Type of "timegate" that conveys the URI of the Original
Resource's TimeGate as the Target IRI of the Link. Multiple HTTP
Links with a relation type of "timegate" MAY be provided to
accommodate situations in which the server is aware of multiple
TimeGates for an Original Resource. The actual Target IRI provided
in the "timegate" Link may depend on several factors including the
datetime provided in the "Accept-Datetime" header, and the IP address
of the user agent. A response for this case is illustrated in
Figure 4.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:02:12 GMT
Server: Apache
Link:
; rel="timegate"
Content-Length: 255
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Figure 4: Server of Original Resource Responds
Servers that actively maintain archives of their resources SHOULD
include the "timegate" HTTP "Link" header because this link is an
important way for a user agent to discover TimeGates for those
resources. This includes servers such as Content Management Systems,
Control Version Systems, and Web servers with associated
transactional archives Fitch [Fitch]. Servers that do not actively
maintain archives of their resources MAY include the "timegate" HTTP
"Link" header as a way to convey a preference for TimeGates for their
resources exposed by a third party archive. This includes servers
that rely on Web archives such as the Internet Archive to archive
their resources.
The server of the Original Resource MUST treat requests with and
without an "Accept-Datetime" header in the same way:
o The response MUST either always or never include a HTTP "Link"
header with an entry that has a "timegate" Relation Type and the
URI of a TimeGate as the Target IRI.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
o The entity-body of the response MUST be the same, for user agent
requests with or without a "Accept-Datetime" header.
3.1.2.1. Original Resource is an Appropriate Memento
The "Memento-Datetime" header MAY be applied to an Original Resource
directly to indicate it is a FixedResource (see W3C.gen-ont-20090420
[W3C.gen-ont-20090420]), meaning that the state of the Original
Resource has not changed since the datetime conveyed in the "Memento-
Datetime" header, and as a promise that it will not change anymore
beyond it. This may occur, for example, for certain stable media
resources on news sites. In case the user agent's preferred datetime
is equal to or more recent than the datetime conveyed as the value of
"Memento-Datetime" in the server's response in Step 2, the user agent
SHOULD conclude it has located an appropriate Memento, and it SHOULD
NOT continue to Step 3.
Figure 5 illustrates such a response to a request for the resource
with URI http://a.example.org/pic that has been stable since it was
created. Note the use of both the "memento" and "original" Relation
Types for links that have as Target IRI the URI of the Original
Resource.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:02:12 GMT
Server: Apache
Link:
; rel="original memento"
; datetime="Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:00:00 GMT"
Memento-Datetime: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:00:00 GMT
Content-Length: 255
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8909-1
Figure 5: Response to a request for an Original Resource that was
created as a FixedResource
Cases may also exist in which a resource becomes stable at a certain
point in its existence, but changed previously. In such cases, the
Original Resource may know about a TimeGate that is aware of its
prior history and hence MAY also include a link with a "timegate"
Relation Type. This is illustrated in Figure 6, where the "memento"
and "original" Relation Types are used as in Figure 5, and the
existence of a TimeGate to negotiate for Mementos with datetimes
prior to Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:00:00 GMT is indicated.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:02:12 GMT
Server: Apache
Link:
; rel="original memento"
; datetime="Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:00:00 GMT",
; rel="timegate"
Memento-Datetime: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:00:00 GMT
Content-Length: 255
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8909-1
Figure 6: Response to a request for an Original Resource that became
a FixedResource
3.1.2.2. Server Exists and Original Resource Used to Exist
Servers SHOULD also provide a "timegate" HTTP "Link" header in
responses to requests for an Original Resource that the server knows
used to exist, but no longer does. This allows the use of an
Original Resource's URI as an entry point to representations of its
prior states even if the resource itself no longer exists. A
server's response for this case is illustrated in Figure 7.
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:02:12 GMT
Server: Apache
Link:
; rel="timegate"
Content-Length: 255
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8909-1
Figure 7: Response to a request for an Original Resource that not
longer exists
In case the server is not aware of the prior existence of the
Original Resource, its response SHOULD NOT include a "timegate" HTTP
Link. Section 3.1.2.3 details what the user agent's behavior should
be in such cases.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
3.1.2.3. Missing or Inadequate "timegate" Link in Original Server's
Response
A user agent MAY ignore the TimeGate returned in Step 2. However,
when engaging in a Memento request/response cycle, a user agent
SHOULD NOT proceed immediately to Step 3 by using a TimeGate of its
own preference but rather SHOULD always start the cycle by issuing an
HTTP GET/HEAD against the Original Resource (Step 1, Figure 3) as it
is an important way to learn about dedicated or preferred TimeGates
for the Original Resource. Also, cases exist in which the response
in Step 2 will not provide a "timegate" link, including:
o The Original Resource's server does not support the Memento
framework;
o The Original Resource no longer exists and the responding server
is not aware of its prior existence;
o The server that hosted the Original Resource no longer exists;
In all these cases, the user agent SHOULD attempt to determine an
appropriate TimeGate for the Original Resource, either automatically
or interactively supported by the user. The discovery mechanisms
described in Section 4 can support the user agent with this regard.
3.2. Interactions with a TimeGate
This section details HTTP GET/HEAD requests targeted at a TimeGate
(URI-G).
3.2.1. Step 3: User Agent Negotiates with a TimeGate
In order to negotiate with a TimeGate, the user agent MUST issue a
HTTP HEAD or GET against its URI, its request MUST include the
"Accept-Datetime" header to express its datetime preference, and the
use of that header MUST be as described in Section 2.1.1.1. The URI
of the TimeGate may have been provided as the Target IRI of a
"timegate" HTTP "Link" header in the response from the Original
Resource (Step 2, Figure 4), or may have resulted from another
discovery mechanism (see Section 4) or user interaction. Such a
request is illustrated in Figure 8.
GET /timegate/http://a.example.org HTTP/1.1
Host: arxiv.example.net
Accept-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:35:00 GMT
Connection: close
Figure 8: User agent negotiates with TimeGate
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
3.2.2. Step 4: Server Responds to Negotiation with TimeGate
In order to respond to a datetime negotiation request (Step 3,
Section 3.2.1), the server uses an internal algorithm to select the
Memento that best meets the user agent's datetime preference, and
redirects to it. The exact nature of the selection algorithm is at
the server's discretion but SHOULD be consistent. A variety of
approaches can be used including selecting the Memento that is
nearest in time (either past or future) or nearest in the past
relative to the requested datetime. Special cases for datetime
negotiation with a TimeGate exist, and they are addressed in
Section 3.2.2.7 through Section 3.2.2.8.
3.2.2.1. Successful Scenario
In cases where the TimeGate exists, and the datetime provided in the
user agent's "Accept-Datetime" header can be parsed and does not
contain an interval indicator, the server selects a Memento based on
the user agent's datetime preference. The response MUST have a "302
Found" HTTP status code, and the "Location" header MUST be used to
convey the URI of the selected Memento. The "Vary" header MUST be
provided and it MUST include the "negotiate" and "accept-datetime"
values to indicate that datetime negotiation has taken place. The
"Link" header MUST be provided and contain links with Relation Types
subject to the considerations described in Section 2.2. Such a
response is illustrated in Figure 9.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:06:50 GMT
Server: Apache
Vary: negotiate, accept-datetime
Location:
http://arxiv.example.net/web/20010911203610/http://a.example.org
Link: ; rel="original",
; rel="timemap"; type="application/link-format",
; rel="first memento"; datetime="Tue, 15 Sep 2000 11:28:26 GMT",
; rel="last memento"; datetime="Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:34:33 GMT",
; rel="memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:36:10 GMT",
; rel="prev memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:30:51 GMT",
; rel="next memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:47:33 GMT"
Content-Length: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Connection: close
Figure 9: Server of TimeGate responds
Note that if a user agent's "Accept-Datetime" header does not convey
an interval indicator, and conveys a datetime that is either earlier
than the datetime of the first Memento or later than the datetime of
the most recent Memento known to the server, the server's response is
as just described yet entails the selection of the first or most
recent Memento, respectively. This approach is consistent with
interpreting the abscence of an interval indicator in the user
agent's request as an indication of an infinite interval around its
preferred datetime (see Section 2.1.1.1).
This is illustrated in Figure 10 that shows the response from a
TimeGate exposed by a MediaWiki server to a request by a user agent
that has an "Accept-Datetime: Mon, 31 May 1999 00:00:00 GMT" header.
Note that a link is provided with a "successor-version" Relation Type
but not with a "predecessor-version" Relation Type.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Server: Apache
Content-Length: 709
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:09:40 GMT
Location:
http://a.example.org/w/index.php?title=Clock&oldid=1493688
Vary: negotiate, accept-datetime
Link: ; rel="original",
; rel="timemap",
; rel="first memento"; datetime="Sun, 28 Sep 2003 01:42:00 GMT",
; rel="successor-version memento"
; datetime="Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:28:00 GMT",
; rel="last memento"; datetime="Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:55:00 GMT"
Connection: close
Figure 10: A TimeGate's response to a request for a Memento with a
datetime earlier than that of the first Memento
3.2.2.2. Accept-Datetime with Interval Indicator Provided
In case, in Step 3, the datetime provided in the user agent's
"Accept-Datetime" header can be parsed, and contains an interval
indicator, the response depends on whether the server is or is not
aware of Mementos with datetimes within the expressed interval. If
the server is aware of such Mementos, the server's response MUST be
as in Section 3.2.2.1.
However, if the responding server is not aware of any Mementos with
"Memento-Datetime" values within the expressed interval, the server's
response MUST have a "406 Not Acceptable" HTTP status code. The use
of the "Vary" header MUST be as described in Section 3.2.2.1. The
use of the "Link" header MUST be as described in Section 2.2.
Specifically, the use of links with a "memento" Relation Type MUST
follow the rules for the case where no Memento is selected by the
responding server (Section 2.2.1.4) and it is RECOMMENDED that the
server provides "memento" links pointing at Mementos that have
"Memento-Datetime" values in the temporal vicinity of the interval
expressed by the client.
As a result, a user agent that allows for the provision of an
interval indicator in requests SHOULD anticipate possible "406 Not
Acceptable" responses and provide the capability for their
resolution. For example, the client can leverage the "memento" links
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
returned by the responding server, can extend its preferred interval,
or can remove it from further requests.
Figure 11 shows a user agent using an "Accept-Datetime" header
conveying an interval of interest starting 5 hours before and ending
6 hours after Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:35:00 GMT. Figure 12 shows the
"406 Not Acceptable" response from the TimeGate that has links to the
first and last Memento, as well to two Mementos, one on either
temoporal side of the user agent's preferred interval.
GET /timegate/http://a.example.org HTTP/1.1
Host: arxiv.example.net
Accept-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:35:00 GMT; -PT5H;+PT6H
Connection: close
Figure 11: User agent expresses interval of interest in Accept-
Datetime header
HTTP/1.1 406 Not Acceptable
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:06:50 GMT
Server: Apache
Vary: negotiate, accept-datetime
Link: ; rel="original",
; rel="timemap";type="application/link-format",
; rel="memento first"; datetime="Tue, 15 Sep 2000 11:28:26 GMT",
; rel="memento last"; datetime="Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:34:33 GMT",
; rel="memento"; datetime="Mon, 10 Sep 2001 08:22:00 GMT",
; rel="memento"; datetime="Wed, 12 Sep 2001 03:41:00 GMT"
Content-Length: 1732
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Figure 12: A TimeGate's response indicating it has no Mementos within
the interval of interest
3.2.2.3. Multiple Matching Mementos
Because the finest datetime granularity expressable using the RFC
1123 [RFC1123] format used in HTTP is seconds level, cases may occur
in which a TimeGate server is aware of multiple Mementos that meet
the user agent's datetime preference. This may occur in Content
Management Systems with very high update rates. The response in this
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
case MUST be handled as in Section 3.2.2.1, with the selection of one
of the matching Mementos.
As an example, Figure 13 shows a hypothetical response from a
TimeGate on a MediaWiki server to a request for a Memento for the
Original Resource http://a.example.org/w/Clock for which two Mementos
exist for the user agent's preferred datetime.
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Server: Apache
Content-Length: 705
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:09:40 GMT
Vary: negotiate, accept-datetime
Location:
http://a.example.org/w/index.php?title=Clock&oldid=322586071
Link: ; rel="original",
; rel="timemap";type="application/link-format",
; rel="first memento"; datetime="Sun, 28 Sep 2003 01:42:00 GMT",
; rel="last memento"; datetime="Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:55:00 GMT",
; rel="memento"; datetime="Sun, 31 May 2009 15:43:00 GMT",
; rel="memento successor-version"
; datetime="Sun, 31 May 2009 15:43:00 GMT"
; rel="memento predecessor-version"
; datetime="Sun, 31 May 2009 15:41:24 GMT"
Connection: close
Figure 13: A TimeGate's response to a request that has multiple
Mementos with a matching datetime
3.2.2.4. TimeGate Redirects to another TimeGate
Cases may exist in which a TimeGate's response entails a redirects to
another TimeGate, for example, because the responding TimeGate is
aware that the other TimeGate is able to more precisely respond to a
client's datetime preference. In such cases, the TimeGate's response
MUST have a "302 Found" HTTP status code, and the "Location" header
MUST be used to convey the URI of the other TimeGate. The "Vary"
header MUST be provided and it MUST include the "negotiate" and
"accept-datetime" values to indicate that, although datetime
negotiation has not taken place, the responding TimeGate is capable
of it. The "Link" header MUST be provided and contain links with
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
Relation Types subject to the considerations described in
Section 2.2. Specifically, the use of links with a "memento"
Relation Type MUST follow the rules for the case where no Memento is
selected by the responding server (Section 2.2.1.4). Also, a link
with a "timegate" Relation Type MUST be provided that has as Target
IRI the URI of the TimeGate to which the current TimeGate is
redirecting the client.
A response in which the client is redirected by TimeGate
http://arxiv.example.net/timegate/http://a.example.org to TimeGate
http://otherarxiv.example.com/timegate/http://a.example.org for the
Original Resource http://a.example.org is illustrated in Figure 14.
Note the URI of the latter TimeGate in both the "Location" and "Link"
header, in the latter case as the Target IRI of a "timegate" link.
Note also that the "memento" and "timemap" links in this response
reflect the knowledge of the responding TimeGate, not of the remote
TimeGate.
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:06:50 GMT
Server: Apache
Vary: negotiate, accept-datetime
Location:
http://otherarxiv.example.com/timegate/http://a.example.org
Link: ; rel="original",
; rel="timemap"; type="application/link-format",
; rel="first memento"; datetime="Tue, 15 Sep 2000 11:28:26 GMT",
; rel="last memento"; datetime="Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:34:33 GMT",
; rel="timegate"
Content-Length: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Connection: close
Figure 14: TimeGate redirects to another TimeGate
3.2.2.5. Accept-Datetime and other Accept Headers Provided
When interacting with a TimeGate, the regular content negotiation
dimensions (media type, character encoding, language, and
compression) remain available. It is the TimeGate server's
responsibility to honor (or not) such content negotiation, and in
doing so it MUST always first select a Memento that meets the user
agent's datetime preference, and then consider honoring regular
content negotiation for it. As a result of this approach, the
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
returned Memento will not necessarily meet the user agent's regular
content negotiation preferences. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that
the server provides HTTP Links with a "memento" Relation Type
pointing at Mementos that do meet the user agent's regular content
negotiation requests and that have a Memento-Datetime value in the
temporal vicinity of the user agent's preferred datetime value.
3.2.2.6. Accept-Datetime Unparseable
In case, in Step 3, a user agent conveys a value for the "Accept-
Datetime" request header that does not conform to the accept-dt-value
construction rule of the BNF in Figure 1, the TimeGate server's
response MUST have a "400 Bad Request" HTTP status code. With all
other respects, responses in this case MUST be handled as described
in Section 3.2.2.2.
3.2.2.7. Accept-Datetime Not Provided
In case, in Step 3, a user agent issues a request to a TimeGate and
fails to include an "Accept-Datetime" request header, the response
MUST be handled as in Section 3.2.2.1, with a selection of the most
recent Memento known to the responding server.
3.2.2.8. TimeGate Does Not Exist
Cases may occur in which a user agent issues a request against a
TimeGate that does not exist. This may, for example, occur when a
user agent uses internal knowledge to construct the URI of an
assumed, yet non-existent TimeGate. In these cases, the response
from the target server MUST have a "404 Not Found" HTTP status code,
and SHOULD include a "Vary" header that includes the "negotiate" and
"accept-datetime" values as an indication that, generally, the server
is capable of datetime negotiation. The response MUST NOT include a
"Link" header with any of the Relation Types introduced in
Section 2.2.1.
3.2.2.9. HTTP Methods other than HEAD/GET
In the above, the safe HTTP methods GET and HEAD are described for
TimeGates. TimeGates MAY support the safe HTTP methods OPTIONS and
TRACE in the way described in RFC 2616 [RFC2616]. Unsafe HTTP
methods (i.e. PUT, POST, DELETE) MUST NOT be supported by a
TimeGate. Such requests MUST yield a response with a "405 Method Not
Allowed" HTTP status code, and MUST include an "Allow" header to
convey that only the HEAD and GET (and OPTIONALLY the OPTIONS and
TRACE) methods are supported. In addition, the response MUST have a
"Vary" header that includes the "negotiate" and "accept-datetime"
values to indicate the TimeGate supports datetime negotiation.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
Figure 15 shows such a response.
HTTP/1.1 405 Method Not Allowed
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:02:12 GMT
Server: Apache
Vary: negotiate, accept-datetime
Allow: HEAD, GET
Content-Length: 255
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8909-1
Figure 15: Response from a TimeGate accessed with HTTP method other
than HEAD/GET
3.2.3. Recognizing a TimeGate
When a user agent issues a HTTP HEAD/GET request against a resource
of which it found the URI as the Target IRI of an entry in the "Link"
header with a "timegate" Relation Type, it SHOULD NOT assume that the
targeted resource effectively is a TimeGate and hence will behave as
described in Section 3.2.2.
A user agent MUST decide it has reached a TimeGate if the response to
a HTTP HEAD/GET request against the resource's URI contains a "Vary"
header that includes the "negotiate" and "accept-datetime" values.
If the response does not, the user agent MUST decide it has not
reached a TimeGate and proceed as follows:
o If the response contains a redirection, the user agent SHOULD
follow it. Note that even a chain of redirections is possible,
e.g. URI-R -> URI-1 -> URI-2 -> ... -> URI-G
o If the response does not contain a redirection, or if the
redirection (chain) does not lead to a TimeGate, the user agent
SHOULD attempt to determine an appropriate TimeGate for the
Original Resource, either automatically or interactively supported
by the user. The discovery mechanisms described in Section 4 can
support the user agent with this regard.
Resources that are not TimeGates (i.e. do not behave as described in
Section 3.2.2) MUST NOT use a "Vary" header that includes the
"accept-datetime" value.
3.3. Interactions with a Memento
This section details HTTP GET/HEAD requests targeted at a Memento
(URI-M).
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
3.3.1. Step 5: User Agent Requests a Memento
In Step 5, the user agent issues a HTTP GET request against the URI
of a Memento. The user agent MAY include an "Accept-Datetime" header
in this request, but the existence or absence of this header MUST NOT
affect the server's response. The URI of the Memento may have
resulted from a response in Step 4, or the user agent may simply have
happened upon it. Such a request is illustrated in Figure 16.
GET /web/20010911203610/http://a.example.org HTTP/1.1
Host: arxiv.example.net
Accept-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:35:00 GMT
Connection: close
Figure 16: User agent requests Memento
3.3.2. Step 6: Server Responds to a Request for a Memento
If the Memento requested by the user agent in Step 5 exists, the
server's response MUST have a "200 OK" HTTP status code (or "206
Partial Content", where appropriate), and it MUST include a "Memento-
Datetime" header with a value equal to the archival datetime of the
Memento, that is, the datetime of the state of the Original Resource
that is encapsulated in the Memento. The "Link" header MUST be
provided and contain links subject to the considerations described in
Section 2.2. The Target IRI and, when applicable, the datetime
values in the "Link" header associated with the "memento" Relation
Type SHOULD be the same as conveyed in Step 4, in case the TimeGate
and the selected Memento reside on the same server. However, they
MAY be different in case the TimeGate and the selected Memento reside
on different servers.
Figure 17 illustrates the server's response to the request issued
against a Memento in Step 5 (Figure 16).
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:09:40 GMT
Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1
Memento-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:36:10 GMT
Link: ; rel="original",
; rel="timemap"; type="application/link-format",
; rel="timegate",
; rel="first memento"; datetime="Tue, 15 Sep 2000 11:28:26 GMT",
; rel="last memento"; datetime="Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:34:33 GMT",
; rel="memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:36:10 GMT",
; rel="prev memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:30:51 GMT",
; rel="next memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:47:33 GMT"
Content-Length: 23364
Content-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8
Connection: close
Figure 17: Server of Memento responds
The server's response MUST include the "Memento-Datetime" header
regardless whether the user agent's request contained an "Accept-
Datetime" header or not. This is the way by which resources make
explicit that they are Mementos. Due to the sparseness of Mementos
in most archives, the value of the "Memento-Datetime" header returned
by a server may differ (significantly) from the value conveyed by the
user agent in "Accept-Datetime".
Although a Memento encapsulates a prior state of an Original
Resource, the entity-body returned in response to an HTTP GET request
issued against a Memento may very well not be byte-to-byte the same
as an entity-body that was previously returned by that Original
Resource. Various reasons exist why there are significant chances
these would be different yet do convey substantially the same
information. These include format migrations as part of a digital
preservation strategy, URI-rewriting as applied by some Web archives,
and the addition of banners as a means to brand Web archives.
3.3.2.1. Memento Does not Exist
Cases may occur in which a TimeGate's response (Step 4) points at a
Memento that actually does not exist, resulting in a user agent's
request (Step 5) for a non-existent Memento. In this case, the
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
server's response MUST have the expected "404 Not Found" HTTP Status
Code and it MUST NOT contain a "Memento-Datetime" header.
3.3.2.2. Mementos Without a TimeGate
Cases may occur in which a server that hosts Mementos does not expose
a TimeGate for those Mementos. This can, for example, be the case if
the server's Mementos result from taking a snapshot of the state of a
set of Original Resources from another server at the time this other
server is being retired. As a result, only a single Memento per
Original Resource is hosted, making the introduction of a TimeGate
unnecessary. But it may also be the case for servers that hosts
multiple Mementos for an Original Resource but consider exposing
TimeGates too expensive.
In cases of Mementos without associated TimeGates, responses to a
request for a Memento by a user agent MUST be as described in
Section 3.3.2 with the exception that it will not contain a HTTP Link
with a "timegate" Relation Type pointing at a TimeGate exposed by the
responding server. It MAY still contain such a Link pointing at a
TimeGate exposed elsewhere. Depending on whether one or more
Mementos are hosted for an Original Resource, the response may or may
not have a HTTP Link with a "timemap" Relation Type. However, the
response MUST still contain a "Memento-Datetime" response header with
a value that corresponds to archival datetime of the Memento.
Figure 18 illustrates the server's response to the request issued
against a Memento in Step 5 (Figure 16) for the case that Memento has
no associated TimeGate. In this example, it is also assumed there is
only one Memento for the Original Resource, and hence the Links with
Relation Types "memento", "first", "last" all point at the same -
responding - Memento.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:09:40 GMT
Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1
Memento-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:36:10 GMT
Link: ; rel="original",
; rel="first last memento"
; datetime="Tue, 15 Sep 2000 11:28:26 GMT"
Content-Length: 23364
Content-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8
Connection: close
Figure 18: Server of Memento without TimeGate responds
Note that a server issuing a response similar to that of Figure 18
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
does not imply that there is no server whatsoever that exposes a
TimeGate; it merely means that the responding server neither provides
nor is aware of the location of a TimeGate.
3.3.3. Recognizing a Memento
When following the redirection provided by a confirmed TimeGate (see
Section 3.2.3), a user agent SHOULD NOT assume that the targeted
resource effectively is a Memento and hence will behave as described
in Section 3.3.2.
A user agent MUST decide it has reached a Memento if the response to
a HTTP HEAD/GET request against the resource's URI contains a
"Memento-Datetime" header with a legitimate value. If the response
does not, the following applies:
o If the response contains a redirection, the user agent SHOULD
follow it. Even a chain of redirections is possible, e.g. URI-G
-> URI-X -> URI-Y -> ... -> URI-M.
o If the response by a confirmed TimeGate does not contain a
redirection, or if the redirection (chain) that started at a
confirmed TimeGate does not lead to a resource that provides a
"Memento-Datetime" header, the user agent MAY still conclude that
it has likely arrived at a Memento. That is because cases exist
in which Web archives and CMS are made compliant with the Memento
framework "by proxy". In these cases TimeGates will redirect to
Mementos in such systems, but the responses from these Mementos
will not (yet) include a "Memento-Datetime" header.
3.4. Interactions with a TimeMap
A TimeMap is introduced to support retrieving a comprehensive list of
all Mementos for a specific Original Resource, known to a responding
server. The entity-body of a response to an HTTP GET request issued
against a TimeMap's URI:
o MUST list the URI of the Original Resource that the response lists
Mementos for;
o MUST list the URI and datetime of each Memento for the Original
Resource known to the responding server;
o MUST list the URI of one or more TimeGates for the Original
Resource except when no TimeGate exists (see Section 3.3.2.2);
o SHOULD, for self-containment, list the URI of the TimeMap itself;
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
o MUST unambiguously type listed resources as being Original
Resource, TimeGate, Memento, or TimeMap.
The entity-body of a response from a TimeMap MAY be serialized in
various ways, but the link-value format serialization MUST be
supported. In this serialization, the entity-body MUST be formatted
in the same way as the value of a HTTP "Link" header, and hence MUST
comply to the "link-value" construction rule of "Section 5. The Link
Header Field" of RFC5988 [RFC5988], and the media type of the entity-
body MUST be "application/link-format" as introduced in I-D.ietf-
core-link-format [I-D.ietf-core-link-format]. All links conveyed in
this serialization MUST be interpreted as having the URI of the
Original Resource as their Context IRI. The URI of the Original
Resource is provided in the entity-body as the Target IRI of the link
with an "original" Relation Type.
3.4.1. User Agent Requests a TimeMap
In order to retrieve the link-value serialization of a TimeMap, a
user agent SHOULD use an "Accept" request header with a value set to
"application/link-format". This is shown in Figure 19.
GET /timemap/http://a.example.org HTTP/1.1
Host: arxiv.example.net
Accept: application/link-format;q=1.0
Connection: close
Figure 19: Request for a TimeMap
3.4.2. Server Responds to a Request for a TimeMap
If the TimeMap requested by the user agent exists, the server's
response MUST have a "200 OK" HTTP status code (or "206 Partial
Content", where appropriate). Note that a TimeMap is itself an
Original Resource for which Mementos may exist. For example, a
response from a TimeMap could provide a "timegate" Link to a TimeGate
via which prior TimeMap versions are available. In this case, the
use of the "Link" header is subject to all considerations described
in Section 2.2, with the TimeMap acting as the Original Resource.
However, in case a TimeMap wants to explicitly indicate in its
response headers for which Original Resource it is a TimeMap, it MUST
do so by including a HTTP "Link" header with the following
characteristics:
o The Context IRI for the HTTP Link is the URI of the Original
Resource;
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
o The Relation Type is "timemap";
o The Target IRI for the HTTP Link is the URI of the TimeMap.
Because the Context IRI of this HTTP Link is not the URI of the
TimeMap, as per RFC5988 [RFC5988], the default Context IRI must be
overwritten by using the "anchor" attribute with a value of the URI
of the Original Resource.
The response from the TimeMap to the request of Figure 19 is shown in
Figure 20. The response header shows the TimeMap explicitly
conveying the URI of the Original Resource for which it is a TimeMap;
for practical reasons the entity-body in the example has been
abbreviated. Notice also the use of the "license" and "embargo"
attributes introduced in Section 2.2.1.4 on the "memento" links in
the TimeMap.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:06:50 GMT
Server: Apache
Link:
; anchor="http://a.example.org"; rel="timemap"
; type="application/link-format"
Content-Length: 4883
Content-Type: application/link-format
Connection: close
;rel="original",
; rel="timemap";type="application/link-format",
; rel="timegate",
; rel="first memento";datetime="Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:02:59 GMT"
; license="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/",
; rel="last memento";datetime="Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:49:54 GMT"
; license="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/"
; embargo="Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 GMT",
; rel="memento";datetime="Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:17:31 GMT"
; license="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/",
; rel="memento";datetime="Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:41:56 GMT"
; license="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/",
...
Figure 20: Response from a TimeMap
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
4. The Memento Framework, Discovery Component
Section 3 describes how TimeGates, Mementos, Original Resources, and
TimeMaps can be discovered by following HTTP Links with Relation
Types "timegate", "memento", "original", and "timemap", respectively.
Naturally, some of these links can also be embedded into
representations of resources that have a media type that allows
embedding of typed links. For example, an Original Resource that has
an HTML representation can include a "timegate" link by using HTML's
LINK element, e.g. . The use of such embedded links is also subject to
the considerations of Section 2.2.
In this section additional approaches are introduced that support
batch discovery of TimeGates and Mementos. The approaches leverage
the Robots Exclusion Protocol.
4.1. Discovering TimeGates Via Robots Exclusion Protocol
The Robots Exclusion Protocol's robots.txt file [robotstxt.org] is
commonly used by Web site owners to give instructions about their
site to Web robots. It is used both to protect resources hosted by a
server from crawling and to facilitate discovering them. This
document introduces the "TimeGate" and "Archived" directives for
robots.txt to provide a server-wide mechanism to support TimeGate
discovery that SHOULD be used by:
o Servers of Original Resources;
o Servers that provide access to Mementos of Original Resources by
exposing TimeGates.
A robots.txt file MAY contain zero or more occurrences of the
"TimeGate" directive, and each occurrence MUST be followed by one or
more associated "Archived" directives. The meaning of the directives
is as follows:
o TimeGate: Conveys the base URL (that is URI scheme, host and path
component) that is shared by all URIs of TimeGates of a set of
Original Resources.
o Archived: Indicates - by means of mandatory host and optional path
parts of a URI - for which set of Original Resources actual
TimeGates are available that have the base URL conveyed in the
associated TimeGate directive.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
For example, consider a wiki at http://a.example.org/w/ that supports
the Memento framework and exposes TimeGates to access the wiki's
history pages at base URL
http://a.example.org/w/index.php/Special:TimeGate/. An actual
TimeGate for the wiki's http://a.example.org/w/My_Title page would
then be at http://a.example.org/w/index.php/Special:TimeGate/http://
a.example.org/w/My_Title. This wiki SHOULD make its TimeGates
discoverable by using the directives shown in Figure 21 in its
robots.txt file.
TimeGate: http://a.example.org/w/index.php/Special:TimeGate/
Archived: a.example.org/w/
Figure 21: robots.txt for a wiki, host of Original Resources,
TimeGates, and Mementos
As another example, consider a server of Original Resources at
http://a.example.org/ and http://www.a.example.org/ that is aware
that its resources are regularly crawled by a Web archive that
generally exposes TimeGates at base URL
http://arxiv.example.net/timegate/ and hence has TimeGate
http://arxiv.example.net/timegate/http://a.example.org/ to access
Mementos for http://a.example.org/. This server SHOULD make the
remote TimeGates discoverable by including the directives shown in
Figure 22 in its robots.txt file:
TimeGate: http://arxiv.example.net/timegate/
Archived: a.example.org/
Archived: www.a.example.org/
Figure 22: robots.txt for a server of Original Resources aware of
remote TimeGates
And, consider a Web archive that crawls a wide range of Original
Resources, and exposes TimeGates to access the resulting Mementos at
base URL http://arxiv.example.net/timegate/. In order to make its
TimeGates discoverable, this Web archive SHOULD include the
directives shown in Figure 23 in its robots.txt file:
TimeGate: http://arxiv.example.net/timegate/
Archived: *
Figure 23: robots.txt for a Web Archive that hosts Mementos for a
wide range of Original Resources
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
4.2. Discovering Mementos via Robots Exclusion Protocol
Servers can support discovery of their Mementos by crawlers through
the use of the Robots Exclusion Protocol, but SHOULD do so in a
manner that conveys to crawlers and mirroring applications that the
sticky Memento-Datetime behavior (see Section 2.1.1) MUST be
respected. To that end, servers SHOULD use the "User-agent" and
"Allow" directives of the Robots Exclusion Protocol in the following
manner:
o User-agent: Has "memento" as its value;
o Allow: Lists the path that contains Mementos that can be crawled,
and for which content can be mirrored subject to the sticky
Memento-Datetime behavior.
Figure 24 shows the robots.txt for a server that generally disallows
crawling, yet allows agents that respect the sticky Memento-Datetime
behavior to crawl Mementos in the /web/ path.
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
User-agent: memento
Allow: /web/
Figure 24: Restricting crawling to agents that respect sticky
Memento-Datetime behavior
5. IANA Considerations
This memo requires IANA to register the Accept-Datetime and Memento-
Datetime HTTP headers defined in Section 2.1.1 in the appropriate
IANA registry.
This memo requires IANA to register the "Link" header Relation Types
"original", "timegate", "timemap", and "memento" defined in
Section 2.2.1 in the appropriate IANA registry.
This memo requires IANA to register the "datetime", "license", and
"embargo" attributes for Link headers with a "memento" Relation Type,
as defined in Section 2.2.1.4 in the appropriate IANA registry.
6. Security Considerations
Provision of a "timegate" HTTP "Link" header in responses to requests
for an Original Resource that is protected (e.g., 401 or 403 HTTP
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
response codes) is OPTIONAL. The inclusion of this Link when
requesting authentication is at the server's discretion; cases may
exist in which a server protects the current state of a resource, but
supports open access to prior states and thus chooses to supply a
"timegate" HTTP "Link" header. Conversely, the server may choose to
not advertise the TimeGate URIs (e.g., they exist in an intranet
archive) for unauthenticated requests.
Authentication, encryption and other security related issues are
otherwise orthogonal to Memento.
7. Changelog
v03 2011-05-11 HVDS MLN RS draft-vandesompel-memento-02
o Added scenario in which a TimeGate redirects to another TimeGate.
o Reorganized TimeGate section to better reflect the difference
between requests with and without interval indicator.
o Added recommendation to provide "memento" links to Mementos in the
vicinity of the preferred interval provided by the client, in case
of a 406 response.
o Removed TimeMap Feed material from the Discovery section as a
result of discussions regarding (lack of) scalability of the
approach with representatives of the International Internet
Preservation Consortium. An alternative approach to support batch
discovery of Mementos will be specified.
v02 2011-04-28 HVDS MLN RS draft-vandesompel-memento-01
o Introduced wording and reference to indicate a Memento is a
FixedResource.
o Introduced "Sticky Memento-Datetime" notion and clarified wording
about retaining "Memento-Datetime" headers and values when a
Memento is mirrored at different URI.
o Introduced section about handling both datetime and regular
negotiation.
o Introduced section about Mementos Without TimeGate.
o Made various changes in the section Relation Type "memento",
including addition of "license" and "embargo" attributes, and
clarification of rules regarding the use of "memento" links.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
o Moved section about TimeMaps inside the Datetime Negotiation
section, and updated it.
o Restarted the Discovery section from scratch.
v01 2010-11-11 HVDS MLN RS First public version
draft-vandesompel-memento-00
v00 2010-10-19 HVDS MLN RS Limited circulation version
2010-07-22 HVDS MLN First internal version
8. Acknowledgements
The Memento effort is funded by the Library of Congress. Many thanks
to Kris Carpenter Negulescu, Michael Hausenblas, Erik Hetzner, Larry
Masinter, Gordon Mohr, Mark Nottingham, David Rosenthal, Ed Summers
for early feedback. Many thanks to Samuel Adams, Scott Ainsworth,
Lyudmilla Balakireva, Frank McCown, Harihar Shankar, Brad Tofel for
early implementations.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-link-format]
Shelby, Z., "CoRE Link Format",
draft-ietf-core-link-format-03 (work in progress),
March 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[RFC4151] Kindberg, T. and S. Hawke, "The 'tag' URI Scheme",
RFC 4151, October 2005.
[RFC4287] Nottingham, M., Ed. and R. Sayre, Ed., "The Atom
Syndication Format", RFC 4287, December 2005.
[RFC5829] Brown, A., Clemm, G., and J. Reschke, "Link Relation Types
for Simple Version Navigation between Web Resources",
RFC 5829, April 2010.
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.
9.2. Informative References
[Fitch] Fitch, "Web site archiving - an approach to recording
every materially different response produced by a
website", July 2003,
.
[I-D.masinter-dated-uri]
Masinter, L., "The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes, based on
dated URIs", draft-masinter-dated-uri-08 (work in
progress), January 2011.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[W3C.REC-aww-20041215]
Jacobs and Walsh, "Architecture of the World Wide Web",
December 2004, .
[W3C.gen-ont-20090420]
Berners-Lee, "Architecture of the World Wide Web",
April 2009, .
[robotstxt.org]
"Robots Exclusion Protocol", August 2010,
.
Appendix A. Appendix B: A Sample, Successful Memento Request/Response
cycle
Step 1 : UA --- HTTP GET/HEAD; Accept-Datetime: Tj ---------> URI-R
HEAD / HTTP/1.1
Host: a.example.org
Accept-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:35:00 GMT
Connection: close
Step 2 : UA <-- HTTP 200; Link: URI-G ----------------------- URI-R
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:02:12 GMT
Server: Apache
Link:
; rel="timegate"
Content-Length: 255
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Step 3 : UA --- HTTP GET/HEAD; Accept-Datetime: Tj ---------> URI-G
GET /timegate/http://a.example.org
HTTP/1.1
Host: arxiv.example.net
Accept-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:35:00 GMT
Connection: close
Step 4 : UA <-- HTTP 302; Location: URI-Mj; Vary; Link:
URI-R, URI-T, URI-M0, URI-Mn, URI-Mi, URI-Mj, URI-Mk ---- URI-G
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:06:50 GMT
Server: Apache
Vary: negotiate, accept-datetime
Location:
http://arxiv.example.net/web/20010911203610/http://a.example.org
Link: ; rel="original",
; rel="first memento"; datetime="Tue, 15 Sep 2000 11:28:26 GMT",
; rel="last memento"; datetime="Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:34:33 GMT",
; rel="timemap"; type="application/link-format",
; rel="memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:36:10 GMT",
; rel="prev memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:30:51 GMT",
; rel="next memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:47:33 GMT"
Content-Length: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Connection: close
Step 5 : UA --- HTTP GET URI-Mj; Accept-Datetime: Tj -------> URI-Mj
GET /web/20010911203610/http://a.example.org
HTTP/1.1
Host: arxiv.example.net
Accept-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:35:00 GMT
Connection: close
Step 6 : UA <-- HTTP 200; Memento-Datetime: Tj; Link: URI-R,
URI-T, URI-G, URI-M0, URI-Mn, URI-Mi, URI-Mj, URI-Mk ---- URI-Mj
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:09:40 GMT
Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1
Memento-Datetime: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:36:10 GMT
Link: ; rel="original",
; rel="first memento"; datetime="Tue, 15 Sep 2000 11:28:26 GMT",
; rel="last memento"; datetime="Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:34:33 GMT",
; rel="timemap"; type="application/link-format",
; rel="timegate",
; rel="memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:36:10 GMT",
; rel="prev memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:30:51 GMT",
; rel="next memento"; datetime="Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:47:33 GMT"
Content-Length: 23364
Content-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8
Connection: close
A successful flow with TimeGate and Mementos on the same server
Authors' Addresses
Herbert VandeSompel
Los Alamos National Laboratory
PO Box 1663
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
USA
Phone: +1 505 667 1267
Email: hvdsomp@gmail.com
URI: http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
Michael Nelson
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, Virginia 23529
USA
Phone: +1 757 683 6393
Email: mln@cs.odu.edu
URI: http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft HTTP Memento June 2011
Robert Sanderson
Los Alamos National Laboratory
PO Box 1663
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
USA
Phone: +1 505 665 5804
Email: azaroth42@gmail.com
VandeSompel, et al. Expires December 5, 2011 [Page 43]