Internet DRAFT - draft-bormann-t2trg-deref-id
draft-bormann-t2trg-deref-id
Thing-to-Thing Research Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universität Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational 5 November 2022
Expires: 9 May 2023
The "dereferenceable identifier" pattern
draft-bormann-t2trg-deref-id-00
Abstract
In a protocol or an application environment, it is often important to
be able to create unambiguous identifiers for some meaning (concept
or some entity).
Due to the simplicity of creating URIs, these have become popular for
this purpose. Beyond the purpose of identifiers to be uniquely
associated with a meaning, some of these URIs are in principle
_dereferenceable_, so something can be placed that can be retrieved
when encountering such a URI.
The present -00 version is a stub to draw some attention to the
opportunity that this pattern would benefit from a common
description, documenting its benefits and pitfalls, and some
mitigations for the latter.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bormann-t2trg-deref-id/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the t2trg Research Group
mailing list (mailto:t2trg@irtf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/t2trg/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/t2trg/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/cabo/deref-id.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Bormann Expires 9 May 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft dereferenceable identifiers November 2022
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 https://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 9 May 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Examples for "dereferenceable identifiers" . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Protocol and Protocol Version identifiers . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Concept identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. MORE EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Server overload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Longevity of identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Redirect ambiguities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
(Please see abstract.)
Bormann Expires 9 May 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft dereferenceable identifiers November 2022
2. Examples for "dereferenceable identifiers"
This section is intended to present a number of examples where
dereferenceable identifiers are in use in a protocol, including
existing discussion about constraints on their usage, the benefits
claimed for this constrained usage, and remaining issues.
2.1. Protocol and Protocol Version identifiers
Many protocols based on XML or JSON include a protocol or protocol
version identifier in the heading to a data item.
E.g., [JSO] defines a language for data models that contain an
identifier to the language version in use, here https://json-
schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema. The model that can be retrieved
from this URI in turn contains further dereferenceable identifiers
that point to further details.
Section 8.1.1 of [JSO] has this:
| If this URI identifies a retrievable resource, that resource
| SHOULD be of media type "application/schema+json".
So it acknowledges that the dereferenceability is optional, but does
place further restrictions on what can be the result of a successful
dereference: another one of these data models, which in turn contain
further dereferenceable identifiers.
2.2. Concept identifiers
The _problem details_ format [PROBLEM] uses a dereferenceable
identifier for its "type" field. The value is a URI that "identifies
the specific "problem type" (e.g., "out of credit")" (Section 1 of
[PROBLEM]).
Section 3.1.1 of [PROBLEM] has this:
| If the type URI is a locator (e.g., those with a "http" or "https"
| scheme), dereferencing it SHOULD provide human-readable
| documentation for the problem type (e.g., using HTML [HTML5]).
but then warns:
| However, consumers SHOULD NOT automatically dereference the type
| URI, unless they do so when providing information to developers
| (e.g., when a debugging tool is in use).
Section 5 of [PROBLEM] further details:
Bormann Expires 9 May 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft dereferenceable identifiers November 2022
| A problem's type URI SHOULD resolve to HTML [HTML5] documentation
| that explains how to resolve the problem.
This becomes even more interesting as Section 5.2 of [PROBLEM] then
gives this advice:
| Registrations MAY use the prefix "https://iana.org/assignments/
| http- problem-types#" for the type URI.
A reference to the place where registrations for these items are
managed is certainly desirable, however, the implications on the
management of fragment identifiers in the HTML documents that IANA
generates from registration information are an example for the
increased complexity dereferenceable identifiers may place on the
owners of the URI space employed.
2.3. MORE EXAMPLES
There are a lot more examples in published RFCs; add them to this
document.
3. Pitfalls
3.1. Server overload
If a data item containing dereferenceable identifier(s) becomes
widely distributed, naive implementations that handle such a data
item might dereference these identifiers as part of a routine
operation. Many definitions of dereferenceable identifiers contain
admonitions that such a behavior can cause an implosion of requests
on the server(s) for the URI.
3.2. Longevity of identifiers
Dereferenceable URIs usually contain domain names, whose ownership
can change. As a result, and for other reasons as well, parts of the
name space of an origin may come under new administration, which can
change the policies that apply to resources made available there.
Bormann Expires 9 May 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft dereferenceable identifiers November 2022
These are problems of such URIs in general (and can be mitigated by
going to a non-dereferenceable kind of URIs such as one based on the
'tag' uri scheme [TAG]). However, the problems are exacerbated by
their use as a dereferenceable identifier. The new owner/
administrator might more easily accept that a certain chunk of their
URI space should not be used (which suffices for a non-
dereferenceable identifier based on this kind of URI namespace) than
that certain content needs to be offered there (potentially
presenting non-trivial loads, some mechanisms needed to update that
information, and legal liabilities that are hard to assess).
3.3. Redirect ambiguities
Dereferencing an identifier may involve following some redirections;
whether that following is actually implied, or desired (or even
desirable) is rarely being discussed.
4. IANA Considerations
This document makes no concrete requests on IANA, but does point out
that IANA resources might be a good target for a certain class of
dereferenceable identifiers.
5. Security considerations
The ability to create a denial of service attack by pointing a
dereferenceable identifier into a popular data item that is widely
distributed is implied by the discussion in Section 2, alongside with
some recommendations for implementers that would mitigate such
attacks. A problem with such recommendations is that they need to be
followed by implementations that are using dereferenceable
identifiers, which might not care much.
6. Informative References
[JSO] Wright, A., Andrews, H., Hutton, B., and G. Dennis, "JSON
Schema: A Media Type for Describing JSON Documents", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bhutton-json-schema-01,
10 June 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
bhutton-json-schema-01.txt>.
[PROBLEM] Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details
for HTTP APIs", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04, 5 September 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpapi-
rfc7807bis-04.txt>.
Bormann Expires 9 May 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft dereferenceable identifiers November 2022
[TAG] Kindberg, T. and S. Hawke, "The 'tag' URI Scheme",
RFC 4151, DOI 10.17487/RFC4151, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4151>.
Acknowledgements
Christian Amsüss pointed out that this document would be good to
have.
Author's Address
Carsten Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Bormann Expires 9 May 2023 [Page 6]
