Constrained Resource Identifiers
draft-ietf-core-href-00
Thing-to-Thing Research Group K. Hartke
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track August 29, 2019
Expires: March 1, 2020
Constrained Resource Identifiers
draft-ietf-core-href-00
Abstract
Constrained Resource Identifiers (CoRIs) are an alternate
serialization of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) that encodes the
URI components in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) instead
of a string of characters. This simplifies parsing, reference
resolution, and comparison of URIs in environments with severe
limitations on processing power, code size, and memory size.
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 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 March 1, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Hartke Expires March 1, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Constrained Resource Identifiers August 2019
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Option Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. CBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Python . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Reference Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. URI Recomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. CoAP Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) references [RFC3986] are the
standard way to link to resources in hypertext formats such as HTML
[W3C.REC-html52-20171214] or the HTTP "Link" header field [RFC8288].
A URI reference is either a URI or a relative reference that must be
resolved against a base URI.
URI references are strings of characters chosen from the repertoire
of US-ASCII characters. The individual components of a URI reference
are delimited by a number of reserved characters, which necessitates
the use of percent-encoding when these reserved characters are used
in a non-delimiting function. One component can also contain special
dot-segments that affect how the component is to be interpreted. The
resolution of URI references involves parsing the character string
into its components, combining those components with the components
of a base URI, merging path components, removing dot-segments, and
recomposing the result back into a character string.
Overall, the proper processing of URIs is quite complicated. This
can be a problem in particular in constrained environments [RFC7228],
where devices often have severe code size limitations. As a result,
many implementations in these environments choose to support only an
ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, non-interoperable subset of
half of the URI standard.
Show full document text