Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Brown
Request for Comments: 5829 G. Clemm
Category: Informational IBM
ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Reschke, Ed.
greenbytes
April 2010
Link Relation Types for Simple Version Navigation between Web Resources
Abstract
This specification defines a set of link relation types that may be
used on Web resources for navigation between a resource and other
resources related to version control, such as past versions and
working copies.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5829.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(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.
Brown, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 5829 Version Navigation Link Relations April 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Link Relations ..................................................4
3.1. 'version-history' ..........................................4
3.2. 'latest-version' ...........................................4
3.3. 'working-copy' .............................................4
3.4. 'working-copy-of' ..........................................4
3.5. 'predecessor-version' ......................................4
3.6. 'successor-version' ........................................5
4. IANA Considerations .............................................5
4.1. 'version-history' Link Relation Registration ...............5
4.2. 'latest-version' Link Relation Registration ................5
4.3. 'working-copy' Link Relation Registration ..................5
4.4. 'working-copy-of' Link Relation Registration ...............6
4.5. 'predecessor-version' Link Relation Registration ...........6
4.6. 'successor-version' Link Relation Registration .............6
5. Security Considerations .........................................6
6. Acknowledgments .................................................7
7. References ......................................................7
7.1. Normative References .......................................7
7.2. Informative References .....................................7
Appendix A. Relationship to Java Content Repository (JCR) and
WebDAV ................................................9
A.1. Example: Use of Link Relations in HTTP Link Header .......10
Brown, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 5829 Version Navigation Link Relations April 2010
1. Introduction
This specification defines a set of link relation types that may be
used on Web resources that exist in a system that supports versioning
to navigate among the different resources available, such as past
versions and working copies.
These link relations are used in the AtomPub ([RFC5023]) bindings of
the "Content Management Interoperability Services" (CMIS). See
Section 3.4.3.3 of [CMIS] for further information.
2. Terminology
Versioned Resource
When a resource is put under version control, it becomes a
"versioned resource". Many servers protect versioned resources
from modifications by considering them "checked in", and by
requiring a "checkout" operation before modification, and a
"checkin" operation to get back to the "checked-in" state. Other
servers allow modification, in which case the checkout/checkin
operation may happen implicitly.
Version History
A "version history" resource is a resource that contains all the
versions of a particular versioned resource.
Predecessor, Successor
When a versioned resource is checked out and then subsequently
checked in, the version that was checked out becomes a
"predecessor" of the version created by the checkin. A client can
specify multiple predecessors for a new version if the new version
is logically a merge of those predecessors. The inverse of the
predecessor relation is the "successor" relation. Therefore, if X
is a predecessor of Y, then Y is a successor of X.
Working Copy
A "working copy" is a resource at a server-defined URL that can be
used to create a new version of a versioned resource.
Checkout
A "checkout" is an operation on a versioned resource that creates
a working copy, or changes the versioned resource to be a working
copy as well ("in-place versioning").
Brown, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 5829 Version Navigation Link Relations April 2010
Checkin
A "checkin" is an operation on a working copy that creates a new
version of its corresponding versioned resource.
Note: the operations for putting a resource under version control
and for checking in and checking out depend on the protocol in use
and are beyond the scope of this document; see [CMIS], [RFC3253],
and [JSR-283] for examples.
3. Link Relations
The following link relations are defined.
3.1. 'version-history'
When included on a versioned resource, this link points to a resource
containing the version history for this resource.
3.2. 'latest-version'
When included on a versioned resource, this link points to a resource
containing the latest (e.g., current) version.
The latest version is defined by the system. For linear versioning
systems, this is probably the latest version by timestamp. For
systems that support branching, there will be multiple latest
versions, one for each branch in the version history.
Some systems may allow more than one of these link relations.
3.3. 'working-copy'
When included on a versioned resource, this link points to a working
copy for this resource.
Some systems may allow more than one of these link relations.
3.4. 'working-copy-of'
When included on a working copy, this link points to the versioned
resource from which this working copy was obtained.
3.5. 'predecessor-version'
When included on a versioned resource, this link points to a resource
containing the predecessor version in the version history.
Brown, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 5829 Version Navigation Link Relations April 2010
Some systems may allow more than one of these link relations in the
case of multiple branches merging.
3.6. 'successor-version'
When included on a versioned resource, this link points to a resource
containing the successor version in the version history.
Some systems may allow more than one of these link relations in order
to support branching.
4. IANA Considerations
The link relations below have been registered by IANA per Section 7.1
of [RFC4287]:
4.1. 'version-history' Link Relation Registration
Attribute Value: version-history
Description: See Section 3.1.
Expected display characteristics: Undefined; this relation can be
used for background processing or to provide extended
functionality without displaying its value.
Security considerations: See Section 5.
4.2. 'latest-version' Link Relation Registration
Attribute Value: latest-version
Description: See Section 3.2.
Expected display characteristics: Undefined; this relation can be
used for background processing or to provide extended
functionality without displaying its value.
Security considerations: See Section 5.
4.3. 'working-copy' Link Relation Registration
Attribute Value: working-copy
Description: See Section 3.3.
Brown, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 5829 Version Navigation Link Relations April 2010
Expected display characteristics: Undefined; this relation can be
used for background processing or to provide extended
functionality without displaying its value.
Security considerations: See Section 5.
4.4. 'working-copy-of' Link Relation Registration
Attribute Value: working-copy-of
Description: See Section 3.4.
Expected display characteristics: Undefined; this relation can be
used for background processing or to provide extended
functionality without displaying its value.
Security considerations: See Section 5.
4.5. 'predecessor-version' Link Relation Registration
Attribute Value: predecessor-version
Description: See Section 3.5.
Expected display characteristics: Undefined; this relation can be
used for background processing or to provide extended
functionality without displaying its value.
Security considerations: See Section 5.
4.6. 'successor-version' Link Relation Registration
Attribute Value: successor-version
Description: See Section 3.6.
Expected display characteristics: Undefined; this relation can be
used for background processing or to provide extended
functionality without displaying its value.
Security considerations: See Section 5.
5. Security Considerations
Automated agents should take care when these relations cross
administrative domains (e.g., the URI has a different authority than
the current document). Such agents should also take care to detect
circular references.
Brown, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 5829 Version Navigation Link Relations April 2010
Care should be applied when versioned resources are subject to
differing access policies. In this case, exposing links may leak
information even if the linked resource itself is properly secured.
In particular, the syntax of the link target could expose sensitive
information (see Section 16.2 of [RFC3253] for a similar
consideration in WebDAV Versioning). Note that this applies to
exposing link metadata in general, not only to links related to
versioning.
6. Acknowledgments
Thanks to the members of Content Management Interoperability Services
(CMIS) Technical Committee (TC) at OASIS for the initial proposal,
and to Jan Algermissen for feedback during IETF review.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC4287] Nottingham, M., Ed. and R. Sayre, Ed., "The Atom
Syndication Format", RFC 4287, December 2005.
7.2. Informative References
[CMIS] Brown, A., Gur-Esh, E., McVeigh, R., and F. Mueller,
"Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS)
Version 1.0", OASIS Content Management Interoperability
Services (CMIS) Version 1.0 Committee Specification 01,
March 2010, .
Latest version available at
[JSR-283] Day Software, Nuescheler, D., and P. Piegaze, "Content
Repository API for Java(tm) Technology Specification",
Java Specification Request 283, August 2009,
RFC, FYI, BCP