[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

CoRE Working Group                                             C. Groves
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track                                 W. Yang
Expires: October 21, 2017                                         Huawei
                                                          April 19, 2017


    Addition of organisation prefix to RFC6690 IANA CoRE parameters
                              registration
                     draft-groves-core-rfc6690up-01

Abstract

   [RFC6690] defines the resource type 'rt' and interface description
   'if' link attributes and defines procedures for registering values.
   Currently each 'rt' and 'if' attribute value must be registered with
   IANA.  This specification updates the process to enable organisation
   prefixes to be registered allowing organisations to manage their own
   namespace within a certain set of rules.

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 October 21, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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



Groves & Yang           Expires October 21, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Prefix for CoRE parameter reg           April 2017


   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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Organisation Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters
           Registry Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.3.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

2.  Introduction

   [RFC6690] "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format"
   defines the Resource Type 'rt' and Interface Description 'if' link
   attributes.  In order to co-ordinate the use of these attributes,
   sections 7.4 and 7.5/[RFC6690] establish IANA registries to register
   link attribute values for 'rt' and 'if'.

   In order to register a new 'rt' and 'if' link attribute value the
   [RFC5226] "Specification Required" process is followed for each
   value.  As part of the process a designated expert will examine the
   specification to enforce a number of requirements including:

   o  Registration values MUST be related to the intended purpose of
      these attributes as described in Section 3/[RFC6690].

   o  Registered values MUST conform to the ABNF reg-rel-type definition
      of Section 2/[RFC6690], meaning that the value starts with a
      lowercase alphabetic character, followed by a sequence of




Groves & Yang           Expires October 21, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Prefix for CoRE parameter reg           April 2017


      lowercase alphabetic, numeric, ".", or "-" characters, and
      contains no white space.

   o  It is recommended that the period "." character be used for
      dividing name segments and that the dash "-" character be used for
      making a segment more readable.  Example Interface Description
      values might be "core.batch" and "core.link-batch".

   o  URIs are reserved for free use as extension values for these
      attributes and MUST NOT be registered.

   The IANA CoRE resource type and interface description registry can be
   found at: IANA CoRE Registry [1].

   Given the scope of the Internet of Things (IoT) the potential number
   of resource types (and to a lesser extent interface types) is
   potentially quite large.  This would lead to a large number of
   requests for designated expert review.  It would also mean additional
   work for the IANA to process each request.

   The current trend for the definition of resource types and interface
   descriptions is that a few standards organisations have defined a
   large number of values.

   For example the "OIC Resource Type Specification v1.1.0" [OICResSpec]
   contains 64 resource types.

   ETSI oneM2M also defines a large number of resource types.  For
   example is "Home Appliances Information Model and Mapping"
   [oneM2MTS0023].

   The Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) also make use of resources types.

   The above three organisations also have their own registry and
   procedures for adding resource types.  Trying to keep the IANA
   registry aligned with the individual organisation registries would
   also add additional burden.

   A significant amount of work could be saved by allowing organisations
   to register a prefix under which they can administer their own
   resources negating the need for the IANA and the designated IANA
   expert to be involved for each resource registration.

   There were discussions ath the IETF#97 meeting in Seoul about how to
   tackle this issue.  There were broadly two camps in the discussion:

   1 - Prefixes are a bad idea as they discourage people from resource
   re-use and create little "kingdoms".



Groves & Yang           Expires October 21, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Prefix for CoRE parameter reg           April 2017


   2 - Prefixes are OK.  They've been used before and people will
   coalesce on a common set eventually.

   Clearly some sort of middle ground is needed to move forward.

   Clearly resource re-use is a valid goal.  It order for this to occur
   organisations/people requesting a new resource type would need to
   consider the existing resource types and see if it is applicable to
   them.  Presumably if they can't use an existing type then they must
   have a reason why?  One approach could be to introduce a new step
   into the registration process where the requester must specify any
   similar resources and why they cannot be used.  This does of course
   add extra burden on the requester to document it and extra burden on
   the expert to evaluate it.  Then there is the issue of what suffices
   for the analysis and what are the criteria for the expert to accept
   it?  This may not result in reduced registrations but instead create
   more workload for registrations.

   Currently all the rt registrations have been from standards
   organisations not individuals.  The process for registration needs to
   be simple enough that people/companies have a incentive to register
   than rather than simply use and squat on a name without registering
   it.

   It does have to be noted that today there is nothing stopping people/
   organisations from duplicating resources in their registration.  An
   organisational prefix would not make this worse.

   *Editor's note: Interface descriptions should be considered*

   This specification updates the [RFC6690] IANA registration procedures
   to allow the possibility to register a pre-fix.

3.  Organisation Prefix

   As indicated by [RFC6690] registered values MUST conform to the ABNF
   reg-rel-type definition, meaning that the value starts with a
   lowercase alphabetic character.  Therefore an organisation
   registering a prefix MUST register a lowercase alphabetic sequence of
   characters.  It MUST be followed by a ".".

   For example: "foo."

   This will allocate the namespace "foo." to the organisation.  The
   organisation will then be responsible for maintaining resources
   within this name space.





Groves & Yang           Expires October 21, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Prefix for CoRE parameter reg           April 2017


   E.g. "foo.sensor", "foo.actuator" could be allocated without
   requiring registration with IANA.

4.  Security Considerations

   This specification updates the [RFC6690] IANA Considerations.  No
   additional protocol security impacts to what is already described in
   [RFC6690] are foreseen.

   The use of organisational prefixes introducing the possibility that
   people request prefixes for an organisation that they do not
   represent.  The IANA considerations in this specification require
   that the designated expert determine if the person requesting a
   prefix represents the organisation related to the prefix.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters Registry Update

   This specification updates the Constrained RESTful Environments
   (CoRE) Parameter Registry by allowing the registration of an
   organisation prefix for Resource Type (rt=) and Interface Description
   (if=) Link Target Attribute values.

   Organisation prefixes are registered by using the Specification
   Required policy (see [RFC5226], which requires review by a designated
   expert appointed by the IESG or their delegate.

   The designated expert will enforce the following requirements:

   o The registered prefix MUST conform to the ABNF reg-rel-type
   definition of Section 2/[RFC6690], meaning that the value starts with
   a lowercase alphabetic character followed by a period ".".

   o The registered prefixes are assigned on a first come first served
   basis.

   o Prefixes must be requested by a representative of the organisation
   applying for the prefix and must be representative of the
   organisation.  E.g. organisation "foo" trying to register "ietf."
   would not be representative.

   The specification MUST:

   o  Specify the procedures for registering values within the prefixed
      namespace.  It ideally SHOULD provide a link where current and
      future registered values may be found.




Groves & Yang           Expires October 21, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Prefix for CoRE parameter reg           April 2017


   o  Indicate that registered values within the prefixed namespace MUST
      conform to the ABNF reg-rel-type definition of
      Section 2/[RFC6690].  This means that the prefix MUST be followed
      by a sequence of lowercase alphabetic, numeric, ".", or "-"
      characters, and contains no white space.  Note: It is not
      recommended to immediately follow the prefix with an additional
      period ".", e.g. "foo..".

   o  Use the recommendation that the period "." character be used for
      dividing name segments and that the dash "-" character be used for
      making a segment more readable.  Example Interface Description
      values might be "core.batch" and "core.link-batch".

   Registration requests consist of the completed registration template
   below, with the reference pointing to the required specification.  To
   allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the
   designated expert may approve registration once they are satisfied
   that a specification will be published.

   The registration template for both sub-registries is:

   o Prefix Value:

   o Description:

   o Reference:

   o Notes: [optional]

   Registration requests should be sent to the core-parameters@ietf.org
   mailing list, marked clearly in the subject line (e.g., "NEW RESOURCE
   TYPE PREFIX - example" to register an "example" relation type or "NEW
   INTERFACE DESCRIPTION PREFIX - example" to register an "example"
   Interface Description).

   Handling and the decision process is as per section 7.4/[RFC6690].

6.  Acknowledgements

   TBD

7.  Changelog

   draft-groves-core-rfc6690up-01:

   o  Keepalive update.  No changes.





Groves & Yang           Expires October 21, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Prefix for CoRE parameter reg           April 2017


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [OICResSpec]
              "OIC Resource Type Specification v1.1.0", 2016,
              <https://openconnectivity.org/resources/specifications/
              draft-candidate-specifications>.

   [oneM2MTS0023]
              "TS 0023 v2.0.0 Home Appliances Information Model and
              Mapping", 2015,
              <http://www.onem2m.org/technical/published-documents>.

8.3.  URIs

   [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-
       parameters.xhtml

Authors' Addresses

   Christian Groves
   Australia

   Email: cngroves.std@gmail.com


   Weiwei Yang
   Huawei
   P.R.China

   Email: tommy@huawei.com



Groves & Yang           Expires October 21, 2017                [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/