[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

MMUSIC Working Group                                              J. Ott
Internet-Draft                         Helsinki University of Technology
Expires: April 23, 2006                                          K. Loos
                                                          Uni Bremen TZI
                                                        October 20, 2005


                      Using HTTP for IMG Transport
                    draft-ott-mmusic-img-http-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 23, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   The IMG framework document defines a set of abstract operations to
   distribute and retrieve Internet Media Guides (IMG).  This document
   specifies the mapping of the abstract operations QUERY and RESOLVE to
   HTTP which includes mapping IMG URIs are parameters to HTTP URIs.
   IMG envelopes are used to encapsulate IMG contents.

   This is an initial strawman intended to provoke discussion.



Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Mapping of IMG Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  IMG to HTTP URI mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Requests, Responses, and Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Processing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Forming Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Processing Requests and Forming Responses  . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  Processing Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  HTTP Intermediaries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.2.  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13






























Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


1.  Introduction

   Internet Media Guides (IMGs) are used to encapsulate and communicate
   metadata about (ephemeral) contents available via arbitrary networks,
   e.g., TV and multimedia streams, downloadable contents, or other
   services.  The IMG framework [4] defines a set of abstract operations
   for large-scale multicast distribution ("IMG ANNOUNCE"), individual
   subscription and asynchronous (change) notfication ("IMG SUBSCRIBE"
   and "IMG NOTIFY"), and interactive retrieval ("IMG QUERY" and "IMG
   RESOLVE").  Furthermore, [3] specifies a common encapsulation format
   for metadata in support of the IMG operations.  Finally, an IMG URI
   scheme is being defined in a companion draft.

   For mapping the abstract client-server-style operations "IMG QUERY"
   and "IMG RESOLVE", HTTP is the natural choice.  This document
   specifies how an IMG QUERY is mapped to an HTTP GET and the IMG
   RESOLVE to the corresponding HTTP response.  Furthermore, some
   assumptions for a mapping from IMG URI to HTTP URIs are provided, and
   the encapsulation of IMG contents -- as HTTP resources -- is defined.
   Rules for client and server side processing are given and guidance is
   given on how to work with HTTP intermediaries (such as proxies and
   caches).  Finally, an example of an IMG-based interaction is
   included.


2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
   RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for
   compliant implementations.

   The definitions from [4] and [2] apply.  In addition, the following
   terms are defined:

   IMG resource: A common name for a full or delta IMG, for an IMG
   fragment, or an IMG pointer encoded in some specific metadata format.
   The IMG resource does not include a possible IMG envelope used for
   encapsulation.  An IMG resource is identified by an IMG URI
   (including the version number!) and may be stored in one or more
   locations.

   IMG resource instance: an IMG resource stored in a particular
   location.  An IMG resource instance may be identified by means of an
   HTTP URI.  All instances of the same IMG resource are have equivalent
   contents.




Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


3.  Mapping of IMG Operations

   The abstract IMG operations QUERY and RESOLVE are used to retrieve
   (parts of) an IMG identified by an IMG URI that qualifies the IMG
   resource and its version number, indicates whether the full or a
   delta IMG is to be retrieved, and may specify some further conditions
   and parameters.  A QUERY operation may be invoked to follow a
   previously received IMG pointer (e.g., in an ANNOUNCE or a NOTIFY
   operation or found on a web page), to refresh (selected parts of) a
   full IMG, or to bootstrap retrieval of metadata, among others.

   This section specifies the details of how IMG QUERY and IMG RESOLVE
   are mapped to HTTP/1.1 [2] that SHOULD be used for carrying IMGs; but
   HTTP/1.0 is acceptable as well.

   HTTP is used "as is".  This particularly implies the following: all
   variants underlying transport protocols (e.g., TCP, TCP/TLS) may be
   used; transport connections are newly established as needed, they may
   be torn down or kept open; different authentication schemes (e.g.,
   HTTP Digest) may be applied; etc.  This also implies that
   intermediaries (such as proxies or caches) may be used; some
   considerations on this case are discussed in Section 5 below.

   When mapping the IMG operations to HTTP, the IMG querier becomes the
   HTTP client and the IMG resolver is equivalent to the HTTP server.

3.1.  IMG to HTTP URI mapping

   An IMG resource MAY be stored in multiple locations (IMG resource
   instance), each identified by means of an HTTP URI (in addition, a
   IMG resource instance may be cached in multiple locations but still
   be identified by the same HTTP URI).  There is no explicit
   algorithmic mapping rule specified to transform an IMG URI into an
   HTTP URI.  Instead, several procedural approaches may be followed: 1)
   One or more HTTP URIs may be included in an IMG envelope containing
   an IMG resource, thereby providing the explicit mapping. 2)
   Directories/databases may be used to obtain the HTTP URI(s)
   corresponding to an IMG URI. 3) The HTTP URI may be explicitely
   available from some other resource (e.g., a web page).  For the
   following discusssion, it is assumed that one of these methods
   succeeds in delivering the sought HTTP URI.

   An HTTP URI to identify an IMG instance follows the regular HTTP URI
   format and defines numerous parameters to reflect specifics of IMG
   QUERY operations.  Generally, the HTTP URI for IMGs has the following
   format:

   http[s]://hostport/resource-name?param1&param2&...



Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


   The schemes signifies whether regular HTTP transport or secure HTTP
   shall be used. "hostport" defines the transport address of the HTTP
   server to be contacted to retrieve the IMG resource.  The resource-
   name is local to the HTTP server (and may, e.g., represent a
   filename).  The parameters define how the operation shall be
   performed.  The following parameters are defined:
      type: Defines the type of IMG resource requested: "full" requests
      a full IMG for the indicated version number; "delta" the delta
      encoding between the "version" and "diffVersion" as defined below;
      pointer requests an IMG pointer of the IMG resource instance.  If
      the "type" parameter is not present, "full" is assumed as default.
      version: Indicates the version number of the IMG to be retrieved.
      If the parameter is not present, the latest available version is
      requested.
      diffVersion: Only valid for if type=="delta".  Defines the
      reference against which the delta shall be generated.  If this
      parameter is absent, the diffVersion is assumed to be the initial
      version 1.

3.2.  Requests, Responses, and Errors

   An IMG QUERY operation is represented as an HTTP GET request.  The
   Accept: header SHOULD be included and indicate support for the MIME
   type "application/img-envelope+xml".

   The IMG RESOLVE response to an IMG QUERY is mapped onto an HTTP
   responses as follows.
      200 (OK) response in case the full requested IMG resource is
      included in the response body.
      206 (Partial Content) in case only parts of the requested IMG
      resource is included in the response body.  In this case, entity
      headers MUST specify which parts are delivered.

   In any case, the HTTP message body MUST contain response entity of an
   appropriate content type (e.g., "application/img-envelope+xml").

   Depending on further request parameters and on the operation of the
   HTTP server, any other appropriate HTTP response code may be
   returned.  Examples are "304 Not Modified" if an If-Modified-Since:
   header was present, "401" or "407" if further authorization (e.g., by
   means of digest authentication is required, and "301" or "302" for a
   redirection to a different HTTP URI.

   HTTP error codes are returned in case of failures.  All classes and
   types of error responses are applicable as appropriate.  For example,
   "404 Not Found" is used to indicate the non-availability of an IMG
   resource instance on the inquired server, "403 Forbidden" to indicate
   authorization failure, and "400 Bad Request" to indicate a generally



Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


   malformed QUERY.

   While HTTP header fields such as "Accept" and "Content-Type" allow
   for basic content negotiation, this only negotiates the IMG envelope
   content type but not the type of the encapsulated metadata.  It is
   assumed that an IMG URI will imply a certain metadata format, thereby
   making a two-stage content negotiation unnecessary.

   Editor's note: This simplification seems appropriate and not too
   harmful.  Or should we allow for and explicitly specify that an IMG
   may have multiple representations?

3.3.  Contents

   IMGs are intended for processing by machines and therefore responses
   are usually returned in machine-readable format encoded in the
   respective metadata format and encapsulated in an IMG envelope.  The
   QUERY request MUST NOT contain a body but the Accept: header MUST
   list acceptable content types and this list SHOULD include the
   "application/img-envelope+xml" and, if so, this MUST also be returned
   by the server (unless an error occurred and no content is returned at
   all).

   In addition, HTTP server processing IMG QUERY requests may be capable
   of generating a human readable format of an IMG.  If the IMG querier
   seeks to exploit this potential capability it SHOULD indicate a
   corresponding human-readable format, e.g., text/plain or text/html,
   in the Accept: header.  In this case, the server MAY respond with the
   human readable format.

   If the the IMG querier requests both a machine and a human readable
   format, the IMG resolver MUST respond with the machine-readable
   format (application/img-envelope+xml) and MAY decide to also include
   the human-readable format.  If it so decides, the IMG resolver MUST
   use the MIME type "multipart/alternative" for the message body.

   Partial content MAY be requested by the IMG querier using the Range:
   header.  The use of the Range: header is independent of and
   subordinate to the query type specification using the "type"
   parameter in the HTTP URI.  That is, if a full IMG is requested and
   the Range: header is given, the range specifies which part of the
   full IMG resource is to be returned.  If a delta IMG is requested,
   first the delta IMG is formed by the IMG resolver and then the part
   identified by the Range: header is returned.  In both cases, the
   partial IMG resource MUST be returned using a 206 response and the
   corresponding rules (section 10.2.7 of [2] apply.  The Range: header
   SHOULD NOT be used with IMG pointers.




Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


   Further entity headers, such as Expires: and Last-Modified: SHOULD be
   used to describe the freshness and the lifespan properties of the
   returned IMG resource.


4.  Processing Rules

   This section specifies the precise processing rules for IMG QUERY and
   RESOLVE operations via HTTP.

4.1.  Forming Requests

   For a QUERY operation, the IMG querier MUST first derive an HTTP URI
   for the sought IMG resource.  If multiple HTTP URIs are found
   (leading to different IMG resource instances) the IMG querier MAY
   select one of these according to local preferences.  If different
   weights (for load balancing) and/or priorities are associated with
   the multiple HTTP URIs the IMG querier SHOULD make its choice taking
   into these weights and/or the priorities.  A specification defining
   how to obtain HTTP URI from an IMG URI MUST specify whether weights
   and/or priorities are supported and how these must be interpreted.

   The IMG querier SHOULD add the appropriate URI parameters defined in
   Section 3.1 to fully specify the type of query, the version inquired,
   etc.

   Having obtained the HTTP URI, the IMG querier MUST create an HTTP GET
   message according to [2].

   The IMG querier MUST include an Accept: header and SHOULD add
   "application/img-envelope+xml" as one of the values.  In MAY also add
   "text/html" or "text/plain".  If the IMG querier includes more than a
   single value in the Accept: header it MUST be prepared to receive
   content in the form of "multipart/alternative".

   The IMG querier MAY include Accept-Encoding: and related headers to
   further specify how the IMG resource shall be conveyed by the IMG
   resolver.  The IMG querier MAY specify a Range: header if only a
   subset of the IMG resource is to be requested.  The Range: header
   MUST NOT be used if the query type is "pointer".  Also, if the Range:
   header is used, the IMG querier MUST NOT indicate more than a single
   content type in the Accept: header.

   The IMG querier MAY include further HTTP headers as appropriate.

   The IMG querier MUST NOT include a body in the HTTP GET request
   message.




Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


   Once the HTTP GET message is complete, the querier follows regular
   HTTP procedures to contact the IMG resolver -- optionally via a proxy
   or cache -- using a transport protocol defined for use with HTTP,
   following the HTTP rules for connection setup, re-use, and teardown,
   etc.

4.2.  Processing Requests and Forming Responses

   An IMG resolver receiving an IMG query in the form of an HTTP GET
   message MUST validate the request as per [2].  It MUST perform any
   authentication/authorization checks and return appropriate error
   responses (e.g., "401" along with a challenge).  Basic authentication
   SHOULD NOT be used.

   Once the IMG QUERY has been authorized, the IMG resolver MUST
   validate whether it has the requested IMG resource instance available
   in the proper version(s).  If the resource is not available the IMG
   QUERY MUST be refused: This MAY be done by means of a "404 Not Found"
   response (if the IMG resolver has no knowledge of the IMG resource)
   but MAY also lead to a redirection (e.g., "301" or "302" pointing the
   IMG querier to a different location).  In the latter case, the HTTP
   URI of new location MUST be included in the Location: header of the
   response.

   If the IMG resolver cannot fulfill the request, it MUST generate an
   appropriate error response: If a delta encoding is requested but the
   IMG resolver does not support delta encoding, an "501(?)" response
   MUST be returned.  If none of the requested content type (e.g., only
   text/plain) is supported, a "406" response MUST be generated.  If the
   requested Range: cannot be satisfied, a "416" MUST be returned.
   Further response codes MAY be used as appropriate and in line with
   HTTP.

   If the request can be fulfilled, the IMG querier SHOULD generate a
   response entity based upon the requested query type: return the full
   IMG resource, calculate a delta encoding, or return all known IMG
   pointers for the requested resource.

   The IMG resolver MAY generate one or more response entities depending
   on the Accept: header:
      For the MIME type application/img-envelope+xml, the IMG resolver
      MUST create an IMG envelop to embed the requested IMG resource.
      It MUST include the versioning, validity, and (if applicable)
      delta encoding information in the IMG envelope.
      For the MIME types text/plain and text/html, the IMG resolver
      SHOULD generate a human-readable response from the IMG resource as
      far as possible.  If both are included, the IMG resolver MAY
      decide whether to generate none, one (and which one), or two



Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


      response entities.  An IMG envelope MUST NOT be used for this
      content type.

   If only a single entity is generated in response to the IMG QUERY,
   this entity MUST be placed in the message body of the HTTP response
   and the Content-Type: header MUST be set accordingly.  If both
   machine- and human-readable responses are generated, the IMG resolver
   MUST combine the two entities into a single one by means of the
   multipart/alternative MIME type which then MUST be placed in the
   message body of the HTTP response.  The IMG resolver MUST include a
   Content-Length: header.

   The HTTP response message -- that constitutes the IMG RESOLVE -- MUST
   then be returned to the IMG querier.

4.3.  Processing Responses

   An IMG querier receiving an IMG response in the form of an HTTP GET
   message MUST validate the response as per [2].  If necessary (e.g.,
   for authentication purposes), the IMG querier SHOULD re-issue the
   QUERY request with appropriate additions (e.g., authentication
   credentials filled in).  Similarly, if a request was rejected because
   of other parameter settings (e.g., requested content type, range,
   etc.), the request SHOULD be corrected and re-issued if possible.

   If the request was redirected to a different location (indicated by a
   3xx response), the IMG querier SHOULD re-issue the (modified) request
   to the new location.

   If the request was successful (indicated by a 2xx response), the IMG
   querier SHOULD process the message body containing the response
   entities as discussed in the following.  If only a single entity is
   included in the message body, it SHOULD extract the entity and
   proceed as defined below.  If multiple entities are returned
   (indicate by a Content-Type: of multipart/alternative) each entity is
   extracted and processed separately according to its respective
   content type.

   An IMG resource is returned in an IMG envelope and is indicated by
   the Content-Type: application/img-envelope+xml.  The IMG envelope
   contains the versioning, validity, optional delta encoding, and
   further information.  If no range is indicated in the HTTP response,
   the received envelope constitutes the entirety of the full or delta
   IMG resource.  In this case, the IMG resource received MUST be
   forwarded for further (local) IMG processing.  Otherwise, the
   corresponding entity header defines which part of the full or delta
   IMG resource is included.  In this latter case, the IMG querier MUST
   first reassemble all response parts and, if necessary, issue



Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


   additional requests to obtain missing pieces.  Only the fully
   reassembled response MUST be forwarded for further (local) IMG
   processing.  If an IMG querier issues additional requests obtain a
   complete IMG resource, it MUST do so using the same URI header
   parameters as in previous requests.

   A human-readable variant of an IMG resource -- indicate by the
   Content-Type: text/plain or text/html -- is returned without an IMG
   envelope and is not meant for machine processing.  The result MAY be
   rendered by the IMG querier or by some other entity.  If both text/
   plain and text/html entities are received it is up to the IMG querier
   which one to give preference for rendering.


5.  HTTP Intermediaries

   TBD.


6.  Examples

   TBD.


7.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies access to IMG resource via HTTP and HTTPS.
   Security considerations concerning HTTP and HTTPS similarly apply.
   Furthermore, the security considerations of IMGs apply.


8.  Open Issues

   Presently, this document assumes an XML-based (rather than a MIME-
   based) envelope.  It needs to be extended to cover MIME as well
   (which appears straightforward).

   Need to discuss if (and where) to indicate preferences for metadata
   format in case multiple representations exist for the same IMG
   resource (or will this be a different resource then?).

   Need to discuss how to deal with Content-Encoding (such as gzip).

   Need to define how to indicate which delta encodings are acceptable.

   Intermediaries are ffs.

   Examples are tbd.



Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  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.

   [3]  Walsh, R., "The IMG Envelope",
        draft-walsh-mmusic-img-envelope-03 (work in progress),
        June 2005.

9.2.  Informational References

   [4]  Walsh, R., Luoma, J., Asaeda, H., Schulzrinne, H., and Y.
        Nomura, "A Framework for the Usage of Internet Media Guides",
        draft-ietf-mmusic-img-framework-08 (work in progress),
        July 2004.






























Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


Authors' Addresses

   Joerg Ott
   Helsinki University of Technology
   Otakaari 5A
   Espoo  02150
   Finland

   Email: jo@netlab.hut.fi


   Kevin Loos
   Uni Bremen TZI
   Bibliothekstrasse 1
   Bremen  28359
   Germany

   Email: logic@tzi.org

































Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       IMG Query and Resolve via HTTP         October 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Ott & Loos               Expires April 23, 2006                [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/