--- 1/draft-ietf-core-dynlink-00.txt 2016-10-28 02:16:15.764858983 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-core-dynlink-01.txt 2016-10-28 02:16:15.796859771 -0700 @@ -1,283 +1,427 @@ CoRE Working Group Z. Shelby Internet-Draft ARM Intended status: Informational Z. Vial -Expires: April 22, 2017 Schneider-Electric +Expires: May 1, 2017 Schneider-Electric M. Koster SmartThings C. Groves Huawei - October 19, 2016 + October 28, 2016 Dynamic Resource Linking for Constrained RESTful Environments - draft-ietf-core-dynlink-00 + draft-ietf-core-dynlink-01 Abstract For CoAP [RFC7252] Dynamic linking of state updates between resources, either on an endpoint or between endpoints, is defined - with the concept of Link Bindings. This document defines conditional - observation attributes that work with Link Bindings or with simple - CoAP Observe [RFC7641]. + with the concept of Link Bindings. This specification defines + conditional observation attributes that work with Link Bindings or + with CoAP Observe [RFC7641]. + + Editor's note: + + o The git repository for the draft is found at https://github.com/ + core-wg/dynlink + + o Examples need to be added. 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 April 22, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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. Table of Contents - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Link Bindings and Observe Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3.1. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.2. Binding Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.3. Binding Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.4. Resource Observation Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4. Interface Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 4.1. Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 8. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3. Link Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3.1. Binding Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.1.1. Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.1.2. Observe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.1.3. Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.2. Link Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.3. Binding Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.3.1. Bind Method (bind) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.3.2. Minimum Period (pmin) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.3.3. Maximum Period (pmax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.3.4. Change Step (st) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.3.5. Greater Than (gt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.3.6. Less Than (lt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.3.7. Attribute Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4. Binding Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.1. Binding Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.2. Resource Observation Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6.1. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6.2. Link Relations Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 8. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Introduction IETF Standards for machine to machine communication in constrained environments describe a REST protocol and a set of related information standards that may be used to represent machine data and machine metadata in REST interfaces. CoRE Link-format is a standard for doing Web Linking [RFC5988] in constrained environments. - This document introduces the concept of a Link Binding, which defines - a new link relation type to create a dynamic link between resources - over which to exchange state updates. Specifically, a Link Binding - is a link for binding the state of 2 resources together such that - updates to one are sent over the link to the other. CoRE Link Format - representations are used to configure, inspect, and maintain Link - Bindings. This document additionally defines a set of conditional - Observe Attributes for use with Link Bindings and with the standalone - CoRE Observe [RFC7641] method. - - Editor's note: This initial version is based on the text of I.D.ietf- - core-interfaces-04. Further work is needed around link bindings and - extending the obeserve attributes with another use case that requires - 3 new optional attributes. + This specification introduces the concept of a Link Binding, which + defines a new link relation type to create a dynamic link between + resources over which to exchange state updates. Specifically, a Link + Binding is a link for binding the state of 2 resources together such + that updates to one are sent over the link to the other. CoRE Link + Format representations are used to configure, inspect, and maintain + Link Bindings. This specification additionally defines a set of + conditional Observe Attributes for use with Link Bindings and with + the standalone CoRE Observe [RFC7641] method. 2. Terminology 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]. + "OPTIONAL" in this specification are to be interpreted as described + in [RFC2119]. This specification requires readers to be familiar with all the terms and concepts that are discussed in [RFC5988] and [RFC6690]. This specification makes use of the following additional terminology: Link Binding: A unidirectional logical link between a source resource and a destination resource, over which state information is synchronized. -3. Link Bindings and Observe Attributes + State Synchronization: Depending on the binding method (Polling, + Observe, Push) different REST methods may be used to synchronize + the resource values between a source and a destination. The + process of using a REST method to achieve this is defined as + "State Synchronization". The endpoint triggering the state + synchronization is the synchronization initiator. + +3. Link Bindings In a M2M RESTful environment, endpoints may directly exchange the content of their resources to operate the distributed system. For example, a light switch may supply on-off control information that may be sent directly to a light resource for on-off control. Beforehand, a configuration phase is necessary to determine how the resources of the different endpoints are related to each other. This can be done either automatically using discovery mechanisms or by means of human intervention and a so-called commissioning tool. In - this document the abstract relationship between two resources is + this specification the abstract relationship between two resources is called a link Binding. The configuration phase necessitates the exchange of binding information so a format recognized by all CoRE - endpoints is essential. This document defines a format based on the - CoRE Link-Format to represent binding information along with the + endpoints is essential. This specification defines a format based on + the CoRE Link-Format to represent binding information along with the rules to define a binding method which is a specialized relationship between two resources. The purpose of a binding is to synchronize the content between a source resource and a destination resource. The destination resource MAY be a group resource if the authority component of the destination URI contains a group address (either a multicast address or a name that resolves to a multicast address). Since a binding is unidirectional, the binding entry defining a relationship is present only on one endpoint. The binding entry may be located either on the source or the destination endpoint depending - on the binding method. The following table gives a summary of the - binding methods described in more detail in Section 3.2 + on the binding method. + +3.1. Binding Methods + + A binding method defines the rules to generate the web-transfer + exchanges that synchronize state between source and destination + resources. By using REST methods content is sent from the source + resource to the destination resource. + + The following table gives a summary of the binding methods defined in + this specification. + +---------+------------+-------------+---------------+ | Name | Identifier | Location | Method | +---------+------------+-------------+---------------+ | Polling | poll | Destination | GET | | | | | | | Observe | obs | Destination | GET + Observe | | | | | | | Push | push | Source | PUT | +---------+------------+-------------+---------------+ Table 1: Binding Method Summary -3.1. Format + The description of a binding method must define the following + aspects: + + Identifier: This is the value of the "bind" attribute used to + identify the method. + + Location: This information indicates whether the binding entry is + stored on the source or on the destination endpoint. + + REST Method: This is the REST method used in the Request/Response + exchanges. + + Conditions: A binding method definition must state how the condition + attributes of the abstract binding definition are actually used in + this specialized binding. + + The binding methods are described in more detail below. + +3.1.1. Polling + + The Polling method consists of sending periodic GET requests from the + destination endpoint to the source resource and copying the content + to the destination resource. The binding entry for this method MUST + be stored on the destination endpoint. The destination endpoint MUST + ensure that the polling frequency does not exceed the limits defined + by the pmin and pmax attributes of the binding entry. The copying + process MAY filter out content from the GET requests using value- + based conditions (e.g based on the Change Step, Less Than, Greater + Than attributes). + +3.1.2. Observe + + The Observe method creates an observation relationship between the + destination endpoint and the source resource. On each notification + the content from the source resource is copied to the destination + resource. The creation of the observation relationship requires the + CoAP Observation mechanism [RFC7641] hence this method is only + permitted when the resources are made available over CoAP. The + binding entry for this method MUST be stored on the destination + endpoint. The binding conditions are mapped as query string + parameters (see Section 4.2). + +3.1.3. Push + + When the Push method is assigned to a binding, the source endpoint + sends PUT requests to the destination resource when the binding + condition attributes are satisfied for the source resource. The + source endpoint MUST only send a notification request if the binding + conditions are met. The binding entry for this method MUST be stored + on the source endpoint. + +3.2. Link Relation Since Binding involves the creation of a link between two resources, Web Linking and the CoRE Link-Format are a natural way to represent binding information. This involves the creation of a new relation - type, purposely named "boundto". In a Web link with this relation - type, the target URI contains the location of the source resource and - the context URI points to the destination resource. The Web link - attributes allow a fine-grained control of the type of - synchronization exchange along with the conditions that trigger an - update. This specification defines the attributes below: + type, named "boundto". In a Web link with this relation type, the + target URI contains the location of the source resource and the + context URI points to the destination resource. + +3.3. Binding Attributes + + Web link attributes allow a fine-grained control of the type of state + synchronization along with the conditions that trigger an update. + This specification defines the attributes below: +--------------------+-----------+------------------+ | Attribute | Parameter | Value | +--------------------+-----------+------------------+ | Binding method | bind | xsd:string | | | | | | Minimum Period (s) | pmin | xsd:integer (>0) | | | | | | Maximum Period (s) | pmax | xsd:integer (>0) | | | | | | Change Step | st | xsd:decimal (>0) | | | | | | Greater Than | gt | xsd:decimal | | | | | | Less Than | lt | xsd:decimal | +--------------------+-----------+------------------+ Table 2: Binding Attributes Summary - Bind Method: This is the identifier of a binding method which - defines the rules to synchronize the destination resource. This - attribute is mandatory. +3.3.1. Bind Method (bind) - Minimum Period: When present, the minimum period indicates the - minimum time to wait (in seconds) before sending a new - synchronization message (even if it has changed). In the absence - of this parameter, the minimum period is up to the notifier. + This is the identifier of a binding method which defines the rules to + synchronize the destination resource. This attribute is mandatory. - Maximum Period: When present, the maximum period indicates the - maximum time in seconds between two consecutive state - synchronization messages (regardless if it has changed). In the - absence of this parameter, the maximum period is up to the - notifier. The maximum period MUST be greater than the minimum - period parameter (if present). +3.3.2. Minimum Period (pmin) - Change Step: When present, the change step indicates how much the - value of a resource SHOULD change before sending a new - notification (compared to the value of the last notification). - This parameter has lower priority than the period parameters, thus - even if the change step has been fulfilled, the time since the - last notification SHOULD be between pmin and pmax. + When present, the minimum period indicates the minimum time to wait + (in seconds) before triggering a new state synchronization (even if + it has changed). In the absence of this parameter, the minimum + period is up to the synchronization initiator. The minimum period + MUST be greater than zero otherwise the receiver MUST return a CoAP + error code 4.00 "Bad Request" (or equivalent). - Greater Than: When present, Greater Than indicates the upper limit - value the resource value SHOULD cross before sending a new - notification. This parameter has lower priority than the period - parameters, thus even if the Greater Than limit has been crossed, - the time since the last notification SHOULD be between pmin and - pmax. +3.3.3. Maximum Period (pmax) - Less Than: When present, Less Than indicates the lower limit value - the resource value SHOULD cross before sending a new notification. - This parameter has lower priority than the period parameters, thus - even if the Less Than limit has been crossed, the time since the - last notification SHOULD be between pmin and pmax. + When present, the maximum period indicates the maximum time in + seconds between two consecutive state synchronizations (regardless if + it has changed). In the absence of this parameter, the maximum + period is up to the synchronization initiator. The maximum period + MUST be greater than zero and MUST be greater than the minimum period + parameter (if present) otherwise the receiver MUST return a CoAP + error code 4.00 "Bad Request" (or equivalent). -3.2. Binding Methods +3.3.4. Change Step (st) - A binding method defines the rules to generate the web-transfer - exchanges that will effectively send content from the source resource - to the destination resource. The description of a binding method - must define the following aspects: + When present, the change step indicates how much the value of a + resource SHOULD change before triggering a new state synchronization + (compared to the value of the previous synchronization). Upon + reception of a query including the st attribute the current value + (CurrVal) of the resource is set as the initial value (STinit). Once + the resource value differs from the STinit value (i.e. CurrVal >= + STinit + ST or CurrVal <= STint - ST) then a new state + synchronization occurs. STinit is then set to the state + synchronization value and new state synchronizations are based on a + change step against this value. The change step MUST be greater than + zero otherwise the receiver MUST return a CoAP error code 4.00 "Bad + Request" (or equivalent). - Identifier: This is value of the "bind" attribute used to identify - the method. + Note: Due to the state synchronization based update of STint it may + result in that resource value received in two sequential state + synchronizations differs by more than st. - Location: This information indicates whether the binding entry is - stored on the source or on the destination endpoint. +3.3.5. Greater Than (gt) - REST Method: This is the REST method used in the Request/Response - exchanges. + When present, Greater Than indicates the upper limit value the + resource value SHOULD cross before triggering a new state + synchronization. State synchronization only occurs when the resource + value exceeds the specified upper limit value. The actual resource + value is used for the synchronization rather than the gt value. If + the value continues to rise, no new state synchronizations are + generated as a result of gt. If the value drops below the upper + limit value and then exceeds the upper limit then a new state + synchronization is generated. - Conditions: A binding method definition must state how the condition - attributes of the abstract binding definition are actually used in - this specialized binding. +3.3.6. Less Than (lt) - This specification supports 3 binding methods described below: + When present, Less Than indicates the lower limit value the resource + value SHOULD cross before triggering a new state synchronization. + State synchronization only occurs when the resource value is less + than the specified lower limit value. The actual resource value is + used for the synchronization rather than the lt value. If the value + continues to fall no new state synchronizations are generated as a + result of lt. If the value rises above the lower limit value and + then drops below the lower limit then a new state synchronization is + generated. - Polling: The Polling method consists of sending periodic GET - requests from the destination endpoint to the source resource and - copying the content to the destination resource. The binding - entry for this method MUST be stored on the destination endpoint. - The destination endpoint MUST ensure that the polling frequency - does not exceed the limits defined by the pmin and pmax attributes - of the binding entry. The copying process MAY filter out content - from the GET requests using value-based conditions (e.g Change - Step, Less Than, Greater Than). +3.3.7. Attribute Interactions - Observe: The Observe method creates an observation relationship - between the destination endpoint and the source resource. On each - notification the content from the source resource is copied to the - destination resource. The creation of the observation - relationship requires the CoAP Observation mechanism [RFC7641] - hence this method is only permitted when the resources are made - available over CoAP. The binding entry for this method MUST be - stored on the destination endpoint. The binding conditions are - mapped as query string parameters (see Section 3.4). + Pmin, pmax, st, gt and lt may be present in the same query. - Push: When the Push method is assigned to a binding, the source - endpoint sends PUT requests to the destination resource when the - binding condition attributes are satisfied for the source - resource. The source endpoint MUST only send a notification - request if the binding conditions are met. The binding entry for - this method MUST be stored on the source endpoint. + If pmin and pmax are present in a query then they take precedence + over the other parameters. Thus even if st, gt or lt are met, if + pmin has not been exceeded then no state synchronization occurs. + Likewise if st, gt or lt have not been met and pmax time has expired + then state synchronization occurs. The current value of the resource + is used for the synchronization. If pmin time is exceeded and st, gt + or lt are met then the current value of the resource is synchronized. + If st is also included, a state synchronization resulting from pmin + or pmax updates STinit with the synchronized value. -3.3. Binding Table + If gt and lt are included gt MUST be greater than lt otherwise an + error CoAP error code 4.00 "Bad Request" (or equivalent) MUST be + returned. + + If st is included in a query with a gt or lt attribute then state + synchronizations occur only when the conditions described by st AND + gt or st AND gl are met. + +4. Binding Table The binding table is a special resource that gives access to the bindings on a endpoint. A binding table resource MUST support the - Binding interface defined in Section 4.1. A profile SHOULD allow - only one resource table per endpoint. + Binding interface defined below. A profile SHOULD allow only one + resource table per endpoint. -3.4. Resource Observation Attributes +4.1. Binding Interface Description + + This section defines a REST interface for Binding table resources. + The interface supports the link-format type. + + The if= column defines the Interface Description (if=) attribute + value to be used in the CoRE Link Format for a resource conforming to + that interface. When this value appears in the if= attribute of a + link, the resource MUST support the corresponding REST interface + described in this section. The resource MAY support additional + functionality, which is out of scope for this specification. + Although this interface description is intended to be used with the + CoRE Link Format, it is applicable for use in any REST interface + definition. + + The Methods column defines the REST methods supported by the + interface, which are described in more detail below. + + +-----------+----------+-------------------+-----------------+ + | Interface | if= | Methods | Content-Formats | + +-----------+----------+-------------------+-----------------+ + | Binding | core.bnd | GET, POST, DELETE | link-format | + +-----------+----------+-------------------+-----------------+ + + Table 3: Binding Interface Description + + The Binding interface is used to manipulate a binding table. A + request with a POST method and a content format of application/link- + format simply appends new bindings to the table. All links in the + payload MUST have a relation type "boundTo". A GET request simply + returns the current state of a binding table whereas a DELETE request + empties the table. Individual entries may be dreeleted from the + table by specifying the resource path in a DELETE request. + + The following example shows requests for adding, retrieving and + deleting bindings in a binding table. + + Req: POST /bnd/ (Content-Format: application/link-format) + ; + rel="boundto";anchor="/a/light";bind="obs";pmin="10";pmax="60" + Res: 2.04 Changed + + Req: GET /bnd/ + Res: 2.05 Content (application/link-format) + ; + rel="boundto";anchor="/a/light";bind="obs";pmin="10";pmax="60" + + Req: DELETE /bnd/a/light + Res: 2.04 Changed + + Req: DELETE /bnd/ + Res: 2.04 Changed + + Figure 1: Binding Interface Example + +4.2. Resource Observation Attributes When resource interfaces following this specification are made available over CoAP, the CoAP Observation mechanism [RFC7641] MAY be used to observe any changes in a resource, and receive asynchronous notifications as a result. In addition, a set of query string parameters are defined here to allow a client to control how often a client is interested in receiving notifications and how much a resource value should change for the new representation to be interesting. These query parameters are described in the following table. A resource using an interface description defined in this @@ -298,136 +442,122 @@ | | | | | Maximum Period | /{resource}?pmax | xsd:integer (>0) | | | | | | Change Step | /{resource}?st | xsd:decimal (>0) | | | | | | Less Than | /{resource}?lt | xsd:decimal | | | | | | Greater Than | /{resource}?gt | xsd:decimal | +----------------+------------------+------------------+ - Table 3: Resource Observation Attribute Summary - - Minimum Period: When present, the minimum period indicates the - minimum time to wait (in seconds) before sending a new - synchronization message (even if it has changed). In the absence - of this parameter, the minimum period is up to the notifier. + Table 4: Resource Observation Attribute Summary - Maximum Period: When present, the maximum period indicates the - maximum time in seconds between two consecutive state - synchronization messages (regardless if it has changed). In the - absence of this parameter, the maximum period is up to the - notifier. The maximum period MUST be greater than the minimum - period parameter (if present). + Minimum Period: As per Section 3.3.2 - Change Step: When present, the change step indicates how much the - value of a resource SHOULD change before sending a new - notification (compared to the value of the last notification). - This parameter has lower priority than the period parameters, thus - even if the change step has been fulfilled, the time since the - last notification SHOULD be between pmin and pmax. + Maximum Period: As per Section 3.3.3 - Greater Than: When present, Greater Than indicates the upper limit - value the resource value SHOULD cross before sending a new - notification. This parameter has lower priority than the period - parameters, thus even if the Greater Than limit has been crossed, - the time since the last notification SHOULD be between pmin and - pmax. + Change Step: As per Section 3.3.4 - Less Than: When present, Less Than indicates the lower limit value - the resource value SHOULD cross before sending a new notification. - This parameter has lower priority than the period parameters, thus - even if the Less Than limit has been crossed, the time since the - last notification SHOULD be between pmin and pmax. + Greater Than: As per Section 3.3.5 -4. Interface Descriptions + Less Than: As per Section 3.3.6 - This section defines REST interfaces for Binding table resources. - The interface supports the link-format type. +5. Security Considerations - The if= column defines the Interface Description (if=) attribute - value to be used in the CoRE Link Format for a resource conforming to - that interface. When this value appears in the if= attribute of a - link, the resource MUST support the corresponding REST interface - described in this section. The resource MAY support additional - functionality, which is out of scope for this specification. - Although this interface descriptions is intended to be used with the - CoRE Link Format, it is applicable for use in any REST interface - definition. + An implementation of a client needs to be prepared to deal with + responses to a request that differ from what is specified in this + specification. A server implementing what the client thinks is a + resource with one of these interface descriptions could return + malformed representations and response codes either by accident or + maliciously. A server sending maliciously malformed responses could + attempt to take advantage of a poorly implemented client for example + to crash the node or perform denial of service. - The Methods column defines the methods supported by that interface, - which are described in more detail below. +6. IANA Considerations - +-----------+----------+-------------------+-----------------+ - | Interface | if= | Methods | Content-Formats | - +-----------+----------+-------------------+-----------------+ - | Binding | core.bnd | GET, POST, DELETE | link-format | - +-----------+----------+-------------------+-----------------+ +6.1. Interface Description - Table 4: Inteface Description + The specification registers the "binding" CoRE interface description + link target attribute value as per [RFC6690]. -4.1. Binding + Attribute Value: binding - The Binding interface is used to manipulate a binding table. A - request with a POST method and a content format of application/link- - format simply appends new bindings to the table. All links in the - payload MUST have a relation type "boundTo". A GET request simply - returns the current state of a binding table whereas a DELETE request - empties the table. + Editor's note: RFC6690 actually indicates the use of core. for CoRE + WG documents. Therefore it probably is more correct to register + core.binding . However this may cause a problem for existing + implementations. One approach may be to register two attributes + "binding" and "core.binding." - The following example shows requests for adding, retrieving and - deleting bindings in a binding table. + Description: The binding interface is used to manipulate a binding + table which describes the link bindings between source and + destination resources for the purposes of synchronizing their + content. - Req: POST /bnd/ (Content-Format: application/link-format) - ; - rel="boundto";anchor="/a/light";bind="obs";pmin="10";pmax="60" - Res: 2.04 Changed + Reference: This specification. Note to RFC editor: please insert the + RFC of this specification. - Req: GET /bnd/ - Res: 2.05 Content (application/link-format) - ; - rel="boundto";anchor="/a/light";bind="obs";pmin="10";pmax="60" + Notes: None - Req: DELETE /bnd/ - Res: 2.04 Changed +6.2. Link Relations Type - Figure 1: Binding Interface Example + This specification registers the new "bounto" link relation type as + per [RFC5988]. -5. Security Considerations + Relation Name: boundto - An implementation of a client needs to be prepared to deal with - responses to a request that differ from what is specified in this - document. A server implementing what the client thinks is a resource - with one of these interface descriptions could return malformed - representations and response codes either by accident or maliciously. - A server sending maliciously malformed responses could attempt to - take advantage of a poorly implemented client for example to crash - the node or perform denial of service. + Description: The purpose of a boundto relation type is to indicate + that there is a binding between a source resource and a + destination resource for the purposes of synchronizing their + content. -6. IANA Considerations + Reference: This specification. Note to RFC editor: please insert + the RFC of this specification. - The "binding" interface description types requires registration + Notes: None - The new link relations type "boundto" requires registration. + Application Data: None 7. Acknowledgements Acknowledgement is given to colleagues from the SENSEI project who were critical in the initial development of the well-known REST interface concept, to members of the IPSO Alliance where further requirements for interface types have been discussed, and to Szymon Sasin, Cedric Chauvenet, Daniel Gavelle and Carsten Bormann who have provided useful discussion and input to the concepts in this - document. + specification. 8. Changelog + draft-ietf-core-dynlink-01 + + o General: The term state synchronization has been introduced to + describe the process of synchronization between destination and + source resources. + + o General: The document has been restructured the make the + information flow better. + + o Clause 3.1: The descriptions of the binding attributes have been + updated to clarify their usage. + + o Clause 3.1: A new clause has been added to discuss the + interactions between the resources. + + o Clause 3.4: Has been simplified to refer to the descriptions in + 3.1. As the text was largely duplicated. + + o Clause 4.1: Added a clarification that individual resources may be + removed from the binding table. + + o Clause 6: Formailised the IANA considerations. + draft-ietf-core-dynlink Initial Version 00: o This is a copy of draft-groves-core-dynlink-00 draft-groves-core-dynlink Draft Initial Version 00: o This initial version is based on the text regarding the dynamic linking functionality in I.D.ietf-core-interfaces-05. o The WADL description has been dropped in favour of a thorough