Network Working Group J. Snell

Network Working Group J. Snell
Request for Comments: 4685 September 2006
Category: Standards Track

Atom Threading Extensions

Status of This Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

This memo presents a mechanism that allows feeds publishers to
express threaded discussions within the Atom Syndication Format.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................1
2. Notational Conventions ..........................................2
3. The 'in-reply-to' Extension Element .............................2
4. The 'replies' Link Relation .....................................5
5. The 'total' Extension Element ...................................6
6. Considerations for Using thr:count, thr:updated, and total ......7
7. Security Considerations .........................................8
8. IANA Considerations .............................................9
9. References ......................................................9
9.1. Normative References .......................................9
9.2. Informative References ....................................10
Appendix A. Acknowledgements .....................................11

1. Introduction

This document defines an extension for expressing threaded
discussions within the Atom Syndication Format [RFC4287].

Snell Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

2. Notational Conventions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119], as
scoped to those conformance targets.

The XML Namespaces URI [W3C.REC-xml-names-19990114] for the XML
elements and attributes described in this specification is:
http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0

In this document, the namespace prefix "thr:" is used for the above
Namespace URI. Note that the choice of namespace prefix is arbitrary
and not semantically significant.

This specification uses a shorthand form of terms from the XML
Infoset [W3C.REC-xml-infoset-20040204]. The phrase "Information
Item" is omitted when naming Element and Attribute Information Items.
Therefore, when this specification uses the term "element," it is
referring to an Element Information Item in Infoset terms. Likewise,
when this specification uses the term "attribute," it is referring to
an Attribute Information Item.

This specification allows the use of IRIs [RFC3987]. Every URI
[RFC3986] is also an IRI, so a URI may be used wherever an IRI is
named. When an IRI that is not also a URI is given for
dereferencing, it MUST be mapped to a URI using the steps in Section
3.1 of [RFC3987]. When an IRI is serving as an identifier, it MUST
NOT be so mapped.

Some sections of this specification are illustrated with a non-
normative RELAX NG Compact schema [RELAXNG]. In those sections, this
specification uses the atomCommonAttributes, atomMediaType, and
atomURI patterns, defined in [RFC4287].

However, the text of this specification provides the sole definition
of conformance.

3. The 'in-reply-to' Extension Element

The "in-reply-to" element is used to indicate that an entry is a
response to another resource. The element MUST contain a "ref"
attribute identifying the resource that is being responded to.

The element is not unlike the references and in-reply-to email
message headers, defined by [RFC2822]. However, unlike the in-
reply-to header, the "in-reply-to" element is required to identify
the unique identifier of only a single parent resource. If the entry

Snell Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

is a response to multiple resources, additional "in-reply-to"
elements MAY be used. There is no direct equivalent to the
references header, which lists the unique identifiers of each
preceding message in a thread.

in-reply-to =
element thr:in-reply-to {
atomCommonAttributes,
ref,
href?,
source?,
type?,
( undefinedContent )
}

ref = attribute ref { atomURI }
href = attribute href { atomURI }
type = attribute type { atomMediaType }
source = attribute source { atomURI }

The "ref" attribute specifies the persistent, universally unique
identifier of the resource being responded to. The value MUST
conform to the same construction and comparison rules as the value of
the atom:id element, as defined in Section 4.2.6 of [RFC4287].
Though the IRI might use a dereferenceable scheme, processors MUST
NOT assume that it can be dereferenced.

If the resource being responded to does not have a persistent,
universally unique identifier, the publisher MUST assign an
identifier that satisfies all the considerations in Section 4.2.6 of
[RFC4287] for use as the value of the "ref" attribute. In that case,
if a representation of the resource can be retrieved from an IRI that
can be used as a valid atom:id value, then this IRI SHOULD be used as
the value of both the "ref" and "href" attributes.

The "source" attribute MAY be used to specify the IRI [RFC3987] of an
Atom Feed or Entry Document containing an atom:entry with an atom:id
value equal to the value of the "ref" attribute. The IRI specified,
once appropriately mapped to a corresponding URI, MUST be
dereferenceable.

The "href" attribute specifies an IRI that may be used to retrieve a
representation of the resource being responded to. The IRI
specified, once appropriately mapped to a corresponding URI, MUST be
dereferenceable.

Snell Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

The "type" attribute MAY be used to provide a hint to the client
about the media type [RFC4288] of the resource identified by the
"href" attribute. The "type" attribute is only meaningful if a
corresponding "href" attribute is also provided.

This specification assigns no significance to the order in which
multiple "in-reply-to" elements appear within an entry.

An example of an entry with a response follows:

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
<id>http://www.example.org/myfeed</id>
<title>My Example Feed</title>
<updated>2005-07-28T12:00:00Z</updated>
<link href="http://www.example.org/myfeed" />
<author><name>James</name></author>
<entry>
<id>tag:example.org,2005:1</id>
<title>My original entry</title>
<updated>2006-03-01T12:12:12Z</updated>
<link
type="application/xhtml+xml"
href="http://www.example.org/entries/1" />
<summary>This is my original entry</summary>
</entry>
<entry>
<id>tag:example.org,2005:1,1</id>
<title>A response to the original</title>
<updated>2006-03-01T12:12:12Z</updated>
<link href="http://www.example.org/entries/1/1" />
<thr:in-reply-to
ref="tag:example.org,2005:1"
type="application/xhtml+xml"
href="http://www.example.org/entries/1"/>
<summary>This is a response to the original entry</summary>
</entry>
</feed>

To allow Atom processors that are not familiar with the in-reply-to
extension to know that a relationship exists between the entry and
the resource being responded to, publishers are advised to consider
including a "related" link referencing a representation of the
resource identified by the in-reply-to element. Although such links
are unlikely to be processed as a reference to a predecessor in a
threaded conversation, they are helpful in at least establishing a
semantically meaningful relationship between the linked resources.

Snell Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

For example,

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
<id>http://www.example.org/myfeed</id>
<title>My Example Feed</title>
<updated>2005-07-28T12:00:00Z</updated>
<link href="http://www.example.org/myfeed" />
<author><name>James</name></author>
<entry>
<id>tag:example.org,2005:1,1</id>
<title>A response to the original</title>
<updated>2006-03-01T12:12:12Z</updated>
<link href="http://www.example.org/entries/1/1" />
<thr:in-reply-to
ref="tag:example.org,2005:1,0"
type="application/xhtml+xml"
href="http://www.example.org/entries/1"
source="http://www.example.org/myfeed" />
<link
rel="related"
type="application/xhtml+xml"
href="http://www.example.org/entries/1" />
<summary>This is a response to the original entry</summary>
</entry>
</feed>

4. The 'replies' Link Relation

An Atom link element with a rel attribute value of "replies" may be
used to reference a resource where responses to an entry may be
found. If the type attribute of the atom:link is omitted, its value
is assumed to be "application/atom+xml".

A "replies" link appearing as a child of the Atom feed or source
element indicates that the referenced resource likely contains
responses to any of that feed's entries. A "replies" link appearing
as a child of an Atom entry element indicates that the linked
resource likely contains responses specific to that entry.

An atom:link element using the "replies" rel attribute value MAY
contain a "thr:count" attribute whose value is an unsigned, non-
negative integer, conforming to the canonical representation of the
XML Schema nonNegativeInteger data type [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-
20041028], that provides a hint to clients as to the total number of
replies contained by the linked resource. The value is advisory and
may not accurately reflect the actual number of replies.

Snell Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

The link MAY also contain a "thr:updated" attribute, whose value is a
[RFC3339] date-time stamp conforming to the same construction rules
as the Atom Date Construct defined in [RFC4287], and is used to
provide a hint to clients as to the date and time of the most
recently updated reply contained by the linked resource. The value
is advisory and may not accurately reflect the actual date and time
of the most recent reply.

For example,

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
<id>http://www.example.org/myfeed</id>
<title>My Example Feed</title>
<updated>2005-07-28T12:00:00Z</updated>
<link href="http://www.example.org/myfeed" />
<author><name>James</name></author>
<entry>
<id>tag:entries.com,2005:1</id>
<title>My original entry</title>
<updated>2006-03-01T12:12:12Z</updated>
<link href="http://www.example.org/entries/1" />
<link rel="replies"
type="application/atom+xml"
href="http://www.example.org/mycommentsfeed.xml"
thr:count="10" thr:updated="2005-07-28T12:10:00Z" />
<summary>This is my original entry</summary>
</entry>
</feed>

Although Atom feed, entry, and source elements MAY each contain any
number of atom:link elements using the "replies" link relation, this
specification assigns no significance to the presence or order of
such links. Multiple replies links appearing within an atom:entry
may reference alternative representations of the same set of
responses or may reference entirely distinct resources containing
distinct sets of responses. Processors MUST NOT assume that multiple
replies links are referencing different representations of the same
resource and MUST process each replies link independently of any
others.

5. The 'total' Extension Element

The "total" element is used to indicate the total number of unique
responses to an entry known to the publisher. Its content MUST be an
unsigned non-negative integer value conforming to the canonical
representation of the XML Schema nonNegativeInteger data type
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028].

Snell Standards Track [Page 6]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

total = element thr:total { xsd:nonNegativeInteger }

Atom entries MAY contain a "total" element but MUST NOT contain more
than one.

There is no implied relationship between the value of the "total"
element of an Atom entry and any individual or aggregate values of
the "thr:count" attributes of its Atom link elements having a
"replies" relation.

6. Considerations for Using thr:count, thr:updated, and total

The thr:count, thr:updated, and total extensions provide additional
metadata about the thread of discussion associated with an entry.
The values are intended to make it easier for feed consumers to
display basic contextual information about the thread without
requiring that those consumers dereference, parse, and analyze linked
resources. That said, there are a number of considerations
implementors need to be aware of.

First, these extensions MUST NOT be assumed to provide completely
accurate information about the thread of discussion. For instance,
the actual total number of responses contained by a linked resource
MAY differ from the number specified in the thr:count attribute.
Feed publishers SHOULD make an effort to ensure that the values are
accurate. The non-authoritative nature of "external reference
metadata", like the replies link attributes, is discussed in detail
in Section 3.3 of the W3C document "Tag Finding 12: Authoritative
Metadata" [TAG12].

Second, the values of the these extensions are volatile and may
change at a faster rate than that of the containing entry. Frequent
updates to these values, or to any part of the Atom document, could
have a detrimental impact on the cacheability of the document using
the attributes, leading to an increase in overall bandwidth
consumption.

Feed publishers SHOULD consider a change to the values of the thr:
count, thr:updated, and total extensions an "insignificant" update in
terms of [RFC4287], meaning that the value of the containing feed,
entry, or source element's atom:updated element SHOULD NOT be
affected by a change to the values of these extensions.

Lastly, implementors need to be aware that although the Atom
specification [RFC4287] explicitly allows the link element to contain
arbitrary extensions, the specification does not require that
implementations support such extensions. Specifically, relating to
the use of extensions, Atom does not define any level of mandatory

Snell Standards Track [Page 7]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

conformance on the part of feed consumers beyond a requirement that
implementations ignore any extension the implementation does not
understand. As a result, some implementations MAY NOT be capable of
fully utilizing the extensions defined by this or any specification.

7. Security Considerations

As this specification defines an extension to the Atom Syndication
Format, it is subject to the same security considerations defined in
[RFC4287].

Feeds using the mechanisms described here could be crafted in such a
way as to cause a consumer to initiate excessive (or even an unending
sequence of) network requests, causing denial of service (to the
consumer, the target server, and/or intervening networks). Consumers
can mitigate this risk by requiring user intervention after a certain
number of requests, or by limiting requests either according to a
hard limit, or with heuristics.

The mechanisms described here can be used to construct threaded
conversations spanning resources distributed across multiple domains.
For example, an individual posting an entry to one weblog hosted on
one Internet domain could mark that entry as a response to an entry
from a different weblog hosted on a different domain. Implementors
should note that such distributed responses can be leveraged by an
attacker to attach inappropriate or unwanted content to a discussion.
Such attacks can be prevented or mitigated by allowing users to
explicitly configure the sources from which responses may be
retrieved, or by applying heuristics to determine the legitimacy of a
given response source.

Implementors should also note the potential for abuse that exists
when malicious content publishers edit or change previously published
content. In closed, centralized comment systems, after-the-fact
editing of comments is typically not an issue, as such changes are
easily prevented, detected, or tracked. With the form of distributed
comments enabled through the use of the thr:in-reply-to extension,
however, such changes become more difficult to detect, raising the
possibility of serious attribution and repudiation concerns. XML
Digital Signatures, as specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC4287], present
one possible avenue for mitigating such concerns, although the
presence of a valid XML Digital Signature within an entry is not, by
itself, a reliable defense against repudiation issues.

Snell Standards Track [Page 8]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

8. IANA Considerations

This specification defines one new Atom link relation type that has
been registered in the IANA Registry of Link Relation, as defined by
[RFC4287].

Attribute Value: replies
Description: (see Section 4)
Expected display characteristics: (see Section 4)
Security considerations: (see Section 5)

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.

[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.

[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.

[RFC4287] Nottingham, M. and R. Sayre, "The Atom Syndication
Format", RFC 4287, December 2005.

[RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.

[W3C.REC-xml-infoset-20040204]
Tobin, R. and J. Cowan, "XML Information Set (Second
Edition)", W3C REC REC-xml-infoset-20040204, February
2004.

[W3C.REC-xml-names-19990114]
Hollander, D., Bray, T., and A. Layman, "Namespaces in
XML", W3C REC REC-xml-names-19990114, January 1999.

[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Malhotra, A. and P. Biron, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
Second Edition", W3C REC REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October
2004.

Snell Standards Track [Page 9]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

9.2. Informative References

[RELAXNG] Clark, J., "RELAX NG Compact Syntax", December 2001,
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/
compact-20021121.html>.

[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April
2001.

[TAG12] Fielding, R. and I. Jacobs, "Tag Finding 12: Authoritative
Metadata", <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-
20060412>.

Snell Standards Track [Page 10]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the feedback from Antone Roundy,
Aristotle Pagaltzis, Byrne Reese, David Powell, Eric Scheid, James
Holderness, John Panzer, Lisa Dusseault, M. David Peterson, Sam Ruby,
Sylvain Hellegouarch, and the remaining members of the Atom
Publishing Format and Protocol working group during the development
of this specification. Any fault or weakness in the definition of
this extension is solely the blame of the author.

Some portions of text in this document have been adapted from
[RFC4287] in order to maintain a stylistic and technical alignment
with that specification.

Author's Address

James M Snell

EMail: [email protected]
URI: http://www.snellspace.com

Snell Standards Track [Page 11]

RFC 4685 Feed Thread September 2006

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

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.

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.

Intellectual Property

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
[email protected].

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Snell Standards Track [Page 12]