HTTP of Future Past

Bringing back the greatness of HTTP/1.1 Beta...and other bits on pushing HTTP farther for fun.

Transcript

1. X-tend: HTTP of Future Past
2. Ohai!
3. Information Management: a proposal “VAGUE BUT EXCITING” – CIRCA 1989, 1990 PDF
4. “ ” distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems
5. “ ” An intriguing possibility, given a large hypertext database with typed links, is that it allows some degree of automatic analysis.
6. “ ” Most systems available today use a single database. …some things never change
7. HTTP/1.1 Beta RFC 2068
8. HTTP/1.1 Beta – RFC 2068  One year (1997) before RFC 2616 (1998)  Lots of good stuff  Much of it got removed  Due to lack of implementation…
9. HTTP/1.1 Beta – RFC 2068 …gone, daddy gone…  Methods: PATCH LINK, UNLINK  Headers: Alternates, Content-Version, Derived-From, Link, URI, Public and Content-Base
10. RELIFY RELIFY.COM
11. LINK / UNLINK  LINK /html/rfc2068 Host: tools.ietf.org Link: <http://relify.com/>; rel="about"  HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted
12. “ ” But what about spam!!1! - YOU…JUST A FEW SECONDS AGO
13. From: byoung@bigbluehat  Not for “insecure…access protection” (fine)  How ‘bout Verification?!  “the request is being performed on behalf of the person given, who accepts responsibility for the method performed” – RFC 2616  Send (typical) “click to confirm” email
14. LINK / UNLINK  LINK /html/rfc2068 Host: tools.ietf.org Link: <http://relify.com/>; rel="about" From: byoung@bigbluehat.com  HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted
15. Web Linking – RFC 5988 Brought back the “Link:” header “This document specifies relation types for Web links, and defines a registry for them. It also defines the use of such links in HTTP headers with the Link header field.”
16. RFC 5829  Link Relation Types for Simple Version Navigation between Web Resources version-history latest-version working-copy working-copy-of predecessor-version successor-version
17. RFC 6573 - The Item and Collection Link Relations item collection
18. UserInfo.me
19. UserInfo.me  http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/  GET /  Host: bigbluehat.com  UserInfo: byoung  Content-Type: text/html
20. UserInfo.me – profile page  http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/  GET /  Host: bigbluehat.com  UserInfo: byoung Content-Type: text/html
21. UserInfo.me – WebFinger response  http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/  GET /  Host: bigbluehat.com  UserInfo: byoung Content-Type: application/jrd+json
22. UserInfo.me – WebID response  http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/  GET /  Host: bigbluehat.com  UserInfo: byoung Content-Type: text/turtle
23. UserInfo.me – photo  http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/  GET /  Host: bigbluehat.com  UserInfo: byoung Content-Type: image/jpeg
24. UserInfo.me – redirect  http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/  GET /  Host: bigbluehat.com  UserInfo: byoung  HTTP/1.1 302 Found  Location: http://twitter.com/bigbluehat
25. UserInfo.me – the Heretic Variant
26. UserInfo.me – heretic variant  http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/  GET /  Host: bigbluehat.com Authorization: YnlvdW5nOg==  Content-Type: text/html
27. UserInfo.me – try it! curl http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/ curl –H “Accept: text/turtle” http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/ curl –H “Accept: image/jpeg” http://byoung@bigbluehat.com/ > byoung.jpg
28. Read Your RFCs, kids! THANKS!