(remainder of content)
3.1. Using Additional Link Relations When used in an API catalog document, the "item" [RFC6573] link relation identifies a target resource that represents an API that is a member of the API catalog. Other link relations may be utilised in an API catalog to convey metadata descriptions for API links. 4. The API Catalog Document The API catalog is a document listing a Publisher's APIs. The Publisher may host the API catalog document at any URI(s) they choose. For example, the API catalog document URI of https://www.example.com/my_api_catalog.json can be requested directly or via a request to https://www.example.com/.well-known/api-catalog, which the Publisher will resolve to https://www.example.com/ my_api_catalog. 4.1. API Catalog Contents The API catalog MUST include hyperlinks to API endpoints. It is RECOMMENDED that the API catalog also includes useful metadata, such as usage policies, API version information, links to the OpenAPI Specification [OAS] definitions for each API, etc. If the Publisher does not include that metadata directly in the API catalog document, they SHOULD make that metadata available at the API endpoint URIs they have listed (see Appendix A.2 for an example). 4.2. API Catalog Formats The Publisher MUST publish the API catalog document in the Linkset format application/linkset+json (Section 4.2 of [RFC9264]). The Linkset SHOULD include a profile parameter (Section 5 of [RFC9264]) with a Profile URI [RFC7284] value of "https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc9727" to indicate the Linkset is representing an API catalog document as defined above. Appendix A includes example API catalog documents based on the Linkset format. The Publisher MAY make additional formats available via content negotiation (Section 12 of [HTTP]) to their /.well-known/api-catalog location. A non-exhaustive list of such formats that support the automated discovery and machine (and human) usage of a Publisher's APIs is listed at Appendix A.3. If a Publisher already lists their APIs in a format other than Linkset, but wishes to utilise the /.well-known/api-catalog URI, then: * They MUST also implement a Linkset with, at minimum, hyperlinks to API endpoints; see Appendix A.2. * They MAY support content negotiation at the /.well-known/api- catalog URI to allow for the return of their existing format. 4.3. Nesting API Catalog Links An API catalog may itself contain links to other API catalogs by using the "api-catalog" relation type for each link. An example of this is given in Appendix A.4. 5. Operational Considerations 5.1. Accounting for APIs Distributed Across Multiple Domains A Publisher ("example") may have their APIs hosted across multiple domains that they manage, e.g., at www.example.com, developer.example.com, apis.example.com, apis.example.net, etc. They may also use a third-party API hosting provider that hosts APIs on a distinct domain. To account for this scenario, it is RECOMMENDED that: * The Publisher also publish the api-catalog well-known URI at each of their API domains, e.g., https://apis.example.com/.well-known/ api-catalog, https://developer.example.net/.well-known/api- catalog, etc. * An HTTPS GET request to any of these URIs returns the same result, namely, the API catalog document. * The Publisher choose one of their instances of /.well-known/api- catalog as a canonical reference to the location of the latest API catalog since the physical location of the API catalog document is decided by the Publisher and may change. The Publisher's other instances of /.well-known/api-catalog should redirect to this canonical instance of /.well-known/api-catalog to ensure the latest API catalog is returned. For example, if the Publisher's primary API portal is https://apis.example.com, then https://apis.example.com/.well-known/ api-catalog should resolve to the location of the Publisher's latest API catalog document. If the Publisher is also the domain authority for www.example.net, which also hosts a selection of their APIs, then a request to https://www.example.net/.well-known/api-catalog should redirect to https://apis.example.com/.well-known/api-catalog. If the Publisher is not the domain authority for www.example.net, then the Publisher's API Catalog MAY include a link to the API catalog of the third-party that is the domain authority for www.example.net. For example, the API catalog available at https://apis.example.com/.well-known/api-catalog may list APIs hosted at apis.example.com and also link to the API catalog hosted at https://www.example.net/.well-known/api-catalog using the "api- catalog" link relation: { "linkset": [ { "anchor": "https://www.example.com/.well-known/api-catalog", "item": [ { "href": "https://developer.example.com/apis/foo_api" }, { "href": "https://developer.example.com/apis/bar_api" }, { "href": "https://developer.example.com/apis/cantona_api" } ], "api-catalog": "https://www.example.net/.well-known/api-catalog" } ] } 5.2. Internal Use of api-catalog for Private APIs A Publisher may wish to use the api-catalog well-known URI on their internal network to signpost authorised users (e.g., company employees) towards internal/private APIs not intended for third-party use. This scenario may incur additional security considerations as noted in Section 8. 5.3. Scalability Guidelines In cases where a Publisher has a large number of APIs potentially deployed across multiple domains, two challenges may arise: * Maintaining the catalog entries to ensure they are up to date and correcting any errors. * Restricting the catalog size to help reduce network and client- processing overheads. In both cases, a Publisher may benefit from grouping their APIs, providing an API catalog document for each group and using the main API catalog hosted at /.well-known/api-catalog to provide links to these. For example, a Publisher may decide to group their APIs according to a business category (e.g., "gaming APIs", "anti-fraud APIs", etc.), a technology category (e.g., "IOT", "networks", "AI", etc.), or any other criterion. This grouping may be implicit where the Publisher has already published their APIs across multiple domains, e.g., at gaming.example.com, iot.example.net, etc. Section 4.3 shows how the API catalog at /.well-known/api-catalog can use the api-catalog link relation to point to other API catalogs. The Publisher SHOULD consider caching and compression techniques to reduce the network overhead of large API catalogs. 5.4. Monitoring and Maintenance Publishers are RECOMMENDED to follow operational best practice when hosting API catalog(s), including, but not limited to: * Availability. The Publisher should monitor availability of the API catalog and consider alternate means to resolve requests to /.well-known/api-catalog during planned downtime of hosts. * Performance. Although the performance of APIs listed in an API catalog can demand high transactions per second and low-latency response, the retrieval of the API catalog itself to discover those APIs is less likely to incur strict performance demands. That said, the Publisher should monitor the response time to fulfil a request for the API catalog and determine any necessary improvements (as with any other Web resource the Publisher serves). For large API catalogs, the Publisher should consider the techniques described in Section 5.3. * Usage. Since the goal of the api-catalog well-known URI is to facilitate discovery of APIs, the Publisher may wish to correlate requests to the /.well-known/api-catalog URI with subsequent requests to the API URIs listed in the catalog. * Current data. The Publisher should include the removal of stale API entries from the API catalog as part of their API release lifecycle. The Publisher MAY decide to include metadata regarding legacy API versions or deprecated APIs to help users of those APIs discover up-to-date alternatives. * Correct metadata. The Publisher should include human and/or automated checks for syntax errors in the API catalog. Automated checks include format validation (e.g., to ensure valid JSON syntax) and linting to enforce business rules, such as removing duplicate entries and ensuring descriptions are correctly named with valid values. A proofread of the API catalog as part of the API release lifecycle is RECOMMENDED to detect any errors in business grammar (for example, an API entry that is described with valid syntax, but has been allocated an incorrect or outdated description.) * Security best practice. See Section 8. 5.5. Integration with Existing API Management Frameworks A Publisher may already utilise an API management framework to produce their API portfolio. These frameworks typically include the publication of API endpoint URIs, deprecation and redirection of legacy API versions, API usage policies and documentation, etc. The api-catalog well-known URI and API catalog document are intended to complement API management frameworks by facilitating the discovery of the framework's outputs -- API endpoints, usage policies, and documentation -- and are not intended to replace any existing API discovery mechanisms the framework has implemented. Providers of such frameworks may include the production of an API catalog and the publication of the /.well-known/api-catalog URI as a final pre-release (or post-release) step in the release management workflow. The following steps are recommended. If the /.well-known/api-catalog URI has not been published previously, the framework provider should: * Collate and check the metadata for each API that will be included in the API catalog. This metadata is likely to already exist in the framework. * Determine which metadata to include in the API catalog following the requirements set out in Section 4.1 and the considerations set out in Section 5. * Map the chosen metadata to the format(s) described in Section 4.2. The structure suggested in Appendix A.2 may be followed where only the hyperlinks to APIs are to be included in the API catalog. Where possible, the API catalog should include further metadata per the guidance in Section 4.1; in which case, the structure suggested in Appendix A can be utilised and adapted (ensuring compliance to [RFC9264]) to reflect the nature of the chosen metadata. * Publish the /.well-known/api-catalog URI following the guidance set out in Section 2. If the /.well-known/api-catalog URI has previously been published, the framework provider should: * Include a step in the release management lifecycle to refresh the API catalog following any changes in API hyperlinks or published metadata. This could include placing triggers on certain metadata fields, so that as they are updated in pre-production on the API framework, the updates are pushed to a pre-production copy of the API catalog to be pushed live when the release is published by the framework. 6. Conformance to RFC 8615 The requirements in Section 3 of [WELL-KNOWN] for defining Well-Known URIs are met as described in the following subsections. 6.1. Path Suffix The api-catalog URI SHALL be appended to the /.well-known/ path- prefix for "well-known locations". 6.2. Formats and Associated Media Types A /.well-known/api-catalog location MUST support the Linkset [RFC9264] format of application/linkset+json and MAY also support the other formats via content negotiation. 7. IANA Considerations 7.1. The api-catalog Well-Known URI This specification registers the "api-catalog" well-known URI in the "Well-Known URIs" registry as defined by [WELL-KNOWN]. URI Suffix: api-catalog Reference: RFC 9727 Status: permanent Change Controller: IETF 7.2. The api-catalog Link Relation This specification registers the "api-catalog" link relation in the "Link Relation Types" registry by following the procedures per Section 2.1.1.1 of [WEB-LINKING]. Relation Name: api-catalog Description: Refers to a list of APIs available from the Publisher of the link context. Reference: RFC 9727 7.3. The api-catalog Profile URI This specification registers "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ rfc9727" in the "Profile URIs" registry according to [RFC7284]. Profile URI: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9727 Common Name: API catalog Description: A Profile URI to request or signal a Linkset representing an API catalog. Reference: RFC 9727 8. Security Considerations For all scenarios: * TLS SHOULD be used, i.e., make /.well-known/api-catalog available exclusively over HTTPS, to ensure no tampering of the API catalog. * The Publisher SHOULD take into account the security considerations from Section 4 of [WELL-KNOWN]. * The Publisher SHOULD perform a security and privacy review of the API catalog prior to deployment to ensure it does not leak personal, business, or other sensitive metadata, nor expose any vulnerability related to the APIs listed. * The Publisher SHOULD enforce read-only privileges for external requests to .well-known/api-catalog and for internal systems and roles that monitor the .well-known/api-catalog URI. Write privileges SHOULD only be granted to roles that perform updates to the API catalog and/or the forwarding rewrite rules for the .well- known/api-catalog URI. * As with any Web offering, it is RECOMMENDED to apply rate-limiting measures to help mitigate abuse and prevent denial-of-service attacks on the API catalog endpoint. For the public-facing APIs scenario, security teams SHOULD additionally audit the API catalog to ensure no APIs intended solely for internal use have been mistakenly included. For example, a catalog hosted on https://developer.example.com should not expose unnecessary metadata about any internal domains (e.g., https://internal.example.com). For the internal/private APIs scenario, the Publisher SHOULD take steps to ensure that appropriate controls, such as Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) policies and access control lists, are in place to ensure only authorised roles and systems may access an internal api-catalog well-known URI. A comprehensive API catalog that is regularly audited may assist the Publisher in decommissioning "zombie" APIs, i.e., legacy/obsolete APIs that should no longer be available. Such APIs represent a security vulnerability as they are unlikely to be supported, monitored, patched, or updated. Note the registration of domain names and associated policies is out of scope of this document. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [HTTP] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,