Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger & acct: draft

"Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sat, 19 November 2011 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FEC21F8BBC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:02:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.028
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.330, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oQfPLVK7L7vI for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EC621F8BBB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bkbzv15 with SMTP id zv15so5002604bkb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:02:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=H7u5Wp4ebFatt0Ce9KuZ0AEQrVdPFY16DBby5VonQzQ=; b=ZxntJG+0pshsHQgQwq1iAO7WXi9eKYJ+HYbVQU4p5wLAbATau8J6zc/wc1WzyqYEuK NkiVlNCfwn24IgKwVGHolsrBLcxRwX67k/dS62jLBO/UEzJpUoQWnhkd3GtJpdDJZSFg adqlFXSSqwYdYUwC4EpucgAAWRKr/QO8njW4E=
Received: by 10.204.156.219 with SMTP id y27mr6337464bkw.125.1321686134582; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:02:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x19sm7794132fag.5.2011.11.18.23.02.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:02:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4EC754A8.3090408@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:03:04 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik15a3l0YSBZZXZzdGlmZXlldiAo0JwuINCE0LLRgdGC0ZbRhNC10ZTQsg==?= =?UTF-8?B?KSI=?= <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <A09A9E0A4B9C654E8672D1DC003633AE4056F73E86@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <047c01cca646$f32f8100$d98e8300$@packetizer.com> <740878FD-AA49-4F62-8612-7AE76CA36710@cisco.com> <CAAz=sc=K1m8dEZQ2BfWG2eVZSiMkMZFa+zPgM-aEOZLg=0OjrQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAz=sc=K1m8dEZQ2BfWG2eVZSiMkMZFa+zPgM-aEOZLg=0OjrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010607030606090009060208"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger & acct: draft
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:02:17 -0000

19.11.2011 8:58, Blaine Cook wrote:
> +1; defining the actual link relations should be done outside the 
> webfinger spec, most likely as part of RFC 5988 as Paul mentioned.
>
> The relations are perhaps the trickiest bit of webfinger to 
> standardise, but thankfully 5988 offers guidance; new relations should 
> be defined as specifically as possible, with obvious relation overlap 
> being aggregated into more general identifiers, and eventually being 
> submitted to the registry once sufficient deployment mandates it.

How many of them will we have to define?  Can we at all predict how will 
Webfinger be used?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>
> b.
>
> On 18 November 2011 23:53, Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com 
> <mailto:gsalguei@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>      I agree. Both the notion of registering link relations and the
>     possibility of a broader usage of the acct: URI beyond Webfinger
>     really require some group discussion to help us decide if the
>     draft remains self-contained as a single document or gets broken
>     into several.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Gonzalo
>
>
>
>     On Nov 18, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>
>>     Walter,
>>     Thanks for your feedback on the text.  I’ll be revising the
>>     document accordingly.  Based on comments from you and others,
>>     section 4 will likely undergo heavy restructuring :-)
>>     For the webfinger link relations underwebfinger.net
>>     <http://webfinger.net>, are those that should go into the
>>     existing IANA registry for link relations that was defined by RFC
>>     5988? 
>>     (Seehttp://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml) 
>>     In any case, registration of link relations can certainly be done
>>     as a part of this specification or it could be done separately. 
>>     My own opinion is that it would be better to define link
>>     relations separately, but I’m willing to follow the group opinion
>>     on this one.  Even I don’t know what thosewebfinger.net
>>     <http://webfinger.net>relations are :-)
>>     Paul
>>     *From:*apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>[mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>]*On Behalf Of*Goix Laurent
>>     Walter
>>     *Sent:*Friday, November 18, 2011 6:34 AM
>>     *To:*apps-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
>>     *Subject:*[apps-discuss] Webfinger & acct: draft
>>     Paul, all,
>>     Thank you for starting addressing this standardization topic
>>     within IETF. Webfinger (and acct:) indeed are being increasingly
>>     used and the whole community would benefit from a well-referenced
>>     specification for it.
>>     Here are some comments on the draft:
>>     -At this stage acct: scheme is needed from a formal point of view
>>     only I guess, so there may not be the need for a full addr-spec
>>     support.
>>     -I also support the point raised by Mykyta around i18n.  I guess
>>     as we are targeting user addressing more than resource addressing
>>     in general, and given the rise of Internet & social networks in
>>     non-ascii countries it would be important to target a dual
>>     URI/IRI scheme (following the path of the mailto rfc6068bis draft)
>>     -If no other spec is currently using the acct: scheme then it may
>>     be kept in the webfinger spec, but some existing specifications
>>     may be interested in referencing it as primary/preferred
>>     addressing mechanism (independently from webfinger), e.g.
>>     Opensocial, activitystrea.ms <http://activitystrea.ms>
>>     -From a more structural point of view it may be useful to better
>>     distinguish the sections related to the scheme from the ones
>>     relates to webfinger. Right now 4.1 and 4.2 are very different in
>>     purpose and may become 4 and 5. Current section 5 could become a
>>     subsection of webfinger (say 5.2)
>>     -It may also be good to distinguish the behavior on the server
>>     side (creating/exposing the descriptor and its content) from the
>>     actual discovery behavior from the client.
>>     -Webfinger further uses specific link “rels”, which now are
>>     referenced underwebfinger.net <http://webfinger.net>domain. I
>>     guess some of these rels would need to be registered as pure
>>     tokens (no URI), e.g. “avatar”, “profile-page” and specified in
>>     this spec.
>>     -Reference 8 can now be updated to rfc6415
>>     Cheers
>>     Walter
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     *Telecom Italia
>>     *Laurent-Walter Goix
>>     Innovation & Industry Relations, Research & Prototyping, Future
>>     Internet
>>     Piazza Einaudi 8 - 20124 Milano (Italy)
>>     Tel. +39 026213445 <tel:%2B39%20026213445>
>>     Mob. +39 3356114196 <tel:%2B39%203356114196>
>>     Fax +39 0641869055 <tel:%2B39%200641869055>
>>     Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati
>>     esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o
>>     qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste
>>     informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto
>>     questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne
>>     immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua
>>     distruzione, Grazie.
>>
>>     /This e-mail and any attachments// is //confidential and may
>>     contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s)
>>     only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is
>>     unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>>     delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by
>>     return e-mail, Thanks./
>>
>>     *<image001.gif>Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se
>>     non è necessario.*
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     apps-discuss mailing list
>>     apps-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     apps-discuss mailing list
>     apps-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss