Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery

William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> Mon, 18 June 2012 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <wmills@yahoo-inc.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 2272421F86F5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
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 oRPbqWAA5OoP for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm24-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm24-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 71E3421F86EE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.91.62] by nm24.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2012 19:15:24 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.56] by tm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2012 19:15:24 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1056.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2012 19:15:24 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 734066.71256.bm@omp1056.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 34653 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Jun 2012 19:15:24 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=ginc1024; t=1340046923; bh=WcuiGZltiMrl3bZLfadfVjXKMXrrOmQkAxHU9so9drc=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QbU0QpVZS12OG6/3z3ikkeNOGJtat+C0/8cCDEs9bgdKD5WnzR5JIVa5NPjr3liMFb8S4wsxD0bcXdoHbkcYv7tDH53TO7qNLwmabTg5h2DecZbFiCJpN+/qCzvzzbNKbm6d5qLM1jTxjv2wdwlrbNh8NVcDE40l35nmj/fITo4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ginc1024; d=yahoo-inc.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mUrlpHB3Cq2A07w2mU+qjJByBS4ztrNyBvEtCPKmUEd0JLFpRfK/qfQZd1Wsrm6TAAPHXm1OII18XPvuha4FPFfgVBB/d712YwqRLjnyXmlxD+xH1WqwU7ldjtqmLjVGAMCO3cN7d1GuFGbFKvfgGCbTnDdFoBWFMmeRoafH6i4=;
X-YMail-OSG: VZNs4UYVM1mb_w23M1Fr.3EOSPgjKNt78dvjZTVNis0wmpt H9nCS3iELezzW8s34IE2YtkEioh_TT7CHngWX1qTwv0.WJBBqlCYsSFBmpGu 67o9Q8wM6iB6HCCETP5snj4WYiRhIJatSjob6IU7iAWZFgSQJSkqa0A8hbya Gj_Jjj45MmqyxeJe1g4NL.EmCpWMq4MDnQfudPxyqNZTbNy1o16wgBsgYraR oqBiuA8qLbw5J7B_Z6.HatpWEEEH2fnZD5WrRkKhn8A2fV4Sj9TPNtkMRrgq ovPvSld_N216c1hTck7fd8Wrs_Bnod6V7X.XhhZD02bnjWifRc3DXU1MsJcI nj6HGQM55Cd8jeZvfEf6E06.D5Hp2fB6OOop_1uXFujb.pvtEV2qmx_q1Zoh sQoApgJQDTesaukda4uYK6irQ3CSMPDANsUKioO97quQzW1RvdutrS_0dgwR 5Y8338XO.FcPcNXMSh0ZXV_wVa5ALQTpsFwEoUpZZp5oqCyBHMvVZafn6prQ PNq8eDG0z1HbC7vvWz.yY6me88w9IKvhVrPEjyZCe6zoRiN6XcffQToZYAUz .jJBCa87J8RPPxLB77VzQNF2ZxztYkN66IPYqgX_eb7eL.os30vrZSXHKir4 hAmpvB50KqGgZTqbVv3pV5LQNaFyE_pP6oTbtI7CDX5BiAuFEbvnetkofKqI Wk9wJmUtwd5skoQ.3UCc-
Received: from [209.131.62.115] by web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:15:23 PDT
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.120.356233
References: <64C6DF43A866F40437AF4CC3@cyrus.local> <059c01cd39c8$f3d027c0$db707740$@packetizer.com> <1339625839.48148.YahooMailNeo@web31816.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FD917ED.2050805@stpeter.im> <1339628098.85328.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FD91AF7.5050107@stpeter.im> <1339630300.21499.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <012401cd4cf4$6a465da0$3ed318e0$@packetizer.com> <1340040987.3036.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <022801cd4d7f$644c4dc0$2ce4e940$@packetizer.com>
Message-ID: <1340046923.34140.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:15:23 -0700
From: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, 'Peter Saint-Andre' <stpeter@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <022801cd4d7f$644c4dc0$2ce4e940$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1055047407-175639555-1340046923=:34140"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:15:28 -0000

Ah, I missed that nuance, that declared application data goes in "properties".

The "imap" scheme is listed in http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html and defined in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5092.txt

I've been inquiring about the "related" link relation type, which seems semantically what we want at first glance.  It's not clear to me that you can define a link relation that does not have a uri?  That has only application data?  I don't think it's right to extend link relations to be an arbitrary data container, but requiring a URI scheme is going to be a lot of work for some things.  SMTP is the hard one right now, a hack for that might be a new relation and just put the postmaster mailto: link in the URI spot.  


I'm not inclined to try to encode arbitrary flags like login-required, I'd probably go as far as a well known service name and leave it there.

-bill




>________________________________
> From: Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>
>To: 'William Mills' <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>; 'Peter Saint-Andre' <stpeter@stpeter.im> 
>Cc: 'Cyrus Daboo' <cyrus@daboo.name>; apps-discuss@ietf.org 
>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 11:22 AM
>Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
> 
>
>Bill,
> 
>In the referenced draft below, I assume the “grant-types” and “token-types” should be contained inside a “properties”?  That is, I think you want this:
> 
>{
>  "subject" : "acct:carol@example.com",
>  "links" :
>  [
>    {
>      "rel" : "oauth2-athorize",
>      "href" : "http://login.example.com/oauth2/authorize"
>    },
>    {
>      "rel" : "oauth2-token",
>      "href" : "https://login.example.com/oauth2/token",
>     "properties" :
>      {
>       "grant-types" : "code password",
>        "token-types" : "bearer"
>      }
>    }
>  ]
>}
> 
>For auto-provisioning of email clients (which I understand was your goal), we can either define one link relation that points to a separate configuration document of some sort, or we define multiple link relations.  My previous example showed the single link relation and the email below shows use of multiple.  Both have pros and cons, but I tend to favor using multiple link relations, since this allows one to introduce new stuff without changing the one mail configuration file.  Also, it reduces the number of queries a mail client has to make to get config information.
> 
>You indicate that IMAP already has a defined URI.  Where is that defined?  I could not find it in the IANA link relations registry, so I assume it’s really a URI defined in a spec somewhere.  In any case, we could use URIs for these things (rather than defining single token link relation values and registering them).  I have no preference, but I would like an agreed approach to provisioning.  I hate configuring all the stuff manually on email clients. :-)
> 
>Paul
> 
>From:William Mills [mailto:wmills@yahoo-inc.com] 
>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 1:36 PM
>To: Paul E. Jones; 'Peter Saint-Andre'
>Cc: 'Cyrus Daboo'; apps-discuss@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
> 
>Paul, 
> 
>Thanks for the reply on this.  I do already have a separate doc for registering the OAuth specific relations, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd-01.html
> 
>I don't think I like the thought of having to register a new link type for every service, but that might be the right way.  IMAP already has a URI defined for example so if we use a more general link relation then the URI scheme details the type.  The tradeoff is whether you can look for a specific link-type or if you have to scan list elements for the URI type you need.
> 
>-bill
> 
> 
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From:Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>
>>To: 'William Mills' <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>; 'Peter Saint-Andre' <stpeter@stpeter.im> 
>>Cc: 'Cyrus Daboo' <cyrus@daboo.name>; apps-discuss@ietf.org 
>>Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 6:48 PM
>>Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
>> 
>>Bill,
>> 
>>My apologies for the belated reply.  I’ve been busy this week and got rather behind on email.
>> 
>>I do not personally like using SRV records, either.  SRV records could work for smaller domains, but I’m not sure that they’re the best solution for larger domains.  Personally, I would prefer putting users on specific servers or server clusters and SRV records will not differentiate users. 
>> 
>>To use WebFinger to find one’s IMAP, SMTP, or POP server, we could do as I suggested in my email.  Now the question is what does one query?  Since these three services are email, I’d suggest we query “mailto:paulej@packetizer.com”.  We could use another URI scheme (e.g., “acct:”), but mailto seems most appropriate given that you’re seeking info about mail services.
>> 
>>I provided an example earlier that would simply point to a config file with server information.  We could do this directly via WebFinger like this:
>> 
>>GET /.well-known/host-meta?resource=mailto:paulej@packetizer.com
>> 
>>This query would then return something like this:
>> 
>>{
>>  "subject" : "mailto:paulej@packetizer.com",
>>  "links" :
>>  [
>>    {
>>      "rel" : "smtp-server",
>>      "properties" :
>>      {
>>        "host" : "smtp.packetizer.com",
>>        "port" : "587",
>>        "login-required" : "yes",
>>        "transport" : "starttls"
>>      }
>>    },
>>    {
>>      "rel" : "imap-server",
>>      "properties" :
>>      {
>>        "host" : "imap.packetizer.com",
>>        "port" : "993",
>>        "transport" : "ssl"
>>      }
>>    }
>>  ]
>>}
>> 
>>We would need to standardize the link relation values (smtp-server and imap-server).  We would also need to document what the various properties would be.  If you would like to create such a configuration document based on WebFinger, I’d be happy to help out.  In any case, you can see that WebFinger would serve quite nicely for conveying configuration information given a user’s email ID.
>> 
>>I’m not sure exactly what you would need for OAuth endpoints, but I would suggest you make that a separate document since it is not mail related.  (At least I assume it’s not.  Even if it were, the mail server information and OAuth information are still different animals.)
>> 
>>Paul
>> 
>>From:William Mills [mailto:wmills@yahoo-inc.com] 
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:32 PM
>>To: Peter Saint-Andre
>>Cc: Paul E. Jones; 'Cyrus Daboo'; apps-discuss@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
>> 
>>In my use case it's a service/server.
>> 
>>Not a terribly happy answer to say "DNS SRV records won't work for you, and there is no other solution.".  By the same token I could ask "Why do we need Webfinger and host meta at all if we have DNS SRV records?".
>> 
>>If XMPP uses SRV records for discovery, that's fine.  IMAP and outbound SMTP services both lack a defined discovery method other than the ubiquitous "service documentation".  Is there a compelling reason to pick DNS over WF for this?  From the app developer point of view I don't want to have N ways to discover M services.
>> 
>>-bill
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>From:Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
>>>To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> 
>>>Cc: Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>; 'Cyrus Daboo' <cyrus@daboo.name>; "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org> 
>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:57 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
>>>
>>>On 6/13/12 4:54 PM, William Mills wrote:
>>>> As I said, I'm interested specifically in IMAP, SMTP and OAuth endpoints. 
>>>
>>>What exactly is an "endpoint"? A client? An account? A server?
>>>
>>>> As a data point, DNS SRV records are not controllable in many hosted
>>>> domain models.
>>>
>>>At the last XMPP Summit a few months ago, we learned that DNS SRV
>>>records are unavailable in whole countries (e.g., Japan). That doesn't
>>>mean we should define a replacement for DNS over HTTP. :)
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Peter Saint-Andre
>>>https://stpeter.im/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>
>