Return-Path: 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 D840F21E8043 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:27:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 LiOT8lluR2Z4 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plex2out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex2out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [184.168.131.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477F521E801C for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P3PW5EX1HT004.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.46]) by p3plex2out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with bizsmtp id reSz1i00110TkE001eSz0C; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:26:59 -0700 Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT004.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.134]) with mapi; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:26:59 -0700 From: Eran Hammer To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:26:50 -0700 Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Thread-Index: Ac0NTjN3PPuV9i7nTOWIJZJHpX6j7AAUZkqgAAT2Q5AABFAtMAAAmxdwAACqzvAAASE20AATfYUA Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB5C6@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> References: <027801cd0d4e$343dfbe0$9cb9f3a0$@packetizer.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0BFA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0FE9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB4F4@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C132B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB50B@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C142E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C142E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB5C6P3PW5EX1MB01E_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:27:03 -0000 --_000_90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB5C6P3PW5EX1MB01E_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And my answer is that right now it is a small task, but the responses indic= ated that some people might want it to be bigger. EH From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:12 AM To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) I'm not advocating throwing anything away. I'm proposing figuring out what= path would be most appropriate, regardless of whether it's a new innovatio= n or a derivative innovation. Our charter constrains us to small tasks. If webfinger can legitimately be= characterized as a small task, then we can do a call for adoption. If not= , which seems to be the case, then this isn't the right place for it, and w= e have other procedures for advancing such work. That's the question I'm p= osing here. -MSK From: Eran Hammer [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:47 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy; apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) It would be appropriate for APPSAWG if the scope is narrowly defined as add= ing a few enhancements to RFC 6415 (which *is* what the current draft attem= pts to do, even though its prose might sounds grander). But in the context = of the recent OAuth WG meeting discussing a competing foundation (SWD), a n= ew WG seems to be in order. My concern is that we are reaching a point (or maybe pass it) where progres= sing a work to standards track RFC status no longer translate into requirin= g new work to explain why it cannot build on top of the published standard.= If this body throws away work as recent as October 2011 just because it's = more convenient for some to start from scratch, I don't see why anyone woul= d bother go through the significant cost and effort of getting it published= here in the first place. EH From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [= mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:18 AM To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) That sounds like a mighty strong statement that, in any case, it's not appr= opriate for APPSAWG. Perhaps the proponents should request a non-WG list to talk about it for a = while to let the problem definition congeal for a while, and then request a= working group when a charter falls out of that. -MSK From: Eran Hammer [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:03 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy; apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) This clearly does not belong in the Security area or the OAuth working grou= p. I would strongly warn that moving this effort into any WG requires very car= eful work on the charter as historically there has been very little consens= us and success in agreeing on what problems we are trying to solve. RFC 641= 5 was the end of a 5+ years process across multiple standard bodies includi= ng the IETF, W3C, OASIS, and the OpenID Foundation. This has proved a reall= y hard problem to *define*. EH From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [= mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:57 AM To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Having talked with Barry now, an amended question: Would this work better fit in another working group like OAuth (which has i= ts own interest and concerns in webfinger), or perhaps in its own working g= roup? It may well be that it's too big to fit in APPSAWG's charter for sma= ller work items. -MSK From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [= mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:35 AM To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) To the working group, This has been hovering outside APPSAWG for two meetings now. Is APPSAWG th= e right place to process it? That is, should we bring it in as a working g= roup document? Or would it be better done through the ISE, or perhaps in s= ome other working group? -MSK From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [= mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:50 PM To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Folks, I published a revised version of the Webfinger specification based on feedb= ack I've received so far that seems to have general agreement. As request= ed, I added a change log at the end of the document that I hope will help. = The draft is here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-02 The "diff" tool on that page allows you to quickly see exactly what changed= . Paul --_000_90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB5C6P3PW5EX1MB01E_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

And my answer is that right now it is a small task, but the r= esponses indicated that some people might want it to be bigger.<= /span>

 

EH

 = ;

From: apps-discu= ss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:12 AMTo: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Re= vised webfinger draft (-02)

 

I’m not advocating throwing anything away.  I’m propos= ing figuring out what path would be most appropriate, regardless of whether= it’s a new innovation or a derivative innovation.<= /p>

 

Our charter const= rains us to small tasks.  If webfinger can legitimately be characteriz= ed as a small task, then we can do a call for adoption.  If not, which= seems to be the case, then this isn’t the right place for it, and we= have other procedures for advancing such work.  That’s the ques= tion I’m posing here.

 

<= span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>-MSK

 

From: Eran Hammer [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Thursday, = March 29, 2012 9:47 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [a= pps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

 

It would be appropriate for APPSAWG if the scope is narr= owly defined as adding a few enhancements to RFC 6415 (which *is* wh= at the current draft attempts to do, even though its prose might sounds gra= nder). But in the context of the recent OAuth WG meeting discussing a compe= ting foundation (SWD), a new WG seems to be in order.

=

 =

My concern is that w= e are reaching a point (or maybe pass it) where progressing a work to stand= ards track RFC status no longer translate into requiring new work to explai= n why it cannot build on top of the published standard. If this body throws= away work as recent as October 2011 just because it’s more convenien= t for some to start from scratch, I don’t see why anyone would bother= go through the significant cost and effort of getting it published here in= the first place.

 

EH

 

 

 

 

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:18 AM
= To: apps-discuss@ietf.org<= br>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

 

That sounds like a mighty stron= g statement that, in any case, it’s not appropriate for APPSAWG.=

&n= bsp;

Per= haps the proponents should request a non-WG list to talk about it for a whi= le to let the problem definition congeal for a while, and then request a wo= rking group when a charter falls out of that.

 

-MSK

 

From: Eran Hammer [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
Se= nt: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:03 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy;= apps-discuss@ietf.org
S= ubject: RE: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

 

This clearly does not belong in the Se= curity area or the OAuth working group.

 

I would strongly warn that movin= g this effort into any WG requires very careful work on the charter as hist= orically there has been very little consensus and success in agreeing on wh= at problems we are trying to solve. RFC 6415 was the end of a 5+ years proc= ess across multiple standard bodies including the IETF, W3C, OASIS, and the= OpenID Foundation. This has proved a really hard problem to *define= *.

=  

EH

 

<= b>From:<= /span> apps-discuss-bounces@ie= tf.org [mailto:apps-di= scuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
S= ent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:57 AM
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [app= s-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

Having talked with Barry now, an amended question:
Would this work better fit in another working group like OAuth (which has= its own interest and concerns in webfinger), or perhaps in its own working= group?  It may well be that it’s too big to fit in APPSAWG̵= 7;s charter for smaller work items.

 

-MSK

 

<= div>

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 20= 12 4:35 AM
To: apps-disc= uss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger dr= aft (-02)

 =

To the working= group,

 

This has been hovering outside APPSAWG for two meetings now. = Is APPSAWG the right place to process it?  That is, should we bring i= t in as a working group document?  Or would it be better done through = the ISE, or perhaps in some other working group?

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>-MSK

 

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org]= On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 201= 2 6:50 PM
To: apps-discu= ss@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (= -02)

 

Folks,

&n= bsp;

I published a revised version of the Web= finger specification based on feedback I’ve received so far that seem= s to  have general agreement.  As requested, I added a change log= at the end of the document that I hope will help.  The draft is here:=

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-app= sawg-webfinger-02

 <= /p>

The “diff” tool on that page allows you= to quickly see exactly what changed.

 

Paul

 

<= /body>= --_000_90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB5C6P3PW5EX1MB01E_--