Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Given that it is building on the existing RFCs (6415, in particular), with
very little addition, I do not think an entire WG is necessary.

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:57 AM
To: [e-mail]
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
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 APPSAWG's charter for
smaller work items.

 

-MSK

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:35 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-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 it in as a working
group document?  Or would it be better done through the ISE, or perhaps in
some other working group?

 

-MSK

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:50 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

 

Folks,

 

I published a revised version of the Webfinger specification based on
feedback I've received so far that seems 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-appsawg-webfinger-02

 

The "diff" tool on that page allows you to quickly see exactly what changed.

 

Paul