Re: [apps-discuss] Looking at Webfinger

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Tue, 03 July 2012 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 1FE7521F85D2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 aAtO-XhPZnql for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598BD21F85D0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so6332373yen.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=OUKH/bcFCNQsSO16MtrTyro5tVcC9rGPPl0tYZFdTAM=; b=D/fvUzcmhjuysxZcR7HMq1dWV0oinSU86O8IieBhQW2zucbx6fOLf5G2OE3aiiEKQV mDrhuojRwLXCLOofLsVFXLDkdSTJ4nXdPtWVVN7PhQE/OwFVhEcGUNOwg0wExIzFgVSz diw1M+wX8fKSSzNu6mhwsmmtyniFgJLXoVu2pWSObBr/meiDgkRjN3+sh3pS9KnLamdE QRzgauqPHK6rdHLWSG95F0xl1mzVl5Oa4tSu7sK920wXqBjaNqnfwHpYclCdm2W7BsYq hD1W44irnFiBTX1u5q7gmCZLUdDq+wyjVTyUh/y9tp8PNC7cwCWr2x3SYBTVu/i6y+pi YRJw==
Received: by 10.236.46.195 with SMTP id r43mr22187993yhb.86.1341346688757; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.211] (190-20-40-193.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.40.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p29sm33542074yhl.19.2012.07.03.13.17.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2F55BA95-3CED-4265-9C6E-27BCE2E6FC16"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVAatJPnOMw3VZZhTxHuG5PdzcoNPMeqH-mhfsA0i47JLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:17:32 -0400
Message-Id: <911C1091-6D88-4937-BF4C-0FCB264B6AEF@ve7jtb.com>
References: <F80C8C9C-7AB8-4B7E-BFD2-4D69499D21A1@mnot.net> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366574F93@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <EEF96DE8-6BEC-40D0-BC77-932E1B8591F9@mnot.net> <1A87B9DE-ECEC-4F07-8734-131D4BB564EB@ve7jtb.com> <CAC4RtVAatJPnOMw3VZZhTxHuG5PdzcoNPMeqH-mhfsA0i47JLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlSBbkZQz7xfJK5lqGbvqGkX/M7BVYi6A9JkNBzWGOwniBDOpzBcP6Tc/OZjUiZfgzuQveQ
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Looking at Webfinger
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:18:01 -0000

There are existing deployments of WF.   Changes that lead to something incompatible with what is deployed 
are likely to receive more resistance, now that we have a WG draft.

Not that changes can't be made with rough consensus..  

It may have been easier though to have had Mark and others comments before the WG draft.
That might have made it easier to have included some more of the SWD design.

That is however water under the bridge, and we have an initial document that is backwards compatible with WF as deployed.

John B.

On 2012-07-03, at 2:41 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> Now that WF has been accepted by the chairs as a WG draft it gets harder to
>> make breaking changes.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking changes", but I don't see that
> having the document be a working group product undermines the ability
> to suggest any change for which there has not already been a decision
> against.  If your suggestion develops rough consensus, then it will be
> included.  If not, then it won't.
> 
> To avoid the flogging of dead horses, the chairs may declare some
> topics out of scope if those topics have already been firmly decided.
> But that, too, is standard procedure.
> 
> Barry