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

[Blaine Cook <[e-mail]>]

+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.

b.

On 18 November 2011 23:53, Gonzalo Salgueiro <[e-mail]> 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 under webfinger.net, are those that
> should go into the existing IANA registry for link relations that was
> defined by RFC 5988?  (See
> http://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 those
> webfinger.net relations are :-)****
> ** **
> Paul****
> ** **
>  *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:
> [e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Goix Laurent Walter
> *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2011 6:34 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *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****
> -          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 under 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. [phone]****
> Mob. [phone]****
> Fax [phone]****
> ** **
> ** **
>  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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>