IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Looking at Webfinger

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 04 July 2012 03:46 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 820D711E80FA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 OzL8tH4qOSnI for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345B911E80F5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so12404066obb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=FHlNtCGrWFhzS4ZGtCeM69DnvWT7MhG0lx0ies4Fy4Y=; b=qHtc2yVi8xkCQtdli9420aXZ/MaSGcyRcOjPiMIEOp5UNNAa/qXaCvXmHtdHro1Jad rvBuKSyFhjBjhx3L5bpAzh+RfSB0SLIwVBsh0yLXGcvwI6lNopNvDhUdO3F14xqTJ2dI YraAtZvxyDqof9mUIa6ExW4ZrJztwgsADmiPRwpLXJcsqbin5aZpSpr9RxjA+/p2ifVv TBYx+cpfZCtdiZkLBJe3M9yTuidZSrUHU2YUoO0YJQDa+OKKyp63s6c6EcGM7WzZK0o2 oRqrMCUxs9K3AhTd2ynwFxLigzZBlFQkLda8m8qyVyYkHp44M0aycT5o3QKWLw8X838S 0gbw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.169.134 with SMTP id ae6mr20932878oec.55.1341373571286; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.28.65 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <911C1091-6D88-4937-BF4C-0FCB264B6AEF@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:46:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZP++ggNOadubb4OsuNw+zqeinQ2V8ACnVu8T0zg05m9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec550b36c3a480004c3f8dfbe"
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, 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: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 03:46:04 -0000

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
The fact that there's a WG draft now doesn't change what's been deployed.
These are two orthogonal points.

I (predictably) concur with Barry's statements about document evolution.
The working group could conceivably completely rewrite Webfinger at this
point if it so chooses, as driven by consensus.  That includes applying
all, some, or none of Mark's comments, for example.

If you have some changes you'd like to have the working group consider, the
floor is open.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email