Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)

Right, at that point the differences appear to be mostly about syntax,
not semantics.

On 4/17/12 9:23 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
> Practically very little if the latest Webfinger draft addition are
> adopted (e.g. the resource and rel query shortcuts which were originally
> proposed in the first OpenID Connect proposal by David Recordon and myself).
> 
>  
> 
> EH
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Murray S. Kucherawy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:55 PM
> *To:* apps-discuss@ietf.org
> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org WG
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web
> Discovery (SWD)
> 
>  
> 
> So there are some of both.  How treacherous is the migration path from
> SWD to WebFinger, for example, in case consensus is to develop and move
> forward with the latter?
> 
>  
> 
> -MSK
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
> <mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>
> [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org]
> <mailto:[mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org]> *On Behalf Of *Mike Jones
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:25 PM
> *To:* Blaine Cook; Tim Bray
> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> WG; apps-discuss@ietf.org
> <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web
> Discovery (SWD)
> 
>  
> 
> I know that 7 of the 8 public participants in the current OpenID Connect
> interop testing have implemented SWD at this point.  (I know of several
> more who’ve built it as well but haven’t chosen to make their interop
> test results public yet.)  There are likely other implementations I’m
> unaware of.
> 
>  
> 
>                                                             -- Mike
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*oauth-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org>
> [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Blaine Cook
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:54 PM
> *To:* Tim Bray
> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> WG; apps-discuss@ietf.org
> <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web
> Discovery (SWD)
> 
>  
> 
> That's a tricky question - maybe one google can help answer? There are a
> bunch of projects using webfinger, including status.net
> <http://status.net>, ostatus in general, diaspora, unhosted,
> freedombox(?), and I'm sure others, but I have no idea how that
> translates into actual users or profiles.
> 
> Gmail, aol, and yahoo all put up webfinger endpoints, but there hasn't
> been much movement, I think due to the chicken and egg nature of
> adoption around decentralized tools.
> 
> b.
> 
> On Apr 17, 2012 11:13 AM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com
> <mailto:tbray@textuality.com>> wrote:
> 
> What is the deployment status of these two specs?  Is either deployed
> much at all?  -T
> 
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com
> <mailto:msk@cloudmark.com>> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
> <mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>
> [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
> <mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
>>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:23 AM
>>> To: oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> WG
>>> Cc: Apps Discuss
>>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web
> Discovery (SWD)
>>>
>>> So Hannes and Derek and I have been discussing this with the Apps ADs
>>> and Apps-area WG chairs. I've also read the docs now, and after all
>>> that we've decided that this topic (what to do with swd and webfinger)
>>> is best handled in the apps area and not in the oauth WG.
>>>
>>> The logic for that is that 1) the two proposals are doing the same
>>> thing and we don't want two different standards for that, b) this is
>>> not an oauth-specific thing nor is it a general security thing, and c)
>>> there is clearly already interest in the topic in the apps area so its
>>> reasonable for the oauth wg to use that when its ready.
>>>
>>> The appsawg chairs and apps ADs are ok with the work being done there.
>>>
>>> So:-
>>>
>>> - I've asked the oauth chairs to take doing work on swd
>>>   out of the proposed new charter
>>> - It may be that you want to add something saying that
>>>   oauth will use the results of work in the applications
>>>   area on a web discovery protocol as a basis for doing
>>>   the dynamic client registration work here
>>> - Discussion of webfinger and swd should move over to
>>>   the apps-discuss list
>>> - Note: this is not picking one or the other approach,
>>>   the plan is that the apps area will do any selection
>>>   needed and figure out the best starting point for a
>>>   standards-track RFC on web discovery and we'll use their
>>>   fine work for doing more with oauth.
>>
>> Thank you Stephen, I think.  :-)
>>
>> So the discussion on apps-discuss now should be focused on which of
> the two should be the basis for forward progress.  I've placed both
> documents in "Call for Adoption" state in the datatracker for appsawg.
>>
>> Let the games begin.
>>
>> -MSK
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss