[apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> Tue, 22 May 2012 15:00 UTC
Return-Path: <cyrus@daboo.name>
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 D17EA21F85EF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 08:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 U2GggpTywYBF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 08:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [173.13.55.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C05521F8623 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 08:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EA627BAA87 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at daboo.name
Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (daboo.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wvci76UPhY1g for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.101] (ip-64-134-190-100.public.wayport.net [64.134.190.100]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FCBC27BAA7C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:00:22 -0400
From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <64C6DF43A866F40437AF4CC3@cyrus.local>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a3 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; size="2105"
Subject: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
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, 22 May 2012 15:00:13 -0000
Hi folks, Today many protocols define their own "service discovery" protocols (e.g., <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6186>, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-daboo-srv-caldav/>, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6125>). >From a client perspective, these each work fine individually. But more often than not, a client device actually wants to be able to discover all services a "service provider" has available or provisioned for the user. i.e., a user expects email, calendar, contacts, IM, directory etc to be setup in one step by the client, rather than having to go and setup each service separately. Whilst a client can present a single UI for such an "aggregated service discovery" it still has to go use separate discovery protocols for each service. This is expensive - lots of separate DNS lookups, etc. Several proprietary systems offer and "aggregated service discovery" protocol - in its simplest form a GET on a well known URI that returns an XML document listing available services and other useful configuration information. It is time we had such a protocol for the IETF standard suite of protocols. In particular implementors involved in the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium are very keen to see a good solution to this problem. So I am starting a discussion on this here to solicit some ideas about how best to approach this, with a view to writing a draft. The obvious, and simplest approach, is the HTTP GET on a .well-known URI returning an XML or JSON document with a standard "schema". Another possibility is to leverage the webfinger work. I'd like to hear from webfinger experts as to whether a use case like this would be a reasonable solution. Some concerns I have are the security "scope". Obviously service discovery is something that a user does for themselves and their service information should be private, which seems somewhat contrary to the primary user case for webfinger whether other users are looking up the information. Security, simplicity and efficiency are the key goals for this protocol. Comments, ideas? -- Cyrus Daboo
- [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Cyrus Daboo
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Cyrus Daboo
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Cyrus Daboo
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Andrew McMillan
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Andrew McMillan
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Cyrus Daboo
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery Paul E. Jones
- [apps-discuss] R: Aggregated service discovery Goix Laurent Walter
- Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] R: Aggregated service discovery William Mills