Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery

William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> Mon, 18 June 2012 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <wmills@yahoo-inc.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 AC21E21F86D5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
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 cZDEDkR2UN5G for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm24-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm24-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DE7C21F86D4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [72.30.22.78] by nm24.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2012 17:36:28 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.44] by tm12.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2012 17:36:28 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1044.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2012 17:36:28 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 864529.38865.bm@omp1044.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 7697 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Jun 2012 17:36:28 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=ginc1024; t=1340040988; bh=sj3MPSO+6VouIL60DcxXS5HTQ4Jwlg8/vH+Smfir2gQ=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XKzMe4smVjUYcMvMaRKIJYRE4hPos5nZsEnpoTrAVaxl46SwHtGPDVpeUTSl5+xl6jklLrRtKyHJUq/ZnK61R0ySN0hWm8FuE0DwMgIdN0ufzohn1J7pEhHWbkzLLM1IIecQzChvwIyYREUqbFAqgNyIVM/Am2DWvOcWJ/cOEjk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ginc1024; d=yahoo-inc.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=e7GGS+i/+DfU33+dcIkiUka9zpMG6h3vrK0jxLdaCaH9RMGyvBWECQY/BlOhyR4ur3PZcjMFESMB6SI2qB52fFF5ZHjmHrFrGDBes2gENStS3VpRerswZENoizV2UKkDuz7eSwSVx18hSTqgfdEzw3blsTJa8GRRrpOkd1jGJRo=;
X-YMail-OSG: DPbl6aEVM1mJ8U_1yvkhJvJwlZ_UQ4ijcB5ULknnJhi1oTg CsGb.QucXqjzb50QZvbXq0DHIGNCKf7.gdYlRFU9kL_JJjNJeMswYfb_S1Sy UjFnBfrbx3lZEGy4KLXsG3DqsCzvxhyu1gLjuwF52Dlr2sZp1K3PpjzGylQ4 4IrZay0gRySanAuPreG8K6SM_I1mj7Ps0C1.EdOUC0ZWfA3dpAgjx7XpqaGX LvOoab1uYQ8quDjz1AlEa1hmMCKvCV3inQ.ffy5hLSS0q4..V4lduED1KqA5 BcX7ox4X7u2vCLwKMx6CaNajF0m7TnF6GAfdU4rCljDQpe3Ni1feqOEmRh1z x5J3ZrYCxegC0gynMg8707So6DU92vAraW4g_Adeauzz10T2nN7ZpNiKsNul hYXsRq5aPe2PkX7e1Sl605JrCbKouaGvKbvcacnlVSN60eghFwC9hc9BVs6w dWvd_5p.W5F_BItXrQHtb9UU0YZB54O4N7BJ3WC6ayyh5UrFizqPJyary9Dp _LLq5qz_1_P1w.Jd2_c75a.o8HX0k.ye2a_yBSylZeg--
Received: from [209.131.62.115] by web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:36:27 PDT
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.120.356233
References: <64C6DF43A866F40437AF4CC3@cyrus.local> <059c01cd39c8$f3d027c0$db707740$@packetizer.com> <1339625839.48148.YahooMailNeo@web31816.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FD917ED.2050805@stpeter.im> <1339628098.85328.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FD91AF7.5050107@stpeter.im> <1339630300.21499.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <012401cd4cf4$6a465da0$3ed318e0$@packetizer.com>
Message-ID: <1340040987.3036.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:36:27 -0700
From: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, 'Peter Saint-Andre' <stpeter@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <012401cd4cf4$6a465da0$3ed318e0$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1458549034-117279552-1340040987=:3036"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:36:30 -0000

Paul, 


Thanks for the reply on this.  I do already have a separate doc for registering the OAuth specific relations, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd-01.html


I don't think I like the thought of having to register a new link type for every service, but that might be the right way.  IMAP already has a URI defined for example so if we use a more general link relation then the URI scheme details the type.  The tradeoff is whether you can look for a specific link-type or if you have to scan list elements for the URI type you need.

-bill





>________________________________
> From: Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>
>To: 'William Mills' <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>; 'Peter Saint-Andre' <stpeter@stpeter.im> 
>Cc: 'Cyrus Daboo' <cyrus@daboo.name>; apps-discuss@ietf.org 
>Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 6:48 PM
>Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
> 
>
>Bill,
> 
>My apologies for the belated reply.  I’ve been busy this week and got rather behind on email.
> 
>I do not personally like using SRV records, either.  SRV records could work for smaller domains, but I’m not sure that they’re the best solution for larger domains.  Personally, I would prefer putting users on specific servers or server clusters and SRV records will not differentiate users. 
> 
>To use WebFinger to find one’s IMAP, SMTP, or POP server, we could do as I suggested in my email.  Now the question is what does one query?  Since these three services are email, I’d suggest we query “mailto:paulej@packetizer.com”.  We could use another URI scheme (e.g., “acct:”), but mailto seems most appropriate given that you’re seeking info about mail services.
> 
>I provided an example earlier that would simply point to a config file with server information.  We could do this directly via WebFinger like this:
> 
>GET /.well-known/host-meta?resource=mailto:paulej@packetizer.com
> 
>This query would then return something like this:
> 
>{
>  "subject" : "mailto:paulej@packetizer.com",
>  "links" :
>  [
>    {
>      "rel" : "smtp-server",
>      "properties" :
>      {
>        "host" : "smtp.packetizer.com",
>        "port" : "587",
>        "login-required" : "yes",
>        "transport" : "starttls"
>      }
>    },
>    {
>      "rel" : "imap-server",
>      "properties" :
>      {
>        "host" : "imap.packetizer.com",
>        "port" : "993",
>        "transport" : "ssl"
>      }
>    }
>  ]
>}
> 
>We would need to standardize the link relation values (smtp-server and imap-server).  We would also need to document what the various properties would be.  If you would like to create such a configuration document based on WebFinger, I’d be happy to help out.  In any case, you can see that WebFinger would serve quite nicely for conveying configuration information given a user’s email ID.
> 
>I’m not sure exactly what you would need for OAuth endpoints, but I would suggest you make that a separate document since it is not mail related.  (At least I assume it’s not.  Even if it were, the mail server information and OAuth information are still different animals.)
> 
>Paul
> 
>From:William Mills [mailto:wmills@yahoo-inc.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:32 PM
>To: Peter Saint-Andre
>Cc: Paul E. Jones; 'Cyrus Daboo'; apps-discuss@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
> 
>In my use case it's a service/server.
> 
>Not a terribly happy answer to say "DNS SRV records won't work for you, and there is no other solution.".  By the same token I could ask "Why do we need Webfinger and host meta at all if we have DNS SRV records?".
> 
>If XMPP uses SRV records for discovery, that's fine.  IMAP and outbound SMTP services both lack a defined discovery method other than the ubiquitous "service documentation".  Is there a compelling reason to pick DNS over WF for this?  From the app developer point of view I don't want to have N ways to discover M services.
> 
>-bill
> 
> 
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From:Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
>>To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> 
>>Cc: Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>; 'Cyrus Daboo' <cyrus@daboo.name>; "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org> 
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:57 PM
>>Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
>>
>>On 6/13/12 4:54 PM, William Mills wrote:
>>> As I said, I'm interested specifically in IMAP, SMTP and OAuth endpoints. 
>>
>>What exactly is an "endpoint"? A client? An account? A server?
>>
>>> As a data point, DNS SRV records are not controllable in many hosted
>>> domain models.
>>
>>At the last XMPP Summit a few months ago, we learned that DNS SRV
>>records are unavailable in whole countries (e.g., Japan). That doesn't
>>mean we should define a replacement for DNS over HTTP. :)
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>-- 
>>Peter Saint-Andre
>>https://stpeter.im/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>