Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 11 November 2011 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239C421F84F5 for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:20:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.789
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yaz1OnD9a7hO for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990D721F84ED for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywt34 with SMTP id 34so2877366ywt.31 for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:20:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WC/8vM5Bp8fMa7WE1z1BGoGE6E03N6PAXrbCuVgL06U=; b=UO6uZd3C8zenFLJCJOfKyhqteZ/erKaOgnNU+lA5Nxf9V1GtsiTYn9+PDBOYOCmlcD i+8qU9YREj3B6M0or5umuX8ZGjb3Ql1OHXIhvD2p8ikEgeJnAyMsMsFGUEguHz6sLvhV gMV32CTmMTog/jFa5qAK98sxyJOJazmeA5MT0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id o10mr1480152yab.21.1321050008874; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:20:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:20:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <032101cc9288$e3a06910$aae13b30$> <>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:20:08 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pFNAPXdvXB2jrCkqAYqXVi8hg_4
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:20:16 -0000

> I see the document is on APPSAWG agenda on the meeting, so I anticipate it
> will soon become APPSAWG item doc.  I won't be on meeting, but if you
> discuss the adaptation of Webfinger draft please also take into account I'm
> in favor of such adaptation (consider this as my 2p).

As the agenda says, some things are not verified... and, in
particular, this item is likely to be removed.  The chairs might
mention it in the meeting, but discussion of the document will be on
the mailing list.

More importantly, your assumption that a document's getting meeting
time implies that it "will soon become [a working group] doc" is very
much wrong.  Having it on the meeting agenda simply means that the
chairs think there will be some benefit to the working group process
to have a chance to talk about it face to face.  We still would need
to see enough interest in it, before the working group would accept

Until now, there's been no interest expressed.  Thanks, Mykyta, for
weighing in.  Others should also, please, comment here and let the
working group and the document authors know whether you think this is
something we (and they -- possibly separate points) should pursue.

Barry, appsawg chair