IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 5E2F821E81B7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 OZeiIrxpB1HX for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEDD21F8899 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::e82a:4f80:7f44:eaf7%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:18:12 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)
Thread-Index: Ac0NTjN3PPuV9i7nTOWIJZJHpX6j7AAUZkqgAAT2Q5AABFAtMAAAmxdw
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:18:11 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C132B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <027801cd0d4e$343dfbe0$9cb9f3a0$@packetizer.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0BFA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0FE9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB4F4@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB4F4@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.129.23.154]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C132Bexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:18:16 -0000

That sounds like a mighty strong statement that, in any case, it's not appropriate for APPSAWG.

Perhaps the proponents should request a non-WG list to talk about it for a while to let the problem definition congeal for a while, and then request a working group when a charter falls out of that.

-MSK

From: Eran Hammer [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:03 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

This clearly does not belong in the Security area or the OAuth working group.

I would strongly warn that moving this effort into any WG requires very careful work on the charter as historically there has been very little consensus and success in agreeing on what problems we are trying to solve. RFC 6415 was the end of a 5+ years process across multiple standard bodies including the IETF, W3C, OASIS, and the OpenID Foundation. This has proved a really hard problem to *define*.

EH

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:57 AM
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

Having talked with Barry now, an amended question:

Would this work better fit in another working group like OAuth (which has its own interest and concerns in webfinger), or perhaps in its own working group?  It may well be that it's too big to fit in APPSAWG's charter for smaller work items.

-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 Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:35 AM
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

To the working group,

This has been hovering outside APPSAWG for two meetings now.  Is APPSAWG the right place to process it?  That is, should we bring it in as a working group document?  Or would it be better done through the ISE, or perhaps in some other working group?

-MSK

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:50 PM
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

Folks,

I published a revised version of the Webfinger specification based on feedback I've received so far that seems to  have general agreement.  As requested, I added a change log at the end of the document that I hope will help.  The draft is here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-02

The "diff" tool on that page allows you to quickly see exactly what changed.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email