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

Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.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 60BBD21E81AB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 NYqX-M8rWg2B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9960921E816B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15633 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2012 16:06:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO p3plex2out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net) (184.168.131.14) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 29 Mar 2012 16:06:10 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) by p3plex2out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with bizsmtp id rU621i0050SoFT401U6A15; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:06:10 -0700
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) with mapi; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:03:33 -0700
From: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:03:24 -0700
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)
Thread-Index: Ac0NTjN3PPuV9i7nTOWIJZJHpX6j7AAUZkqgAAT2Q5AABFAtMA==
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB4F4@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <027801cd0d4e$343dfbe0$9cb9f3a0$@packetizer.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0BFA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0FE9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0FE9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB4F4P3PW5EX1MB01E_"
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 16:06:19 -0000

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] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:57 AM
To: 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