Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

[Eran Hammer-Lahav <[e-mail]>]

1.       Require the server to offer JRD, leave it to the client to pick one flavor.

2.       Host-meta dumps the decision on the applications. You need to decide if WebFinger is an application or just syntactic sugar on top of host-meta.

3.       Expand every template in host-meta + level one LRDD links (excluding templates in LRDD).

EHL

From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:49 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; [e-mail]
Cc: 'Joseph Smarr'; 'Gonzalo Salgueiro'; 'Blaine Cook'
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

Eran,

Thanks for your feedback.  The editorial, structural, and behavioral items we'll addressed (including adhering to host-meta section 4.2).

Let me ask about specific comments:


1)      You want to mandate use of JSON, which we also indicated in the draft.  However, I would personally prefer to give both XML and JSON equal weight and require both.

2)      You wanted to mandate HTTPS. I'm not opposed, but host-meta does not mandate it.  Shouldn't we Webfinger requirements on what is there?

3)      Regarding "resource" extension: if I query host-meta, there may be any number of templates.  Would we want the server to automatically expand every template it finds?  Or would we only expand the 'lrdd' template?  (And how many levels of recursion might be possible?)

Paul

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:[e-mail]]<mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]>
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 10:03 AM
To: Paul E. Jones; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Joseph Smarr; Gonzalo Salgueiro; Blaine Cook
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

This is a good start. Some feedback and nits:


1.       The protocol flow is incorrect and needs to be adjusted based on the final host-meta specification (RFC 6415). Namely, WebFinger must follow section 4.2 exactly as specified.

2.       WebFinger should focus exclusively on JSON and mandate WebFinger providers to support the JRD format. This does not preclude using XRD (XML) but it will ensure that every compliant WebFinger implementation provides full JSON support which is much more likely to be adopted. This is something we could not do in host-meta due to the late stage it was in, but this is the right time to make the switch (without taking away any existing functionality).

3.       Are there reasons not to mandate HTTPS?

4.       Section 3 should be a sub-section of the introduction and each example needs actual JRD code.

In addition, I would very much like to see WebFinger extend the host-meta endpoint by defining a 'resource' query parameter. Using the example in RFC 6415 section 1.1.1 (example not properly encoded to make it easier to read):

> GET /.well-known/host-meta?resource=http://example.com/xy HTTP/1.1

   {
      "subject":"http://example.com/xy",

      "properties":{
        "http://spec.example.net/color":"red"
      },

      "links":[
        {
          "rel":"hub",
          "href":"http://example.com/hub",
        },
        {
          "rel":"hub",
          "href":"http://example.com/another/hub",
        },
        {
          "rel":"author",
          "href":"http://example.com/john",
        },
        {
          "rel":"author",
          "template":"http://example.com/author?q=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fxy"
        }
      ]
    }

The rules for this extension parameter are pretty simple:


1.       JSON is implied. If the server understands '?resource' it MUST return a JRD document.

2.       The subject must be set to the value of the 'resource' parameter.

3.       If the server does not support that resource (wrong domain, etc.) it must return an empty JRD with the right subject.

4.       The client MUST verify the server supports '?resource' by making sure the response is both JRD and has the requested subject (this will ensure full compatibility with any other host-meta endpoint).

I would like to see such endpoint extension required for WebFinger so that clients can make a single call and get the full WebFinger result in JSON. This would significantly improve adoption and usability, and adds very little work to providers.

EHL


From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]]<mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]> On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 1:10 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Joseph Smarr; Gonzalo Salgueiro
Subject: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

Folks,

We just submitted this:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-00.txt

The tools for Webfinger are now defined, but the procedures need to be clearer with respect to what most of us understand as "webfinger".  This is just a first stab at making that happen and we hope to progress this to publish an RFC in the application area.

We welcome any comments you have on the topic, either privately or publicly.

Paul