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

Gonzalo Salgueiro <> Wed, 04 April 2012 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A2811E80BE for <>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wBlvS9oPH442 for <>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4171111E80AC for <>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q34JFgai014932 for <>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:15:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q34JFbrq002189; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:15:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:15:37 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <027801cd0d4e$343dfbe0$9cb9f3a0$> <> <> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB4F4@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB50B@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB5C6@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:15:46 -0000

Peter -

Late to this party but I do want to weigh in and agree with what you, Eran and Paul have stated. This work is very narrowly scoped and adds minimal normative elements over and above RFC 6415 (primarily the addition of an acct URI and link rel as well as the resource parameter). I think the draft clearly states this but I'm willing to add text to further clarify if some is suggested.  The notion of this work being handled by another WG other than the one that shepherded RFC 6415 (APPSAWG) seems imprudent.  There is plenty of interest in progressing this work and I'd hate to further delay progress by not being able to find a suitable home for the document given the work that preceded it and that it is clearly founded on.   

Given the narrow focus of the work and the fact that we have received a significant amount of feedback, we believe this document is fairly mature and nearing a final form. We have released 3 versions and are about a week from submitting a fourth based on the latest round of comments. What is a reasonable way forward to continue the work? Do we continue it as an individual submission that might be AD-sponsored? Or do we adopt it as a WG?



On Mar 30, 2012, at 4:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 3/30/12 4:26 AM, Eran Hammer wrote:
>> And my answer is that right now it is a small task, but the responses
>> indicated that some people might want it to be bigger.
> I also think it's a small task. If some people construe it as larger,
> then perhaps we need to clarify the scope in the document.
> Peter
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list