Re: [apps-discuss] Looking at Webfinger

[George Fletcher <[e-mail]>]

+1 for supporting redirects

 From a pure deployment perspective, managing multiple .well-known/ 
endpoints can be difficult is the group that "owns" the web domain is 
substantially different/separated from the group that wants to put 
"files" in the .well-known directory. In addition, a single organization 
supporting multiple domains that all use the same "identifier" strings 
can also add complications. Not unsolvable, but it creates a more 
brittle deployment.

Managing these endpoints as a set of fixed 3XX redirects is much simpler 
than having to deploy the actual functionality at the endpoint. Even 
easier (for my environment) is to only deploy one endpoint... but I get 
the rationale behind having multiple.

Thanks,
George

On 7/3/12 5:44 AM, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> - it should be clear to implementers that they are allowed to use http
> 3** responses to redirect to some other place where running the actual
> webfinger service might be easier to organize. it should be clear to
> clients that they should follow such redirects. afaik, the ability to
> redirect to some other place was an argument for using host-meta as a
> first hop: first discover where the host-meta server is, and then do
> the actual work there.