Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)
"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Fri, 30 March 2012 06:14 UTC
Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 1A13421F87BD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.481
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, 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 z1sYCWx7T2Xs for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4C621F8794 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2U6DlDg001830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:13:48 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1333088029; bh=kVG0djIKBlSUooreH3q9+j3x+OQqaC1boJtiELLBqOs=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ED1fgE81cmaUY5nSK+HJEJqAArIEGragoxux/GCP0z+y/QGzNgoOHysII5YQDXoQk oOAs57tYv9cA9Kv5ugtEM9D1jtkQeBtJRs0JblETSd7I8rOHI8WcvxiiaOKv1ij80C 1GnUq63XrCzlKHOKB8eeKQwfHQj9uyvYF0QoZf78=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <msk@cloudmark.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <027801cd0d4e$343dfbe0$9cb9f3a0$@packetizer.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0BFA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0FE9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB4F4@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C132B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453B42BB50B@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C142E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C142E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:13:56 -0400
Message-ID: <042c01cd0e3c$4a5c9320$df15b960$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_042D_01CD0E1A.C34D6420"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIu9uTQOHonqm8rGpkT+zjk6FKq9wFMvbOwAZNX8mkBehjPOwIT3OQgAaXbFDQDlfxh15VhOwnQ
Content-Language: en-us
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: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:14:16 -0000
I do classify this as a small task. The Webfinger draft does the following: . Introduces the acct URI scheme for use with RFC 6415 . Introduces the acct link relation for the same . Mandates use of JRD (defined in RFC 6415) . Introduces a "resource" parameter to be used with RFC 6415 I think that's a complete list. As Eran said, it may be perceived as something bigger than it is. RFC 6415 is a framework and Webfinger builds on that, with a particular emphasis on user account URIs and stuff to support those. Paul From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:12 PM To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) I'm not advocating throwing anything away. I'm proposing figuring out what path would be most appropriate, regardless of whether it's a new innovation or a derivative innovation. Our charter constrains us to small tasks. If webfinger can legitimately be characterized as a small task, then we can do a call for adoption. If not, which seems to be the case, then this isn't the right place for it, and we have other procedures for advancing such work. That's the question I'm posing here. -MSK From: Eran Hammer [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:47 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy; apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) It would be appropriate for APPSAWG if the scope is narrowly defined as adding a few enhancements to RFC 6415 (which *is* what the current draft attempts to do, even though its prose might sounds grander). But in the context of the recent OAuth WG meeting discussing a competing foundation (SWD), a new WG seems to be in order. My concern is that we are reaching a point (or maybe pass it) where progressing a work to standards track RFC status no longer translate into requiring new work to explain why it cannot build on top of the published standard. If this body throws away work as recent as October 2011 just because it's more convenient for some to start from scratch, I don't see why anyone would bother go through the significant cost and effort of getting it published here in the first place. EH From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:18 AM To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) 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] 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] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:35 AM To: 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] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:50 PM To: 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
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Eran Hammer
- [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Eran Hammer
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Eran Hammer
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02) Paul E. Jones