Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation"
"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Wed, 14 March 2012 16:04 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 B3C3321F86DC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, 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 Ihz9ycCEbrMs for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922B421F86AD for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:04:03 -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 q2EG41WZ007205 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:04:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1331741042; bh=vAp25BFbLcf72qIfkhIWs1qNUKh0RliN+pA5VTcCA00=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cgN00QKd4Kn3zC5DxipwNJvTo5E3gZhkkcGxg/rYaXRvKkpTeTOfel1y+RS9roOzM 6SCLfkkipgfhQ7P0/0SSHmPA0Iv7ACnhFoE/zd9YpI5+rGcOan0V0RITDsoxjR4AQ+ aTaLh92OFhgBDuYH2LA6K4xaKACQJ4GxzsSVEfUY=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: webfinger@googlegroups.com
References: <05d001cd01a7$3cbb0c70$b6312550$@packetizer.com> <4F60AD42.2080208@openlinksw.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F60AD42.2080208@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:04:05 -0400
Message-ID: <00bf01cd01fc$1502bde0$3f0839a0$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C0_01CD01DA.8DF2A480"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIpr5CrRpL27TKx2eu4GfpqVU03ngH8fdNDlaC0jJA=
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation"
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:04:05 -0000
Kingsley, Oh, I was not aware of the "related" scheme. So, if "related" and "seealso" have the same semantics, then I would not want to introduce a new one. Are there different semantics? Would we prefer to use "seealso" or "related" or "acct" to refer webfinger to go look at a different account URI? Paul From: webfinger@googlegroups.com [mailto:webfinger@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:38 AM To: webfinger@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Webfinger: acct "link relation" On 3/14/12 1:56 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote: Folks, In the latest Webfinger draft, we introduced a "acct" link relation named "acct" (see Section 6). The intent with that link relation was to allow for one to inform a webfinger client that a user's account information may be retrieved elsewhere. I believe this will be important, since a user might have more than one account and this might serve as a means of associating them. Certainly, it would be a way of retrieving information from those other accounts automatically. Perhaps calling the new link relation "acct" is too restrictive, though. If one used Webfinger to query other kinds of information other than a user's account, there may still be a need/desire to refer the Webfinger client to other resources. What do you think about changing this section such that the link relation is renamed to "seealso"? This would still be useful when querying an acct URI, but would also be useful when querying any URI since it is more generic. Do note that "seealso" would be different than the "alternate" link relation. It would not refer to alternative information, but would refer to supplemental information. In practice, the supplemental information may be the more informative since the bulk of the information related to a user might be held under a different account. Your thoughts? Paul +1 for "seeAlso" . But, this is analogous to "related" which already exists i.e., <link rel="related" .../> :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Michiel de Jong
- [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Paul E. Jones
- [apps-discuss] R: Webfinger: acct "link relation" Goix Laurent Walter
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation" Michiel de Jong