Re: [apps-discuss] Looking at Webfinger

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

We took SWD form openID Connect to the OAuth WG.

The decision was made to send it to Apps as it was seen as similar to WF.

Ironically a number of the XRD authors Nat Sakimura, myself and others were involved in SWD and not WF.

While some of us argued for SWDs simpler features and independence from any particular URI scheme,  the consensus of the WG has been to basically stick with WF.
Overloading host-meta to take a parameter in WF was one feature that was added to WF to reduce the number of calls.

By building on host-metta there is a perceived requirement that the template pass a URI and hence one of the requirements to register acct:

Now that WF has been accepted by the chairs as a WG draft it gets harder to make breaking changes.

WF was improved by the discussions.   It might have been improved more if more people had engaged in the conversation earlier.
Though sometimes it takes something moving to completion before people start to pay attention.

We have a relatively short deadline for completing openID connect, and still must make a decision on if we keep SWD or move to WF if there is sufficient stability and consensus around it.

Regards
John B.

On 2012-07-03, at 3:26 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 
> On 03/07/2012, at 5:24 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> 
>> You've essentially described Simple Web Discovery!  It avoids the complications introduced by host-meta exactly by using its own .well-known value.
> 
> This makes me happy. :)
> 
> So, what's the current state of SWF vs. webfinger? I thought I'd see an announcement go by that webfinger was going to become a WG draft.
> 
> Sorry for not keeping up, but I can only digest so much e-mail at once...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss