Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger & acct: draft

Gonzalo Salgueiro <> Fri, 18 November 2011 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E4311E809D for <>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:53:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oDj2Wguk9kSK for <>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:53:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196DB11E8091 for <>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:53:55 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAINrrsk009416 for <>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:53:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAINrliX013238; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:53:47 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-325--244156301"
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <>
In-Reply-To: <047c01cca646$f32f8100$d98e8300$>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:53:47 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <A09A9E0A4B9C654E8672D1DC003633AE4056F73E86@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <047c01cca646$f32f8100$d98e8300$>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger & acct: draft
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:53:56 -0000

 I agree. Both the notion of registering link relations and the possibility of a broader usage of the acct: URI beyond Webfinger really require some group discussion to help us decide if the draft remains self-contained as a single document or gets broken into several.



On Nov 18, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:

> Walter,
> Thanks for your feedback on the text.  I’ll be revising the document accordingly.  Based on comments from you and others, section 4 will likely undergo heavy restructuring :-)
> For the webfinger link relations under, are those that should go into the existing IANA registry for link relations that was defined by RFC 5988?  (See  In any case, registration of link relations can certainly be done as a part of this specification or it could be done separately.  My own opinion is that it would be better to define link relations separately, but I’m willing to follow the group opinion on this one.  Even I don’t know what those relations are :-)
> Paul
> From: [] On Behalf Of Goix Laurent Walter
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 6:34 AM
> To:
> Subject: [apps-discuss] Webfinger & acct: draft
> Paul, all,
> Thank you for starting addressing this standardization topic within IETF. Webfinger (and acct:) indeed are being increasingly used and the whole community would benefit from a well-referenced specification for it.
> Here are some comments on the draft:
> -          At this stage acct: scheme is needed from a formal point of view only I guess, so there may not be the need for a full addr-spec support.
> -          I also support the point raised by Mykyta around i18n.  I guess as we are targeting user addressing more than resource addressing in general, and given the rise of Internet & social networks in non-ascii countries it would be important to target a dual URI/IRI scheme (following the path of the mailto rfc6068bis draft)
> -          If no other spec is currently using the acct: scheme then it may be kept in the webfinger spec, but some existing specifications may be interested in referencing it as primary/preferred addressing mechanism (independently from webfinger), e.g. Opensocial,
> -          From a more structural point of view it may be useful to better distinguish the sections related to the scheme from the ones relates to webfinger. Right now 4.1 and 4.2 are very different in purpose and may become 4 and 5. Current section 5 could become a subsection of webfinger (say 5.2)
> -          It may also be good to distinguish the behavior on the server side (creating/exposing the descriptor and its content) from the actual discovery behavior from the client.
> -          Webfinger further uses specific link “rels”, which now are referenced under domain. I guess some of these rels would need to be registered as pure tokens (no URI), e.g. “avatar”, “profile-page” and specified in this spec.
> -          Reference 8 can now be updated to rfc6415
> Cheers
> Walter
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Telecom Italia
> Laurent-Walter Goix
> Innovation & Industry Relations, Research & Prototyping, Future Internet 
> Piazza Einaudi 8 - 20124 Milano (Italy)
> Tel. +39 026213445
> Mob. +39 3356114196
> Fax +39 0641869055
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
> <image001.gif>Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list