Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Thu, 14 June 2012 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 1CF6811E80E2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 vbPbnSsQHO8S for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F162911E80C2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so801323wgb.13 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=7Hmb8PvvQaBC6K3z38UFfWeirYx6MEVP/TQXXAZYRFI=; b=cGudI8x8I5NBXbS0RtprWjjQZfHxWWp2lJgkyMW2TXD1c65F5gxtt4xH7lEStVUkom aQQ0T8oYm1nJnAmxxhPhCLcqRrRhIG03/+Ltn9zSWeM3FbmlzL1HPnpVhbuXxgxJaQkI LVQYXItqmK+qYS3BkaxsOd9xSUpEsiiUp/67ASJxRVcC8sMb+8nU0LSKJo72WuFcnWi4 V3r/t7OFU8up35P3g0DN/2CuMCrQrJsH3jECFiioC4pmFYnniZdY+r1e/6QDBqIVk2q5 hUwMe2I3PzzskinQjRpSZZVPJJaROdegUTbZ1EC9eghuX/6S4Dj5gSC+PyiNtKIVD8YN Hieg==
Received: by 10.180.24.193 with SMTP id w1mr41713355wif.5.1339632894778; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.143.196.33] ([109.144.251.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id eb8sm15215392wib.11.2012.06.13.17.14.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5005A17E-3DDC-4C43-98F2-A76597A1811A"
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <1339630300.21499.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:14:48 +0100
Message-Id: <3A4C798C-D5E2-4D2C-9E1E-A7D40FB73431@ve7jtb.com>
References: <64C6DF43A866F40437AF4CC3@cyrus.local> <059c01cd39c8$f3d027c0$db707740$@packetizer.com> <1339625839.48148.YahooMailNeo@web31816.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FD917ED.2050805@stpeter.im> <1339628098.85328.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FD91AF7.5050107@stpeter.im> <1339630300.21499.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnYK4RS5oIC1tjBtFIym8iqhQUs8m6PSw887GOEf0FBuuaHC3zh+C6aD92sXFCqje0wYG8I
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:14:57 -0000

It is probably worth remembering that WF is about discovering services for users.
hostmeta is about discovering services for domains.

One question is if Bob@foo.com and Jane@foo.com can have diffrent OAuth Authorization servers for there Imap and SMTP services.

If not then hostmeta and not WF would be the more appropriate way to find the OAuth Authorization service required to get a access grant.

For Connect we are also pondering the problem of users with hosted domains that don't have a web server running on the host for the primary domain, or at-least not one that is likely to provide a WF service.

There is not a perfect answer to that question at the moment.

John B.
On 2012-06-14, at 12:31 AM, William Mills wrote:

> In my use case it's a service/server.
> 
> Not a terribly happy answer to say "DNS SRV records won't work for you, and there is no other solution.".  By the same token I could ask "Why do we need Webfinger and host meta at all if we have DNS SRV records?".
> 
> If XMPP uses SRV records for discovery, that's fine.  IMAP and outbound SMTP services both lack a defined discovery method other than the ubiquitous "service documentation".  Is there a compelling reason to pick DNS over WF for this?  From the app developer point of view I don't want to have N ways to discover M services.
> 
> -bill
> 
> 
> From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
> To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> 
> Cc: Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>; 'Cyrus Daboo' <cyrus@daboo.name>; "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery
> 
> On 6/13/12 4:54 PM, William Mills wrote:
> > As I said, I'm interested specifically in IMAP, SMTP and OAuth endpoints. 
> 
> What exactly is an "endpoint"? A client? An account? A server?
> 
> > As a data point, DNS SRV records are not controllable in many hosted
> > domain models.
> 
> At the last XMPP Summit a few months ago, we learned that DNS SRV
> records are unavailable in whole countries (e.g., Japan). That doesn't
> mean we should define a replacement for DNS over HTTP. :)
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss