Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

Hi Paul and all,

I think you contributed a very interesting proposal indeed.  Really, RFC 
1288 finger protocol is now outdated, and you're right claiming that it 
provides no means of automatic processing.  BTW, RFC 1288 is currently 
at Draft Standard maturity level, which has been abandoned by RFC 6410, 
and we should therefore undertake something with this respect, as should 
we with respect of other Apps-related DSs, but that is what is to be 
discussed separately.

With respect to proposed 'acct' URI scheme:  how are you going to handle 
internationalization (i18n)?  We have RFC 5335 defining <utf8-addr-spec> 
(Experimental RFC) and IESG has already approved EAI 5335bis, that will 
be Standards Track.  So will <utf8-addr-spec> be allowed in 'acct' URIs 
in some way?

Webfinger implies use of some link relations.  Is it anticipated that 
URIs will be used as link relations types, or we'll need to define link 
relation types for all possible use-cases of Webfinger?

Your Section 4 seems to be somewhat narrative.  I propose to divide it 
into normative specification and examples.

With regard to CORS - I'm not actually acquainted with this technology, 
but I see it is currently documented as W3C working draft, so I don't 
suspect it is now widely-used (I may of course be wrong, so please feel 
free to correct me), and I think there is no use putting MUST 
requirement on its use in Webfinger.  You could better remove your 
section on CORS from the document at all.

I think we should also provide some means of mentioning Webfinger 
accounts in vCards.  You could please see VCARDDAV document 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-social-networks-00 which 
Webfinger elements may also be incorporated.

In Abstract, you should be more specific about what your document 
defines.  I propose mentioning directly that the document is the 
specification of Webfinger protocol, not "procedures for dicovering 
information about people".

In Section 7 you should clearly state that Webfinger (so as finger 
itself) is intentionally left w/o any means of controlling access to 
information (unless we want to produce *such* protocol).

I see the document is on APPSAWG agenda on the meeting, so I anticipate 
it will soon become APPSAWG item doc.  I won't be on meeting, but if you 
discuss the adaptation of Webfinger draft please also take into account 
I'm in favor of such adaptation (consider this as my 2p).

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

24.10.2011 23:09, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> We just submitted this:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-00.txt
>
> The tools for Webfinger are now defined, but the procedures need to be 
> clearer with respect to what most of us understand as “webfinger”.  
> This is just a first stab at making that happen and we hope to 
> progress this to publish an RFC in the application area.
>
> We welcome any comments you have on the topic, either privately or 
> publicly.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss