Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: direct versus indirect discovery

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 23 April 2012 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 21EF821F8624 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 JxYpjwTcHTzj for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D685721F85B5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FC6D40058; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:49:20 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4F95A0C9.3020303@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:34:49 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366492EE5@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <7AF88E80-2515-49A5-92F8-8C0CB9ED7F47@ve7jtb.com> <CAA1s49Xj8BinguuJcopsf6PpgX-ntfyMEJpGZfGYWHZPS=SGSA@mail.gmail.com> <943DD28B-D2AB-4247-B486-06C074C4BA12@ve7jtb.com> <CAA1s49V4CA0+pi4Y4LGZFfXp-OXy-=7ZtMWSCX3M6JOWi0E48g@mail.gmail.com> <599EB342-8023-453D-977E-DC318637B6E9@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <599EB342-8023-453D-977E-DC318637B6E9@ve7jtb.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: direct versus indirect 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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:34:57 -0000

Picking on a minor point here...

On 4/23/12 12:27 PM, John Bradley wrote:

> That way large sites can optimize and small sites could still use static
> files.

Is there evidence for the assumption that large services will serve
their data via an API whereas small services will serve their data via
static files? It seems clear to me that many small services might not
host static files, e.g., because they use a content management system or
community software application that automatically pulls data out of a
database of users and serves up some of that information in the form
defined by the WebFinger spec (or SWD or whatever). I rather doubt that
large services will host static files, but let's not base our design
decisions on a false premise about smaller services.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/