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/
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Michiel de Jong
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Peter Saint-Andre
- [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: direct v… Blaine Cook
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Bob Wyman
- [apps-discuss] Is host-meta.json viable? Re: Webf… William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Blaine Cook
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Blaine Cook
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Blaine Cook
- Re: [apps-discuss] Is host-meta.json viable? Re: … Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Is host-meta.json viable? Re: … William Mills
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Is host-meta.json viable? Re: … Eran Hammer
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Blaine Cook
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Mike Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Blaine Cook
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Eran Hammer
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Eran Hammer
- Re: [apps-discuss] Is host-meta.json viable? Re: … Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… John Bradley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: dire… Paul E. Jones