Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

"Paul E. Jones" <> Sun, 13 November 2011 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E203421F84A0 for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:22:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.559
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vi9Lw0JLQMk4 for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF8C21F848A for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sydney ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pADHLvUc012906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:21:58 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=dublin; t=1321204920; bh=BLiwcwlrbaLgH0Jqqhlzk+SvcYv+qAkOB+7aoxtgHeY=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Ke321g0Mfk6F5ltYEDTGX2eAtnt8bMI4wHocWOFo3rnjodQ7j7fithN1HvAORmgL6 i9eUzcxTCF7dhXczoICUFnx8/ptaK3/6AhPnH4HXDV/bVUe5ItDBTTFb47BJ6GyjW2 61XL4h+xDsiwj5U3eHx9Co/3CbrpvcpgcpFonTug=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: 'Peter Saint-Andre' <>, 'Barry Leiba' <>
References: <032101cc9288$e3a06910$aae13b30$> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:21:51 -0500
Message-ID: <013501cca228$bcaba9a0$3602fce0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI/v0XgjFwdy9sXrXmTVWBMa/eIuQFe+7+KAQRuCq8B+4mldZSh2Z0A
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger
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: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:22:02 -0000


> I think that documentation of the webfinger protocol would be a good
> thing, given that it's somewhat widely used on the web. I do not have a
> strong opinion about whether it is needful for the APPSAWG to take on
> this work.

The main reason I see a need for the WG item is that we're proposing a new
URI scheme ("acct").  Presently, the text also recommends the use of CORS
and makes other normative statements.

I could be persuaded that "acct" should be pulled out into its own document,
since I can imagine the utility for it might be broader than Webfinger.  If
we did that, then perhaps there is less of an argument for it being a WG
item, but I'm not sure out the text would be progressed in that case.

In any case, I'll take input on the best way to go forward.  I don't care
how we get there, but I fully agree with you that it ought to be documented.