IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Aggregated service discovery

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Wed, 23 May 2012 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <GK@ninebynine.org>
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 8DD8D21F8512 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 06:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 6txAcaYivQjM for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 06:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0125921F84F0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 06:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.205]) by relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1SXBb9-0007Ik-3U; Wed, 23 May 2012 14:27:31 +0100
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=Eskarina.local) by smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1SXBb8-0007B6-30; Wed, 23 May 2012 14:27:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4FBCE57A.3090500@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:26:18 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
References: <64C6DF43A866F40437AF4CC3@cyrus.local> <22873D37-8462-48AE-ABA0-49445776E4CC@mnot.net> <FF3DD3C9968F397579BC846A@cyrus.local>
In-Reply-To: <FF3DD3C9968F397579BC846A@cyrus.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 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: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:27:36 -0000

On 23/05/2012 13:55, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> --On May 23, 2012 4:29:24 PM +1000 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>> If they're HTTP -
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-json-home/>
>
> Of course we do want service discovery for non-HTTP protocols, LDAP, IMAP,
> Submission, POP3, XMPP etc. Now I could almost imagine having non-http resource
> URIs in the json-home document for these other protocols, but I think that would
> be over stepping the intent of json-home.

I don't see why it would (assuming you mean the URIs obtained via the URI 
template in the home document).  HTTP would still be the discovery protocol, but 
it could easily provide reference to a non-HTTP service.

Indeed, I think web architecture principles would suggest that non-HTTP services 
should be discoverable (by virtue of not restricting the kind of URI that can be 
returned).

#g
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email