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

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
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 164B921E8049 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.929
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.331, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 ylal2Je9YgF6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05FBF11E808E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail183-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.239) by VA3EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.7.40.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:13:33 +0000
Received: from mail183-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail183-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D180826052F; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -46
X-BigFish: VS-46(z21aILz9371Ic89bh1803Mc857hzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail183-va3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail183-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail183-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1335392012390739_30548; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:13:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.253]) by mail183-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D8C100210; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:13:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by VA3EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (10.7.99.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:13:32 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.73]) by TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.154]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.005; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:13:30 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: direct versus indirect discovery
Thread-Index: AQHNIxeF/1ProoIvn0WtumnQ5VDIrZasEyqAgAAGb8A=
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:13:30 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366499664@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.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> <054901cd2311$87a24fb0$96e6ef10$@packetizer.com> <4CC716F1-F6A4-46CF-86FD-6636B1F84500@ve7jtb.com> <CAAz=scmAzFqmSSspAGQEWWr_LSr30MFDBXu80rKq2BGcZUKSxQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAz=scmAzFqmSSspAGQEWWr_LSr30MFDBXu80rKq2BGcZUKSxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.32]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366499664TK5EX14MBXC284r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
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: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:13:38 -0000

I agree that if we’re confused about the host-meta processing rules, etc. it’s a sign that we’re making things too hard.  I believe these are exactly the kinds of reasons that led Yaron to develop Simple Web Discovery.

Maybe it’s time for people to reread http://www.goland.org/simplewebfinger/ and http://www.goland.org/managingfingerservice/ (or to read them for the first time).  I suspect the reasoning in them will resonate more in the context of the current discussion, for what it’s worth…

                                                            -- Mike

P.S.  You can take the viewpoint this is about Microsoft and Google if you like, but in my mind, this is about ubiquitous discovery for the open Web.

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Blaine Cook
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:45 PM
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #3: direct versus indirect discovery

*sigh*

This is crazy. There are a half-dozen of us debating theoretical ways to structure a thing that may or may not ever get used, so that some specs can get finalised so that *maybe* Microsoft and Google can ship a new version of OpenID (that doesn't adequately address one of the core usability shortcomings of the first two OpenIDs).

I don't know if Evan Prodromou or anyone from Diaspora or anyone else who has *actually tried to deploy* similar things is watching this thread, but if they are, I hope they pipe up, because there is absolutely zero consideration for actual implementations happening in this discussion.

Also, keep in mind that if *we're* confused about the host-meta processing rules, or if my "single-code-path" arguments are being dismissed because "it's easy either way", then we're in a lot of trouble. Refer to the fact that we've switched from XML to JSON because XML is too hard for most developers.

The point of all this is to make it accessible and easy, since we have a chicken-and-egg problem. If this is going to work, it's going to take the whole long tail, not just Microsoft and Google. The specs we have right now clearly don't work, but idle speculation on our part isn't going to make any of this work.

b.