Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

Peter Saint-Andre <> Sun, 13 November 2011 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0A221F8467 for <>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:46:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1agZyhzFakZg for <>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F6F21F8461 for <>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B468D404FF; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:52:47 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:46:39 +0800
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <032101cc9288$e3a06910$aae13b30$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 00:46:43 -0000

On 11/12/11 6:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> I see the document is on APPSAWG agenda on the meeting, so I anticipate it
>> will soon become APPSAWG item doc.  I won't be on meeting, but if you
>> discuss the adaptation of Webfinger draft please also take into account I'm
>> in favor of such adaptation (consider this as my 2p).
> As the agenda says, some things are not verified... and, in
> particular, this item is likely to be removed.  The chairs might
> mention it in the meeting, but discussion of the document will be on
> the mailing list.
> More importantly, your assumption that a document's getting meeting
> time implies that it "will soon become [a working group] doc" is very
> much wrong.  Having it on the meeting agenda simply means that the
> chairs think there will be some benefit to the working group process
> to have a chance to talk about it face to face.  We still would need
> to see enough interest in it, before the working group would accept
> it.
> Until now, there's been no interest expressed.  Thanks, Mykyta, for
> weighing in.  Others should also, please, comment here and let the
> working group and the document authors know whether you think this is
> something we (and they -- possibly separate points) should pursue.

<hat type='individual'/>

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.


Peter Saint-Andre