Re: [apps-discuss] WebFinger Draft Updated - draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-01

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Walter,

 

What you say is certainly true.  I believe that most service providers
operate their own ENUM services (if they use ENUM at all), so there is, in
effect, a default service.  The same could be extended to WF.  So, you make
a valid point.

 

And, of course, I do like the mapping to acct URIs :-)

 

Paul

 

From: Goix Laurent Walter [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 11:04 AM
To: Melvin Carvalho; Paul E. Jones
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: R: [apps-discuss] WebFinger Draft Updated -
draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-01

 

[snip] 



   

Tel URIs are not useful for WebFinger since, as you note, there is
no associated host information.  However, we should allow any URI
that does have a domain part.  After all, the purpose is to go to
the server and say "tell me about this URI".  If the server knows,
it will provide an answer.  If the server has no information on the
URI, it will return a 404.

Sure, tho im not sure the language in the spec, but I guess it
should point out the WF is only oriented at those that have a domain
part, or list the ones that are valid?

 

I think this is pretty clear in the spec already, if not obvious on the face
of it.  For example, bullet point 3 in Section 3 speaks of "URI at the host"
and gives examples.  However, if we add text, I think the right place would
be Section 5.4 where we talk about WebFinger and URIs. Perhaps we could add
a sentence to the end of the first paragraph where we talk about WebFinger
being URI scheme agnostic?  I'm not sure what to add, though.  Suggestions?


Unsure on this one.  I guess if the reviewers at the IETF think it's self
evident, that should be fine.  There's so many URI schemes today that it's
hard to even know if there are grey areas on this one.  

 

[walter] I guess the current “uri scheme-agnostic” text in 5.4 is fine. in
general i would avoid formally restricting URI types through white- or
blacklisting. This would allow a richer usage of this spec imo although it
may not always be “meaningful”. Specifically on tel URIs I’d like to recall
the enum draft [1] that aims at converting phone numbers into accounts to
further perform webfinger requests. Yet in an alternative approach a
“default” server (eg whose name is built based on mobile network
information) could probably handle wf requests to tel: URIs, whatever
process rules are applied at the server to answer or not that query and how
(eg to “proxy” the request to the authoritative server/operator for that
number)

 

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goix-appsawg-enum-acct-uri-00 


Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle
persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante
dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora
abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di
darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua
distruzione, Grazie. 

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged
information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying,
printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended
recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the
sender by return e-mail, Thanks. 

rispetta l'ambienteRispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è
necessario.