IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 11:35 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 572FC21F89B8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 A-ZzEMCb7o50 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725D021F89AB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:35:14 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)
Thread-Index: Ac0NTjN3PPuV9i7nTOWIJZJHpX6j7AAUZkqg
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:35:14 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0BFA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <027801cd0d4e$343dfbe0$9cb9f3a0$@packetizer.com>
In-Reply-To: <027801cd0d4e$343dfbe0$9cb9f3a0$@packetizer.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.129.23.154]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C0BFAexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:35:16 -0000

To the working group,

This has been hovering outside APPSAWG for two meetings now.  Is APPSAWG the right place to process it?  That is, should we bring it in as a working group document?  Or would it be better done through the ISE, or perhaps in some other working group?

-MSK

From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:50 PM
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] Revised webfinger draft (-02)

Folks,

I published a revised version of the Webfinger specification based on feedback I've received so far that seems to  have general agreement.  As requested, I added a change log at the end of the document that I hope will help.  The draft is here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-02

The "diff" tool on that page allows you to quickly see exactly what changed.

Paul

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status