Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Wed, 16 November 2011 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.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 707441F0C59 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:30:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 VY6XUcv0F5rf for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC071F0C57 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:30:02 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAGEU1s1019475 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:30:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dhcp-64-102-210-204.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-210-204.cisco.com [64.102.210.204]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAGETwWg022520; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:29:58 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-263--450787310
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EC38B1A.4080704@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:29:56 -0500
Message-Id: <3E9D7309-D8E2-42B4-8FFC-9EF1FAD4AC53@cisco.com>
References: <032101cc9288$e3a06910$aae13b30$@packetizer.com> <4EBD6266.6030307@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDSsv6HeQj57S7dcwK6x-TWYKpW8QYKUsgdK9cjkLCwcw@mail.gmail.com> <4EBF136F.2080703@stpeter.im> <013501cca228$bcaba9a0$3602fce0$@packetizer.com> <4EC38B1A.4080704@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: 'Barry Leiba' <barryleiba@computer.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger
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, 16 Nov 2011 14:30:03 -0000

On Nov 16, 2011, at 5:06 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 11/14/11 1:21 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>> Peter,
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> The main reason I see a need for the WG item is that we're proposing a new
>> URI scheme ("acct").  Presently, the text also recommends the use of CORS
>> and makes other normative statements.
>> 
>> I could be persuaded that "acct" should be pulled out into its own document,
>> since I can imagine the utility for it might be broader than Webfinger.  If
>> we did that, then perhaps there is less of an argument for it being a WG
>> item, but I'm not sure out the text would be progressed in that case.
>> 
>> In any case, I'll take input on the best way to go forward.  I don't care
>> how we get there, but I fully agree with you that it ought to be documented.
> 
> Your point about the 'acct' URI scheme makes sense. I don't see a strong
> need to pull it into a separate spec, but perhaps that's because I don't
> know of other uses for the scheme outside of webfinger.

I don't think this needs to break that off into a separate doc. I'll also weigh in on the fact that this can certainly be progressed as an AD-sponsored independent submission, but given the choice, I tend to agree that there would be a benefit to have it be a WG item based on the normative addition introduced by 'acct' URI and the added WG focus in reviewing.

Regards,

Gonzalo

> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>