Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

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
> 