Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 16 November 2011 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 603C221F9644 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:06:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.538
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 5l8ig7xb8PM5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A6921F9642 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [130.129.21.171]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70BC6404FF; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:12:36 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4EC38B1A.4080704@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:06:18 +0800
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.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>
In-Reply-To: <013501cca228$bcaba9a0$3602fce0$@packetizer.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 10:06:22 -0000

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.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/