Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 16 November 2011 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603C221F9644 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:06:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.538
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5l8ig7xb8PM5 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A6921F9642 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70BC6404FF; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:12:36 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:06:18 +0800
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
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" <>
References: <032101cc9288$e3a06910$aae13b30$> <> <> <> <013501cca228$bcaba9a0$3602fce0$>
In-Reply-To: <013501cca228$bcaba9a0$3602fce0$>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'Barry Leiba' <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 Saint-Andre