Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)

Derek - 

On Apr 20, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:

> Paul,
> 
> "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> writes:
> 
>> Tim,
>> 
>> I do not agree that it's harmful. If I removed the WF discussion off the
>> table, I'm still having a hard time buying into everything you said in the
>> blog post.
>> 
>> I implement various web services, largely for my own use.  Usually, I
>> implement all of them in XML, JSON, plain text (attribute/value pairs), AND
>> JavaScript (for JSONP).  For simple services, it's not hard.  I do it
>> because I sometimes have different wants/desires on the client side.  (For
>> more complex ones, I use XML.)
> 
> As an individual (and not the chair of OAUTH) I believe that the server
> should be allowed, no encouraged, to support multiple formats for data
> retrieval.  I also believe that clients should be allowed to choose only
> one.  I am fine with JSON being Mandatory to Implement.  I am NOT okay
> with making it the only one, and I am even less okay with mandating it
> is the ONLY one.  I would say MUST JSON, MUST (or possibly SHOULD -- you
> can convince me either way) XML, and MAY for anything else that people
> feel stronly about (although I feel in 2012 XML and JSON are the two
> best).  I also feel it is okay to say that a client MUST implement one
> of JSON or XML, and MAY implement more.
> 
> <OAUTH Chair Hat>
> 
> Note that this is a replay of the historical "MUST Implement" versus
> "MUST Use" arguments.  Just because the server MUST IMPLEMENT JSON and
> XML does not mean that a Client must use both (or even that a client
> must implement both).  It is perfectly reasonable and generally
> acceptable to have a server that provides data in multiple formats
> whereas the client only supports a subset and specifies which format(s)
> are acceptable.
> 
> </OAUTH Char Hat>
> 

This is the most sensible path forward.  A MUST for JSON and XML (I'm going with a MUST for XML to maintain backwards compatibility with RFC 6415) on the server side and a client can choose whatever format it wants. This is the approach taken in the current WebFinger draft. If we reach consensus that we must mandate a client format (Note: I don't personally think we need to), then so be it.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

> -derek
> 
> -- 
>       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
>       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
>       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 