IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 19 April 2012 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B0721F85C5 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.458, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 5SY7L7FaPLpD for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBC721F85BB for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q3JI2nn1003664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:02:49 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q3JI2mQK023552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:02:48 -0500
Received: from [135.244.32.242] (faynberg.lra.lucent.com [135.244.32.242]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q3JI2mWq010391; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:02:48 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4F905348.9090505@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:02:48 -0400
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oauth@ietf.org
References: <423611CD-8496-4F89-8994-3F837582EB21@gmx.net> <4F8852D0.4020404@cs.tcd.ie> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280EFE8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <sjm1unn338j.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FACC3@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366490B2A@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366490B2A@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:02:53 -0000

+1 on the requirements.

On 4/19/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> There are two criteria that I would consider to be essential requirements for any resulting general-purpose discovery specification:
>
> 1.  Being able to always discover per-user information with a single GET (minimizing user interface latency for mobile devices, etc.)
>
> 2.  JSON should be required and it should be the only format required (simplicity and ease of deployment/adoption)
>
> SWD already meets those requirements.  If the resulting spec meets those requirements, it doesn't matter a lot whether we call it WebFinger or Simple Web Discovery, but I believe that the requirements discussion is probably the most productive one to be having at this point - not the starting point document.
>
> 				-- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:32 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org WG; Apps Discuss
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
>
> By all means people should correct me if they think I'm wrong about this, but so far from monitoring the discussion there seems to be general support for focusing on WebFinger and developing it to meet the needs of those who have deployed SWD, versus the opposite.
>
> Does anyone want to argue the opposite?
>
> -MSK, appsawg co-chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email