IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Fri, 20 April 2012 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <melvincarvalho@gmail.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 1FCBF21F872B; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.39
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 HTVzThsu0pk8; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC9121F872A; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so7613430vbb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2V+R8pNJm2ZGvE8f3fJZJ2gYUWKiOtclUc4urSw3Ja0=; b=gPTWBDlZjBKUisvyglhBKNeADehiSzUA+RIuqkHJw+96V6wYV9lJq5ll18FeMckHb4 YX6Cg+ReSh83uJ9d70yZ6XSZvlfGMhQwp4ZWgvwK3nsc4GNRTN/qunxyyXVT6+lS5Bf2 jkqrI16Jwmro/AlCHuODs3GFxGl3dR9qc7wRyzr5ZpErP3FWFHfQxhtz5C/IvXs98l4W a796zAveRZrmjxH+FbGaZBLRRlbjZQUMk3o6dcs676JjOnf/CUAbow+1VvDe1nuvIIFa G+L9FLqmbE1HUxzKpHDGDe4nimrv2dhagye0dgv3kQ9bZPA1te3y2BqPG/MQLRJcF0Wi DANw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.95.147 with SMTP id dk19mr4166162vdb.106.1334933069752; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.70.98 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F917545.5080103@mtcc.com>
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> <091401cd1ea3$e159be70$a40d3b50$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6it3ZmTdK-mTwydXSRvGvZAYuv0FFR2EWLwdfTxQh4XV5g@mail.gmail.com> <091901cd1eb0$167a8ce0$436fa6a0$@packetizer.com> <sjmbommzdv4.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org> <4F917545.5080103@mtcc.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:44:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+bMEmY7wqNqLueohFwJZXoQYrVm6-HnOrL3Cv0Ke-Kcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3071d0b66be78804be1d53e8"
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>, oauth@ietf.org, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:44:31 -0000

On 20 April 2012 16:40, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

> On 04/20/2012 07:17 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.
>>
>>
>>
> Why not MUST ASN.1 while you're at it? JSON has won in case
> you'all haven't noticed it.
>

+1

Also bear in mind that when people say "XML" here, it's a specific subset
of XML namely "application/xrd+xml".


> Mike
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/oauth<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email