IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Fri, 20 April 2012 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 88E0921F846E for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Tx4fO0NnddfM for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9803921F845E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhj6 with SMTP id hj6so219792wib.13 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to :x-gm-message-state; bh=351gmXCEbxfLdlLYqNzXCL99Fg3bI2M190ZR2J33tNs=; b=XYWQnydUATX2Dj9LwuScOVnZV3qKPHNXOITYBqqtEC8HQpsvYLjX0Ut+pEa2WalLxR CyF4EXSp6+R9dFDS2uuB1IaJcdZIb2kV3Mb64Vu7dGsi3nkJHIbIqsn5IXJcYV0f2GWe eHw+0OgYgvagqtOTUyWqHpqS5bX3nCJ+ZjnKwWWlN7VQocgDrEWSXsljxhZZKo+xr7XQ Yh73a/mfv6ebxxR/aYQS/4pl3wEfw1X+i2iGbs865GWhFeWSWtWbtMfDml4vo6uAmuNA fktJdwlzo9/eeTwkWCJt9m9ItlPbBFTDLzdW9YuzeT/UUlOwvpsSZSRNhwZSe1W+IaA/ Cmdw==
Received: by 10.180.78.105 with SMTP id a9mr2656159wix.20.1334898948301; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.39.249.209] (ip-109-43-0-81.web.vodafone.de. [109.43.0.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5sm2806560wia.11.2012.04.19.22.15.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
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> <4F905348.9090505@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F905348.9090505@alcatel-lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="sha1"; boundary="Apple-Mail-1C31A98B-8649-457A-93B3-A3C35DDB2A77"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
Message-Id: <323A4E4B-CB04-419A-9606-0EFC06603813@ve7jtb.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B179)
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:15:58 +0200
To: "igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com" <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmgJp/F/Wf+coerhbtBzgV7shgAMLD/clzj+8u24aa8dMZNLZWJEGp8JSrMq1tpL/Gbm3oI
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@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 05:15:50 -0000

I agree,  requirements are more important than deciding on the starting document at this point. 

I don't care about the name at all.  The proposals are not wolds apart. 

I suspect if we can agree on the requirements for the number of requests most of the other decisions will fall out of that. 

John Bradley

Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-04-19, at 8:02 PM, Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> +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
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email