IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Fri, 13 April 2012 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 EB24D21F87A0 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 pO9y2KlbCk9G for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C5821F8787 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id xVlZ1i0010as01C01VlZGx; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:45:36 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=H85ZMpki c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=Vhm4rtfK4QIA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=EGYWwU0pP8kselV1ijEA:9 a=TMeAxP0eBW1KDgzFfd8A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:45:33 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
Thread-Index: AQHNGZGq3EJC/uqAeEiJeS7yiAAyipaZBtVQ
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:45:32 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280EFE8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <423611CD-8496-4F89-8994-3F837582EB21@gmx.net> <4F8852D0.4020404@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <4F8852D0.4020404@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334339136; bh=ZXjRX4lUDWq1QkHwOSk5FhP00wMJVfUHqavDsz4qz6Y=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=F3IkKM5QNg6j0mOnlTm8CvSKqOfwj2t63xHjZrsl1bSCvZj1Da/kdVPk7iv15kUcB hd2xmks0kOBAcFDg+aLtdD+RLHEnc9tLA2/ATdCJOpQefaZgA2X045zk4yj8W8MLg8 Ecc+VyaTOxNRGxZJ7WyjtepCvr6u9MOKaBgpxXnc=
Cc: 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, 13 Apr 2012 17:46:00 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:23 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org WG
> Cc: Apps Discuss
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
> 
> So Hannes and Derek and I have been discussing this with the Apps ADs
> and Apps-area WG chairs. I've also read the docs now, and after all
> that we've decided that this topic (what to do with swd and webfinger)
> is best handled in the apps area and not in the oauth WG.
> 
> The logic for that is that 1) the two proposals are doing the same
> thing and we don't want two different standards for that, b) this is
> not an oauth-specific thing nor is it a general security thing, and c)
> there is clearly already interest in the topic in the apps area so its
> reasonable for the oauth wg to use that when its ready.
> 
> The appsawg chairs and apps ADs are ok with the work being done there.
> 
> So:-
> 
> - I've asked the oauth chairs to take doing work on swd
>   out of the proposed new charter
> - It may be that you want to add something saying that
>   oauth will use the results of work in the applications
>   area on a web discovery protocol as a basis for doing
>   the dynamic client registration work here
> - Discussion of webfinger and swd should move over to
>   the apps-discuss list
> - Note: this is not picking one or the other approach,
>   the plan is that the apps area will do any selection
>   needed and figure out the best starting point for a
>   standards-track RFC on web discovery and we'll use their
>   fine work for doing more with oauth.

Thank you Stephen, I think.  :-)

So the discussion on apps-discuss now should be focused on which of the two should be the basis for forward progress.  I've placed both documents in "Call for Adoption" state in the datatracker for appsawg.

Let the games begin.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email