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

#1 as John Panzer identified, allowing the server to control its deployment and supporting HTTP redirects is critical.
#2 JSON is better, which one is required is less of on issue but more of a best practices item.

I'll add:

* Highly cachable
* Optimize for large providers, reducing the need to make repeated requests when the information is mostly following a template on the server side
* Ability to provide discovery on resources, not users or any other subset (emails, etc.)
* Security agnostic - leave it to HTTP, TLS, OAuth, etc.
* HTTP compliant - doesn't invent it's own rediretion menthods or custom headers, etc.

EH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:49 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; oauth@ietf.org WG; Apps Discuss
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web
> Discovery (SWD)
> 
> 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