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

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Mike,

Deal. :-)

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 1:49 AM
> To: Paul E. Jones; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'; [e-mail]; 'Apps Discuss'
> Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery
> (SWD)
> 
> To be clear, making this mandatory would break no clients.  It would
> require updating some servers, just as requiring JSON would.  This seems
> like a fair tradeoff when it makes an appreciable difference in user
> interface latency in some important scenarios.  If you and the other key
> WebFinger supporters can agree to making "resource" support mandatory and
> requiring JSON, I believe we may have a path forward.
> 
> 				Cheers,
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 10:39 PM
> To: Mike Jones; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'; [e-mail]; 'Apps Discuss'
> Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery
> (SWD)
> 
> That's correct.  We could certainly make it mandatory, but the reason it
> isn't is to maintain backward compatibility with existing deployments.
> 
> I think we should always think carefully when we decide to make a change
> that breaks backward-compatibility.  This is one change that would do
> that.
> 
> Paul
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 1:10 AM
> > To: Paul E. Jones; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'; [e-mail]; 'Apps Discuss'
> > Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web
> > Discovery
> > (SWD)
> >
> > Currently, support for the "resource" parameter is optional, as per
> > the following (correct?):
> >
> >    Note that support for the "resource" parameter is optional, but
> >    strongly RECOMMENDED for improved performance.  If a server does not
> >    implement the "resource" parameter, then the server's host metadata
> >    processing logic remains unchanged from RFC 6415.
> >
> > To truly support 1, this would need to be changed to REQUIRED, correct?
> >
> > 				-- Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:16 PM
> > To: Mike Jones; 'Murray S. Kucherawy'; [e-mail]; 'Apps Discuss'
> > Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web
> > Discovery
> > (SWD)
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > > 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.)
> >
> > WF can do that.  See:
> > $ curl -v https://packetizer.com/.well-known/\
> >           host-meta.json?resource=acct:[e-mail]
> >
> > > 2.  JSON should be required and it should be the only format
> > > required (simplicity and ease of deployment/adoption)
> >
> > See the above example.  However, I also support XML with my server.
> > It took me less than 10 minutes to code up both XML and JSON
> representations.
> > Once the requested format is determined, the requested URI is
> > determined, data is pulled from the database, spitting out the desired
> > format is trivial.
> >
> > Note, and very important note: supporting both XML and JSON would only
> > be a server-side requirement.  The client is at liberty to use the
> > format it prefers.  I would agree that forcing a client to support
> > both would be unacceptable, but the server?  Nothing to it.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I believe WebFinger meets those requirements.  We could debate whether
> > XML should be supported, but I'll note (again) that it is there in RFC
> 6415.
> > That document isn't all that old and, frankly, it concerns me that we
> > would have a strong preference for format A one week and then Format B
> > the next.
> > We are where we are and I can see reason for asking for JSON, but no
> > good reason to say we should not allow XML (on the server side).
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>