IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Sat, 21 April 2012 04:39 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 3C53611E80A4; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6]
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 55A+f-g4vcIQ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428F611E8096; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3L4d7D3008366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 21 Apr 2012 00:39:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1334983147; bh=kQyg8yLylLIR5T9g2XktRYKeYgnSFcyhiz5GHdF5ZIU=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jInKwDCk6HeAl+5r8E3VsRdo3jsEo7js62KkEn9avKQXr/AHalN4fz18fi/rYFBbW OfAZMT/K8s8AFWRvTnRJK1QIstjTCseRIdTZsur0JGaq5q1o573BhIFV+TU3GAnkgZ TPy72IMC9wb7c3C4kFDDJXKLTO9TP2NP5ekbvIiI=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: 'Michael Thomas' <mike@mtcc.com>, 'Derek Atkins' <derek@ihtfp.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>
In-Reply-To: <4F917545.5080103@mtcc.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 00:39:30 -0400
Message-ID: <0a7a01cd1f78$be37b1b0$3aa71510$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIAfr0IMYFP+Nqgkj5c4C1LFLKQ8QHu47mLATII4l0DGXo5TgGHkeTZAgqoPTsBaa3oyAIw2f/NAUQ5aEgCO5nRqQLuh1nulZ9D7dA=
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'Tim Bray' <tbray@textuality.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: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 04:39:13 -0000

Michael,

> > 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.

"Won"? Data formats are not popularity contests.  This is the Internet
Engineering Task Force, not the Internet Entertainment Task Force.  (That
said, a few recent message have been entertaining.)  We should be building
and designing systems for longevity.  XML was absolutely *the* thing just a
few years ago and now JSON is all the rage.  How long will that last before
"the next great thing" comes along?

There are many people who value XML still, in spite a growth in the use of
JSON.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email