IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Mon, 16 April 2012 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 61F4721F85C5 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 4dA9RE+GJiUz for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F01421F85BB for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so3234364obb.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=Jh9eoJumgfbsUh1osrXq8WpUdu6PbdFr+qyHpxHP3S0=; b=eBWIOUNye+Lz21ZtUsycz1IoxkctWXbVXSqGnkOIQXUTw5kIREIWlg0RC/qxtHjsJf hractVIwrQzaoz0fheE8loanDrjyVq87yTHXXnVqESxJnozS7lbutIbUvvPxdKwaDpUX og/x9G9DX8ODxgDGK5jzrmzizD2KlHRbnQx+ALLEY/9kn00Wek0MXvwaajSvzBVt/K1O LFRvycipcfrRnfTabaFkqdniUvS7A0Yt8gLLTgXwlv0cxxTTLSRyF80x2f5BzjjNlX7K YXSJmZ76AH/CwXcYMDMIcBcTmggGCHl/7glIMQoforrfo3thVi0TCpuaRTsN9OycLWKk 30BQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.113.42 with SMTP id iv10mr18448763obb.18.1334615581037; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.29.6 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:1000:2104:a518:3c4a:d054:5bd6]
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280EFE8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <423611CD-8496-4F89-8994-3F837582EB21@gmx.net> <4F8852D0.4020404@cs.tcd.ie> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280EFE8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:33:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isYj1=ewrY8Lfe-_1nc5OY9ufoCKmvfeGndDLXetKdrgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl49kOgc4UQ/1ttp+Z1MnE8/4Hb2ST+bhp9YbVaumuKXv+x2h9yO0l7EZ3nPUtsn0L01Aet
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:13:02 -0700
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <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: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:33:02 -0000

What is the deployment status of these two specs?  Is either deployed
much at all?  -T

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:
>> -----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
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email