IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Thu, 19 April 2012 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.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 5E83721F8554; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.864
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.864 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Dzd7rV1X80j3; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BB221F8557; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail79-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.246) by CH1EHSOBE014.bigfish.com (10.43.70.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:48:51 +0000
Received: from mail79-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail79-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB4F4E05EB; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:48:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -26
X-BigFish: VS-26(zz9371I542Mzz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail79-ch1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail79-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail79-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1334854128955743_11163; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:48:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.253]) by mail79-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E481E160046; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:48:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by CH1EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (10.43.70.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:48:47 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.73]) by TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.174]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.004; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:48:46 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
Thread-Index: AQHNHkoEkhvICdYO/UKyYU0IRCKljJaiWEsg
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:48:45 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366490B2A@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.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>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FACC3@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
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: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:48:56 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email