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

Pelle Wessman <pelle@kodfabrik.se> Sun, 15 April 2012 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <pelle@kodfabrik.se>
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 9652921F87AE for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 MXcInb5M94iN for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f42.google.com (mail-qa0-f42.google.com [209.85.216.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFAA921F87A9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qafi31 with SMTP id i31so6436510qaf.15 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=85S8GLqo437gvgWM2dEdQQOyShkOVyRvpWizcRp5dgk=; b=pVEXKdmKLNJbSkiX1TSzKPYHx6RnhqbkFKtgdkOzXC/bxXz6TmmVzYFEhcnccvnGLU mH0FwWTwsRDBXTbb1lmQ3LPhvnYCi8Zk14FDs3lt/IRk3ZAW/fclKzy82Fx2Gtv0MNBV MGzr0Gq3CYGMOhkZcmKfzNR2lqu5pZZCSOnIIVH2UMr7MneLP0yUGy0IrPKJpz8dds8U Rp4Nj7RhfOna6WjV6ZupcmAuF4xwYX9FR+pRvIeapHu5s3w1ORP20oNgSnSMazffy9VB O+UDzBsA96xjgxsSDFQWxtiJIL91fnVFRYFv9RO4xps//1Hr4zEdTzSxFosviz6P8ezR qpIg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.137.149 with SMTP id w21mr3411708qct.27.1334502712794; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.133.132 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <423611CD-8496-4F89-8994-3F837582EB21@gmx.net>
References: <423611CD-8496-4F89-8994-3F837582EB21@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:11:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEguJAgBAEAcA4Z6AbcNXxJmf+m2Zg5G=SYuBVWrtNjMXRkpxA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pelle Wessman <pelle@kodfabrik.se>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00235452f83425e11504bdb9202b"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkr5e1T8cwnX8C0TnBNrJO1ZI8paTUOVoEfGvKZY79q27C4OIC1WpibCX7uBPU4909UUQeI
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] 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: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:11:54 -0000

Could someone please explain to me how Webfinger solves the same problem as
SWD?

Isn't Webfinger just defining a way to discover data about a user using the
"Web Host Metadata" discovery mechanism that's already defined in RFC 6415?
While SWD instead defines an entirely new discovery mechanism without
really defining how to use it to discover data about a user?

To me it seems like SWD instead solves the same problem as RFC 6415? What
am I missing?

I personally still prefer the original Webfinger proposal that didn't
really define anything extra but just showed how to use RFC 6415 to
discover data about users. The way it worked made it, as I see it, easy to
expose your data and to consume it. I don't really see a point in the
recent additions to the Webfinger draft - anything beyond specifying the
acct URL scheme and a few basic link relations seems unneeded and out of
scope to me and just complicates things.

/ Pelle Wessman


On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <
hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> those who had attended the last IETF meeting may have noticed the ongoing
> activity in the 'Applications Area Working Group' regarding Web Finger.
> We had our discussion regarding Simple Web Discovery (SWD) as part of the
> re-chartering process.
>
> Here are the two specifications:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-03
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-simple-web-discovery-02
>
> Now, the questions that seems to be hanging around are
>
>  1) Aren't these two mechanisms solving pretty much the same problem?
>  2) Do we need to have two standards for the same functionality?
>  3) Do you guys have a position or comments regarding either one of them?
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> PS: Please also let me know if your view is: "I don't really know what all
> this is about and the documents actually don't provide enough requirements
> to make a reasonable judgement about the solution space."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>