Re: [webfinger] Server Response language
"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 18:02 UTC
Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2AB21F8A99 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:02:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RpsXy-hFMp90 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:02:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E8B21F8A93 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:02:53 -0800 (PST)
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 qBKI2pPF004005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:02:51 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1356026572; bh=UdHVSLHOgnNfPjm94R/ZT0UKNDIiba2v0DhasveeFsQ=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ewfi9Ev+1JcCRjyVQBiQaFOWRlQy4bwxUCuBG5tzjsNFjjpXy2d5Wqzr1H9ObC1Mc XpcmeqGv9gT0XBMei3aaZ3bfmDqtpLTslWvkzbJY+mUXWmsNHR0XirxU7ZNxgjx4i2 EXQrVfg45BYxv2odwAX1cK5Bnj/0rrIHGk4XyH4k=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: 'Tim Bray' <tbray@textuality.com>
References: <044501cddece$fd045040$f70cf0c0$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6itveCHU+M4A1msr_YQdW9JcrVNmfOmcjFwacLkE-pAYrA@mail.gmail.com> <048401cdded8$605d6c90$211845b0$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6it45YFr6A+AUm3ub1roXqP99QG4jnEWpbvZew5ejhXt2Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6it45YFr6A+AUm3ub1roXqP99QG4jnEWpbvZew5ejhXt2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:02:59 -0500
Message-ID: <04c701cddedc$3f996000$becc2000$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_04C8_01CDDEB2.56C46970"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQH37xPjZJRUcIsUNQeBWhT/3tk+XwJBmtyyAWDszUcCCDXr2pegg9+A
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: webfinger@ietf.org, webfinger@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Server Response language
X-BeenThere: webfinger@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Webfinger protocol proposal in the Applications Area <webfinger.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webfinger>, <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webfinger>
List-Post: <mailto:webfinger@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger>, <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:03:00 -0000
But there server did find something. It found the "webfinger" resource. The software that responds to the query has to then decided what it returns. It might be logical to some, but I'd argue we need to state this to avoid confusion. I don't think 2xx or 401 needs to be stated, though. Paul From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:53 PM To: Paul E. Jones Cc: webfinger@ietf.org; webfinger@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [webfinger] Server Response language That's what 404 is for; I quote RFC2616: 10.4.5 404 Not Found The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. It's bad practice to incorporate referenced specifications by value not by reference. -T On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote: The 404 bit is needed, since the "webfinger" server was found. just not the resource being queried. That question absolutely will come up. The new stuff (401, 2xx), I agree: it's re-stating what HTTP does. If others agree, I'll not put that into the spec. Paul From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:30 PM To: Paul E. Jones Cc: webfinger@ietf.org; webfinger@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [webfinger] Server Response language As in every other case where the WebFinger spec is merely re-iterating standard HTTP rules, I suggest just removing this language. -Tim On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote: Folks, We had this previously: "If the client queries the WebFinger server and provides a URI for which the server has no information, the server MUST return a 404 status code." Someone posted to the list that we should talk about positive replies and mention that a client might be rejected with a 401. So, I wrote this text to be appended to the end of that above paragraph: "If the server is able to provide information in response to a request, it MUST do so using an appropriate 2xx HTTP status code and including the requested representation in the body of the response. A server MAY also return other HTTP status codes, as appropriate, such as a 401 to indicate that the client is not authorized to issue a request to the server." Is this agreeable? Please suggest wording changes, if not. Paul _______________________________________________ webfinger mailing list webfinger@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
- [webfinger] Server Response language Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language James M Snell
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Tim Bray
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Tim Bray
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Goix Laurent Walter
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Will Norris
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Paul E. Jones
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'
- Re: [webfinger] Server Response language Paul E. Jones