Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Wed, 24 July 2013 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <melvincarvalho@gmail.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 DB4DA11E80F2 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 Fv9dYHfyDZse for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B21C21F8B04 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fn20so530554lab.28 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AtijdWRL03MvKJKHBj05HPH0NLFgWMDEv03qwodD9n8=; b=r8FhqXDLqCi4EolzQW8rDF1dqucSlkkVPDyjldX2n+bFb1S9VJ9Vc3fEw4lSeyOV/X Y7pEiaBEukGhbr2Oj6KnuGQyEIngeceXh5BY1KXuV5jJA+b+zAcs3I7lGphYKX5r+m0s OFZLm1Rue67l3Y8o0ZXfFITSNKc2BzD1P05abvqC0M1tcNTZnEab0qUS1Eb3AgRdATql YBYdKfy6yVheFzcsHdtZcuPcQqVcju5vN7sUwGEiWwOb/w35xJyptieUHhzbo4cRX9/m B2ag0zZTE5IAoie/6pGCfAE39fkvftmRq+lBzQ1KOU2MJKUAlqilUvbfqNjQHN+h2NN3 s0FQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.157.137 with SMTP id wm9mr16822336lbb.14.1374685084484; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.59.193 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <032701ce86e5$27b2dff0$77189fd0$@packetizer.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhJwpR5b6jEcGYzAcWDJ0P1v6w2+L_h0Sh=m-ZOZA=ZHyw@mail.gmail.com> <0a1140f5-24d9-4be6-aab4-1ae6a3d63c0c@email.android.com> <CAKaEYh+iHNz_WawqRKakrHCdctC6_1V5COWYWQ4m9aC0+fh9WQ@mail.gmail.com> <032701ce86e5$27b2dff0$77189fd0$@packetizer.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:58:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJUG=RLqpvhze35_HAidNQbFjsWH=43X0cPFaCDZsZb_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c29654238c2604e244d0f6
Cc: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:58:21 -0000

On 22 July 2013 16:10, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> Melvin,****
>
> ** **
>
> It’s easy enough to replace strings in URIs should data need to be
> ported.  I suggest we remove the word “absolute” where we currently have
> “absolute URI” and then introduce a new paragraph in the terminology
> section as follows:****
>
> ** **
>
> The use of URIs throughout this document refers to URIs following the
> syntax specified in Section 3 of RFC 3986.  Relative URIs, having syntax
> following that of Section 4.2 or RFC 3986, are not used with WebFinger.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Is that clear?
>

Hi Paul, currently "Absolute URI" occurs only in section 4.4 (ie the
description of JRD).  Certainly I think the 'absolute' should be removed in
section 4.4.

The RFC in essence describes two things,

1. the webfinger protocol
2. the JRD definition

This restriction on relative URIs applies to (2), rather than, the whole
document, but as it happens that turns out to be the same thing

Side note: in other situations I like relative URIs because they can be
moved from one location to another in a non-breaking way.  Say I have
/about/ /photos/ /blog/ at one location, I can move them to another without
having to worry too much.  Therefore, if JRD was ever used in a context
outside of webfinger, that would be a slight advantage.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2013 4:09 AM
> *To:* Paul E. Jones
> *Cc:* webfinger
>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 22 July 2013 09:06, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:****
>
> In not suggesting we use or allow relative URIs. The immediate question
> would be "relative to what". I think the URIs should be absolute, but not
> following the syntax of "absolute-URI", but instead just following "URI".*
> ***
>
> Yes, that's a good question.  Generally relative URIs are relative to the
> document, but they need not be.  For example they could be relative by
> default to the [supposed] webfinger registry.  In JSON LD they have a
> @context variable which allows quite a bit of flexibility in this regard.
> I'm unsure if relative URIs are considered a must in standards based
> serialization (I suspect not) but they have the advantage of slightly
> increased data portability.****
>
>  ****
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Mon Jul 22 02:46:25 EDT 2013****
>
>
> *To:* "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>****
>
> *Cc:* webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 22 July 2013 07:47, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:****
>
> Folks,
>
> One of the requirements in the JRD spec is that certain URIs (e.g., those
> identifying link relation types and properties) be "absolute URIs".  This
> term has been a point of confusion, since RFC 3986 uses the term to have a
> concrete meaning, namely this:
>
>      absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
>
> And the term is used, because that's the term used in the OASIS XRD
> specification.  However, it was not clear to me whether that referred to
> the
> above (which I assumed) or referred to URIs that are not relative URIs
> (i.e., those lacking a scheme specified).
>
> I had an exchange with Eran Hammer and Mark Nottingham.  I believe the
> intent of that language was not to require the above constrained syntax,
> but to require the standard URI syntax:
>
>      URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]****
>
> ** **
>
> There are many ways that people do this, see:
>
> http://tantek.com/2011/238/b1/many-ways-slice-url-name-pieces****
>
>  ****
>
>
> Given that understanding, I believe we should remove the word "absolute"
> that appears in front of "URI" in the WebFinger spec.  Do others have an
> opinion on this?****
>
> ** **
>
> +1 on allowing relative URIs****
>
>  ****
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>