IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [webfinger] Server Response language

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 C8E2C21F8A80 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:52:38 -0800 (PST)
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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 wAcHtBOg2C-D for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com (mail-ob0-f170.google.com [209.85.214.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D8621F8931 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id wp18so3646416obc.29 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:52:34 -0800 (PST)
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:x-gm-message-state; bh=7ZTxDc08RbxSzehuVTCxiK6UepuB2oSBZhrR6rZASD0=; b=m0aENG5kcdUJCz0r1Vd1+riYMnICTSUSHtBfm802RMqwdHBDjQtTVk581eD7NLjNe7 zfMMigJKt77srJ2AaRr543a6ITRbqXbYiCr5Lw1XC501yTr1ZUnWvBj+WSxd3RP4+mOr bFPWBG5ULE2SuyePkrWJUU2sw8sHF+WXWMlt4TTpE1Kw+Gle+DVayBZE1RwP34mvgEdy +QymC75vIz9RVzR0HuvI41/oqQ76IrMpXYy4r8QhNy9KGTDRUJR4ckG7gApB83gUlHoI gCSHZaOqFfRibBJrtD72Iq0bjwY0EGGDjPFtG+2T5O7QYGyA7DhKJJdkiYE8INlApLKZ whDA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.23.200 with SMTP id o8mr8516895oef.48.1356025954057; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.12.134 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:52:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <048401cdded8$605d6c90$211845b0$@packetizer.com>
References: <044501cddece$fd045040$f70cf0c0$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6itveCHU+M4A1msr_YQdW9JcrVNmfOmcjFwacLkE-pAYrA@mail.gmail.com> <048401cdded8$605d6c90$211845b0$@packetizer.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:52:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6it45YFr6A+AUm3ub1roXqP99QG4jnEWpbvZew5ejhXt2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb206e44c3e2904d14c65e3"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnwaIQnqYICCjJG1xNUYJ5YFkYUT1IpWTIdFIKg4gfpgFEMozroUnymXA4dOfB4M6aS12Cj
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 17:52:43 -0000

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****
>
> ** **
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email